United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-R-98-012F
Environmental Protection Emergency Response July 1998
Agency (OS-343)
E RA RCRA Permit Policy
Compendium
Volume 6
9444.1987-9457.1996
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste (Part 261)
• Lists of Hazardous Waste
Generator Standards (Part 262)
• General
• Manifests
• Pre-Transportation
• Recordkeeping
• Special Conditions
• Importing
TechLaw l/5949/Covers/7
-------
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.
-------
9444• 1987(Q
tQ S’1p
- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
, . WASHINGTON 0 C 20460
•I
W4 27 1987
: CE F
SOLiD 4STE A. E%1E 3E’. .
Ronald J. rozdowski
Process and Environment Chemist
Moog Inc.
East Aurora, NY 14052
Dear Mr. Drozdowski:
I am responding to your letter dated December 9, 1996,
identified as ME LTR *25—86, that requested our interpretation
of the regulatory status of your coolant waste streams.
Mr. Ed brams, of my staff, spoke to you on the telephone on
Janaury 8, 1987, to clarify several points regarding the
management of your waste stream. containing l,l,l,—trichloroethane
(l ll—TcE).
Mr. Abrarna determined that you segregate your vapor degrsasing
operation wastes from your machining coolant wastes. While both
wastes contain 1l]—TCE, only the spent degreasing solvent is a
listed hazardous waste (FOOl) at this time. Your coolant wastes
are not interpreted as EPA Hazardous Wastes FOOl under the Federal
hazardous waste program at this time bscauss th. coolant is not
being used as a solvent, nor has it been mixed with a spent
solvent. However, the coolants would be considered hazatrdous if
they exhibit one or re of the charact.ristics of hazardous
waste.
You should also be aware that thi Office of Solid Waste is
presently working on a toxicity characteristic which is likely
to establish levels of lll—TCE in wait. extracts that will
cause them to be characteristically hazardous if the concentra-
tions of lLl—TCZ ar. exceeded. (See .nclo ure for proposed
rul i.) These wastes viii have a NØ cla ification. Thus,
althou ur coolant wastes m y not currently be subject to the
RCRA is C r.gulations, they may be defined as hazardous in
the fu-
-------
If your coolant wastes are currently not subject to
SubtLtle C regulatLons, you will not need a RCRA permit to
dewater and thereby reduce the quantity of the coolant waste
for disposal. However, I strongly recommend that you consult
with your State and local authorities regarding your intended
treatment of coolant wastes.
I hope I have answered your inquiries satisfactorily. If
you have additional questions, you may telephone Mr. Abramg
at 202—382—4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9444.1987(03)
JAt c 1981
o .icE OP
SOUD WASTE AND EMEmOINCY ESPONU
Mr. Tom Sauer
General Electric Company
1 Newmann Way
Mail Drop N123
Cincinatti, OH 45215
Dear Mr. Sauer:
This letter is in response to your Janaury 13 telephone
conversation with David Topping of my staff. Specifically, you
requested a written interpretation as to whether electrochemical
machining operations are within the scope of EPA Ha ardou. Waste
No. P006.
As stated in the December 2, 1986 Interpretive Rule (51 FR
43350), the P006 listing includes wastewater treatment sludges
from chemical etching and milling. Th• listing Background Document
for F006 refers to the Development Document for Existing Source
Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating Category, August
1979, for detail. on specific process... Ph. latter document
state. that TM chemical etching and milling includes the specific
process., of “...ch.mical milling, chemical etching, bright
dipping, electropolishing, and electrochemical machining. Waste—
water treatment sludges from electroch.mical machining operations
are, therefore, EPA Hazardous Wait. No. P006.
Should you have any further questions r.garding this
interpretation, please contact m at (202)475—8551.
Sinc.r.ly,
Matthew A. Straus, chief
Waite Characterization Branch
-------
9444• 19e7(o4)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
p
J ‘
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EME GENCv 5PON3E
Mr. Stever. H. White
Tricil Er.virorunental Services, Ir c.
Talbott Tower, Suite 510
131 North Ludlow
Dayton, OH 45402
Dear Mr. White:
This letter is in response to your January 5, 1987 inquiry
concerning the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste No. P006. Specifically,
you requested an interpretation as to the status of wastewater
treatment sludges that result from a waterfall curtain used in
electrostatic painting operations.
Wastewater treatment sludges front electrostatic painting
operations are not included in the P006 listing. Thus, the waste
would only be considered hazardous if it: (1) exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic ( e.g. , igriitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity) on (2) is mixed with a
hazardous waste ( e.g. , P019 from pre—painting conversion coating
operations on aluminum).
Should you have any further questions regatdinQ this
interpretation, please contact me, or David Topping of my staff.,
at (202)475—8551.
Sincerely,
7/L4f . 6’ d
Matthew A. Str s, chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9444.1987(05)
z
Ur. David nwes
P re ident
Pinish naineering Co.
021 ‘ reenqarden Road
Frie, pennaylvaina 16501—1591
ear ‘Ir. Bowees
This is in response to your letter of November 25, 1986,
reaardiriq th. regulatory status of still bottoms generated from
ths reclamation of listed solvents. As we indicated in our previous
letter. EPA encourages the recycling of hazardous wastes and we
are currently .valuatinq this activity to determine whether
other changes to the regulations may be appropriate. Zn addition,
we at. also re—evaluatinq the existing listings tO better define
them. In particular. we expect to re—propose the current listings
and set concentration levels in the listings which would define
when the wastes contain levels of toxic constituents which would cause
them to be defined as hazardous. If a waste that meets the listing
description contains levels of the toxic contaminant below the
level set when we relict wastes, the waste would no longer be
considered a listed hazardous waste. Although this effort is techni-
cally complex and, therefore, may take several years to complete,
we believe the relistin effort addresses your concern directly.
In the shorter term, if you wish to remove your particular
still bottoms from reaulation, you will need to submit a
1.1istine petition pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. These
sections outline the process for submitting a petition to delist
your wastes and the showina that must be made as part of the peti-
tion process. However, you should be aware that if your solvent
still bottom wastes are classified as EPA Hazardous Waste o.
F’ fl3, anti if this waste no lonaer exhibits any of the hazardous
w tste characteristics after it has been ii’ixed with another solid
‘ ,te , your wftete is no 1on er considers’! hazardous under Fu!’title C
( c t e PeVftl ar .ous waste rules (i.e., the still hctt S
vc u!. 1 not nee to be tielisteei tiMer the Fer er 1 hazar iOuS ‘,aste
rti1 s). ee 4fl 1.3(a)(?)(iii).
OFFIC AI. PILg QP
-------
-2—
Please feel free to call Mr. Matthew . Straus at (202) 473—8551
if you have ar.y further t.eitioni; if you have any specific qu.stions
regardinq delistinc, please contact Mr. Myles More, at (202) 382—4782.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A.EMCY
9444. 1987( 06)
F 5 t987
•‘ r _j c•
Ct 1!’ ‘ atch Fir ot
‘C ” I .str s
‘ 14 East Thjr $ treet
‘• 1 Lscatir.e, Iowa 52761
Dear “r. Crosser:
I a’u r.spor.dtr.g to your letter dated JanLary 15, 1987
recuesting an i’terpretation of the land dtsoosal restriction
reculatjor.s as applied to a paint sludge waste. ccordir.c, to
your letter, this wast, is created in a water—wall spray
booth which prevents overs rayed oair.t particles froi being
discharged to th. atmosphere.
I concur with your inter retatton that this waste is a
mar.ufacturir.g process waste based on the description of a
mar.ufacturir.g process waste or. page 40697 of PP 51, published
on NoveMber 7. 1986. —
In regard to your request for a copy of the DAT
Background cw ent for F001—F005 Spent Solvents, this three—
volume set (identified as PB —87—120—259) cart he purchased
from NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, V 22161. Their
telepPtora. number 1. (703) 487—4650. The cost for the set is
$63.00. Also, th.se documents ar. available for viewing at
any EPA reqional library.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have additional
questions, you may call Ed Abrams of ‘ny staff at (202) 382—4787.
Sincerely,
/5/
Robert N. Scarberry
Chief, Listing Section
-------
9444.1987(07)
itO
I UNITED STATES ENvIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON O.C. 20460
‘ I( I5e #
t4 R 6 ‘
SOLID WASTE A O EMERGENCY RESPONSE
John Skouf is
Laboratory Manager
Anscott Chemical Industries, Inc.
26 Hanes Drive
Wayne, NJ 07470
Dear Mr. Skouf is:
In reference to your letter of December 22, 1986, and your
telephone conversations on Friday, January 16, 1987 anc! Wednesday,
February 18, 1987 with Mr. Ed Abrams of my staff, I am responding
with my clarification on the hazardousness of typical drycleaning
industry waste streams.
As I understand your process, a typical drycleaning facility
generates three aqueous wastes that are contaminated with small -
quantities of perchloroethylene (PCE). These wastes are generated
from the following three sources:
1. Condensation from PCE recovery during the nor l drying
cycle of fabrics in the drycleaning machine.
2. Condensation from the distillation recovery of PCE.
3. Condensation from the steam stripping of PCE from filter
cartridges.
The spent solvent listings apply only to wastes that are
generated when the solvents are used for their solvent properties
( i.e. , to solubilize or mobilize another constituent) and can no
longer be used or reused without reclamation; the spent solvent
listing does not apply to process wastes that may become contaminated
with the solvents during processing or manufacturing. Thus, waste
No. 1 above is not a listed waste under RCRA and would not be subject
to Subtitle C regulation., unless the wastewatsr exhibited any of the
hazardour ws.ts characteristics defined under 40 CFR 261.21-261.24
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity). (Please note that on Tune 13, 1986, the Agency proposed,
among other things, to set a concentration of 0.1 mg/L as the
regulatory level for PCE. Should this rule be finalized as proposed,
waste No. 1 would exhibit the hazardous characteristic of organic
toxicity if the level of PCE exceeded 0.1 ag/L as measured by the
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. (See si 21648.)]
-------
However, waste Nos. 2 and 3 above ar. hazardous wastes pursuant
to 40 CPR 261.3(c) (2) (i) because they are residues derived from the
treatment of F002 hazardous wastes (solvent recovery residues and
residues from the steam stripping of filter cartridges, both
containing PcE). Therefore, these wastes must be managed in
accordance with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
ie you require additional information, please feel free to call
Mr. Ed Abrams at (202) 382—4787.
ncere y,
‘ • í 1 J/ I,
j
Matthew A. Straus
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1987 (08
W R I 6 T
;4r. rhonas dac,cer an
ronrie: tsl Scientist
A ol1e Scientist & l’echnoloay, In:.
Post ffice 33x 132
M n Aroor, chigan 48136
)ear Mr. 4acker. an:
Th ,s letter resoonds to your January 14, 1 7, correspondence
r uestin’ the re.-iulatory status of line treated nt ick1e
1 uor wastes placed on th north oropertv of the C e — Iet
Se vice , Inc. facility in wyandotte, Michiga’ . The wastes in
piestion were qenerated fror non—iron and steel facilities.
Or M3J 28, 1986, tne Agency pro iu1gaeed a final rule (51
FR 132’ ) narrowina the scope of tne listin’ for snont ic¼]e
U uor wi tes iEP Iazardous aste No. K062) to art ly only to
waste8 4enecate 1 y steel finishiri, ooer ti n t ar ro uce iro,
an steel. do ever, in pror ulgatirtg this rule a.i error was ‘iade
in the lan uae of the 1i tin . The A ency ha intended th
listing to a? ly to all facilities .iithin the iron sn st et
indu.trj, not to only facilities that produce’ iron or steel.
Furtnert ore, the language was not consistent with 1 ui .e 5, l 84,
inai rule (49 FR 23284) which excludes sludge frog-a he 1i e
tre trnent of spent pickle liiuor wastes generated by facilities
iit in th3 iron and steel industry fron the erived—fr’,, ” rule
in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i). Therefore, in a Seotei ber 22, 1 R6,
correction notice (51 FR 33612) the ;ency amended the listinc
to apply only to wastes generated by facilities within the
iron and steel industry (SIC codes 331 md 332). TPiu3,
pickle liguor wastes from industries not in the iron and steel
inthistrial classifications are hazardous only if they exhi it
one or nor. of the characteristics of hazardous wastes (i.e.,
i3nitability, corrosivity, reacttvity, an EP toxicity).
3ecauee the spent pickle liquor wastes received by
Chem— iet for solidification were not generated by faciliPies
within the iron and steel industry, these wastes are not covered
un ior the 1 (062 listing. Th.ase actes are hazar ious wastes
only if they exhiDit one or itore of the characteristics of
na ardo’jg wastes. Since soent oick]e liiuor is oener 1lv
corrosive ani usually contains high concentrations of chro” ium an i
l p. na ci le li’iuev uas ea z uin Iev ave w Gha.i —1’e 9f
-------
treatient j robablv exhi bite i the ra:teri ti of orr31lvitI
nó £P toxIcity and, as su:h, ere hazardous wastes. “owever,
3rdifl3 t3 tne provis n in 40 C 231.3(1)(l), if trP’t ent
3f c racteristic hazardous waste results in a tre t ent
res iual tn t no longer Q hioit any of the ar teri t cs
then the treatr7enc residual is not a hazardous waste. Hence,
the waste on he — et’s north pr’)oerty resultiM froii li” e
treac ent of spent ic le liluor wistes is not a hazardous
waste if it no longer ex t its a c arwt risti: of h zar ous
. stes. As stzc , it can be thspose of in a Subtitle
s itary lanifill.
I hope this letter ade uately addresses your concerns.
If you have any further . uest ons, you can contact me at
(2 )2) 382—4770.
Sincerely,
a: ueline w. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
UNITED STATES EN V IRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444. 19C7(09)
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
MAR 2 6 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. A. Allen Mill
Executive Office of the President
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20503
Dear MdAri:I1SE
Thank you for your February 27, 1987, letter concerning
wastes generated at Continental Can Company’s LaCrosse and
Milwaukee plants.
The Agency previously determined that the can washer
sludges meet the definition of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Hazardous Waste No. P019—— wastewater treatment
sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum.
This determination is based upon the belief that the process
used in the can washer system (zirconium phosphatizing) is a
chemical conversion coating process. In fact, Continental
Can Company itself identified the waste from a similar can
washer system at their Olympia, Washington plant as P019 in a
delisting petition submitted to the Agency pursuant to 40 CFR
c4260.20 and 260.22.
Mr. Richard Torrito of Continental Can Company stated
in his February 5, 1987, letter that the can washer sludges
had been incorrectly identified as F019. Specifically,
Mr. Torrito claimed that zirconium phosphatizing is not a
chemical conversion coating process. As a result of subse-
quent telephone conversations between Mr. Torrito and my
staff. Continental Can Company has submitted a detailed
description of their can washer process so that the Agency
can makes determination as to the proper classification
of the Waite. Once this determination is made, the Agency
will notify Continental Can Company of its decision.
If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free
to call me.
Sincerely,
1. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9444.1987(10)
tO SP4
t UNITED STATCS E vIROt’ ... NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ASHINGT0N.DC 23460
1.)., 111 0 . C
APR 9 87
OFFICE OF
Mr. Joe Rader 501.10 WASTE AND EMEMOENCY RESPONS
Environmental Affairs
Consultant
P.O. Box 277
Dayton, ON 45401—0277
Dear Mr. Rader:
This letter is a response to your letter of March 13, 1987,
in which you request an interpretation on what “used” and “unused”
formulationu mean as applied to the F027 listiriq.
In the regulations, the word “used” include! formulations
that have been contacted with wood during wood preservation
processes (pressure, vacuum, or flop—pressure processes) or surface
protection processes (antisapstain or sapetain control processes).
The word “used” would apply to the material that remainsjn the
process vessel after the wood has been treated, and not just to
the material that adheres to the wood, as some people have
interpreted the term. -
Also, the formulations do not have to be spent (i.e:., not
capable of being used or reused without being reclaimed or recycled)
to be classified as “used”; even after one treatment, a formulation
is considered to be “used.”
In your letter, you also ask if it were possible that one
could open a container of unused pentachloropbeno]. formulation
and dip a piece of wood into it for the purpose of claiming it as
“used” and, thus, not th. listed waste. In this case, the Agency
would consider this to be sham use and the formulation would
still be termed as th. listed waste when discarded.
If you hay, any further questions, please feel free to contact
Robert Scarb.rry of my staff; he can be reached at (202) 382—4761.
Sincerely,
711 i4 0. 2
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444. 1987(11)
APR I 1 1987
:lr. Kurt . . iit an
Project Coor’iin tor
4 tnc.
Post Office Box A
Saukville, Wisconsin 53080
Dear Ur. Whit ans
This letter responds to your reç ueet for clarification on t’ c
a?pliCability of the FOOl through £005 hazardous waste liatine s to
four s- ecific waste streams generated frcii the use of vir’ in thent-
cal. forr u1ations and whether these wastes are subiect to the
t ovei iher 7, 1936, land disposal restrictions final rule. z
apologize for the long delay in responding to yo ’ corresixrndence.
Each of the scenarios presented in your letter is restated
below arid followed by an arpropriate response iid nrOvicies
clarification on whether these wastes arc covered by the s” nt
sc lvent listings ( i.e. , EPA Ha rdous Waste lbs. FOOl, F002, r0 3,
P004, and F005).
Exaiple $1 — “A paint r iover cons isti of 55% Methvlene Chioricie,
15% Phenol and 30% Sodiur% Chroi te This rr tert 1
is an outdatel, viriin o 2ct. C WF Inc., assi ’no!
a CPA hazardous waste of D002 only
—— According to the above description, the wastc strean is an
outdated, virgin product and has not been utilized as a paint
r21 over. As such, the solvent was not used for Its sniverit
properties, and therefore, is not covered by the FOOl—FOOS spent
solvent listings. If this waste stream exhibits the dtaracterigtIc
of corrosivity, it would be appropriately classified t der EDA
riazardaze Wa.t• Nuaber D002.
The spent solvent hating. include only those wastes e,ener t cl
as a result of a olvertt being used for it. solvent properties,
that i , it. ability to solubihize (dissolve) or sobihixe other
constituents ( e.g. , solvents used in d.areasinq, cLeanin’ , fabric
scouring; as di]uents, extractants, reaction and synthesis melia).
Furtheriiore. the listing only applie, to solvents that are con—
siderel spent ( i.e. , solvents that have been used aw! ar no
longer fit for use without beirxi reyenerated, reclaii ied, or
ot erwise re,rocessed) .
l,fl_4.,_•”
-------
ixample *2 — A paint stripper consistinci of 15% !‘oluene, 3 t
- Methylene Chloride, 10% Phetols, 20% erogmne and
20% Paint S1udqe. Ana1ytic 1 results stow that
this is an iqnitable waste (D001).
—— It appears, based on the information psovided in your letter.
that the virgin paint stripper was used for its solvent properties
( i.e. , to solubiliLe paint). Th• resultant waste strearn pror ablv
constitutes a spent solvent mixture covered under the F00l—F005
hazardous waste 1istir s, however, this determination depends on
the concentration of the F00l-F005 constituents in the paint
stripper before use (see the enclosed FEDERAL R! 1IST!R notice for
the solvent mixture rule). Since the waste stream contains
greater than 10% of the solvents listed in POOl, P002, Ffl’)4 or
F005, the virgin paint stripper also probably contained a total
of 10% or more of these solvents. If so, this waste etre im
meets the criteria for an F0Ol—F005 spent solvent mixture/blend
and would be subject to the land disposal restrictions.
Example *3 Spent paint waste formulation of 30% Alkyd Enamel
Resin, 15% Chromium and Lead Pigments, 20% ?oluene,
5% Xylene and 30% unknown solids. The EPA hazardous
waste codes for this sludge are D007, D0’) and flOOl.
—— The spent solvent listings do not cover manufacturing ocese
wastes contaminated with solvents en the solvents vere used a
reactants or ingredients in the formulation of coenercial cher’ical
products. Therefore, the waste solvent—based paint for,iulation
described in your letter is not within the scope of the FOOl—FOOS
spent solvent listings.
Example $4 — uSpill Residue consisting of 85% Clay (Oil Zorb) anti
Dirt, and 15% 1,1.1 Trichlorosthane. The EPA waste
code is P002 for this waste streem.
—— Proper classification of this waste stream requires knowledge
of the regulatory status of the 1,1,1—trichioroethane prior to
its being spilled. If the 1,1,1—trichioroethane was a discarded
commercial chemical product, manufacturing themical interp edtate,
or of f—specification commercial chemical product, the spill residue
should be classified as U226. As such, thie waste is not subject
to the Novs er 7, 1986 final rule.
If ) w.v.r , the ll,l—trichloro.than. was a spent solvent
prior to its being spilled, the •ntire wasts stream would be
classified as a listed spent solvent (EPA Hazardous Waste ‘ o.
P002). In this case, the spill residue would be considered a
hazardous waste because it contains an P002 solvent. Thi3 waste
stream would be subject to the prohibitions on land disposal of
spent solvent wastes.
2
-------
I hope thia infori ation adequately addreases your concer .
Pleaae feel tree to contact Wil1tar Fortune, of sy staff at (2 2)
475—6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline 1. Sales. Chief
Regulation DeveloD!lent Section
Cnclosure
-------
9444.1987(12)
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C 20460
S 1
Apt. 1 7
OFFICE O
SOL.IO WASTE AP O E ItRGENCY RESPOr, .SE
K. Seiler
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
7272 Cleanwater Lane, LU-li
Olympia, Washington 98504-6811
Dear Ms. Seiler:
I recently received your letter of February 26, 1987, in which
you requested clarification as to whether excavated soils,
contaminated with 2,4,5—T, Simazine, 2,4—D, Dicambia, and Bromacjl,
are P027 wastes. The site in question was a county public works yard
where a pesticide product was mixed with water as a carrier, prior to
application on the county roadsides. Contamination occurred from
spillage of both unused and used pesticide solutions.
The F027 listing designates, as acut, hazardous waste (H),
formulations containing tn-, tetra-, or pantachlorphenoi or
discarded unused formulations containing compounds derived from these
chiorophenois. Whether the contaminated soil contains a listed
hazardous waste is dependent on: (a) whether the 2,4,5—T got onto
the soil through the use of the chemical or by being discarded, and
(b) whether the 2,4,5-T was in fact a discarded formulation as stated
in Sec.261.31,
Soil, which is contaminated with unused 2,4,5—?, that had bean
discarded, would contain a listed hazardous waste, namely P027. This
contaminated soil, which contains a hazardous waste, is therefore
subject to the Subtitle C regulation..
Soils, which are contaminated with 2,4,5-?, as a function of it.
us., voul,d not be considered to contain a hazardous waste. These
contaminated soils may, however, be hazardous if they are excavated
to be discarded, and if they meet ths hazardous wast
characteristics, jj, if the EP leachat. concentration exceeds the
levels specified in Sec.261.24(b).
-------
To my knowledge, there are currently no commercial treatment or
disposaj facilities permitted to accept listed dioxin wastes. You
also questioned whether any treatment standards have been established
for dioxin wastes. According to 40 CFR 264.343, incinerators burning
hazardous wastes F020-F023, F026, and F027 must achieve a destruction
and removal efficiency of 99.9999% for each principal organic
hazardous constituent specified in its permit. Effective Nov. 8,
1988, these same wastes are restricted from land disposal if an
extract of the waste or the treatment residual of the waste (using
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)) is equal to or
greater than 1 ppb of dioxin.
Please feel free to call Doreen Sterling, of my staff, at
202-475-6775, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely, i
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9444.1987(13)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENC
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
L uIO l.
Mr. William C. Duncan
Vice President OFFICE OF
Compliance Recycling Industries SOLID WASTE AIlO EME GENCV RESPOII
8200 S. Akron, Suite 112
Englevood, CO 80112
Dear Mr. Duncan:
As requested in our telephone conversation on April 15, 1987, and in your
letter of the same date, I am responding to your request for the Agency’s
interpretation (as it applies to R RA regulations) of your process for the
treatment of electroplating rinse vater.
My understanding of your process is that only rinse vater is fed to a
tank near the electroplating line. The rinse vater is then pumped through a
filter to a “compliance module” that contains anionic and cationic ion
exchange resins vhich remove metals, chromates, and cyanide. The vater
exiting the module is deionized and can be recycled bac1’ as rinse vater, or
sent to disposal. Also, you have determined that neither the treated rinse
vater nor the spent ion exchange resin exhibits any of the hazardops vaste
characteristics.
First, I must apologize if I misled you during our telephone
conversation. I have discussed your process vith others at the Agency, and
have determined that your ion exchange resins (containing the cations and
anions removed from the rinse vater) and the filter from the transfer module
fit the definition of a sludge (see 40 CPR 260.10). Tharefore, tht used
resins and filter are F006 hazardous vastes, even if they do not exhibit any
of the hazardous vaste characteristics. Thus, it viii be necessary for the
electroplaters to comply vith the generator requirements, including
manifesting the shipment of these calmisters to your regeneration facility.
Because your regeneration is a recycling activity, you viii not require a
permit, unless you store the cannisters for any length of time before you
process them.
Also, any vutes generated during your ion exchange resin regeneration
process vou]4 also be considered as 1006 vastes via the derived-from rule,
vith the cption of the recovered metal that you sell as a product.
I hope that I have anivered your questions satisfactorily. If you
require additional information, please feel free to contact me at (202)
382-4787.
Sincerely,
Edvin F. Abrams
Chemical Engineer
-------
9444 • 1987(14)
UNI TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC’
Wfr.SHth GiOi i D.C. 20460
MAY 8 7
SOLID WASTE AP4D ENE OENCv (3PONz
Michael Sanderson, Chief
RCRA Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Reaion VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Dear Mr. Sanderson:
This letter is in response to your April 20, 1987 memo
reaardinq certain wastes generated at Everco Industries’ Ottu a,
Iowa plant. Specifically, you requested an interpretation ar to
whether wastewater treatment sludqes generated at their plent
meets the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. P006.
We have reviewed the description of Everco’s orocesr. and
aqree that the wastewater treatment sludqe does not meet tha def i—
nition of P006. The non—cyanide zinc plating process i t pt cfical1y
excluded from the listing as ‘zinc plating (seareqated 7. as ) on
carbon steel.’ Likewise the coatinq processes, both bcf ore and
after the process chanqe, are not within the scone of thc Listing
as exi,lained in the December 2, 1986 Interpretive Rule It is
also noted that the cleaning and stzipoinq operations re also
specifically excluded from thG ).i tiuq as ‘c1. r1ninq/btrippinq
associated with tin, zinc,, and 3umiiaum platinq cm carbon steel.
Thus, the waste would only be con dered hazc rdous if it exhibits
any of the Subpart C hazardous waste characteristics.
Should you have any aue.tione regardina this interpretation,
please contact me, or David Topping of my staff, at PTS 475—8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Str us, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9444. 1987(15)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I8 BT
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE £PdO EME GEp4Cy MIS’
Mr. Dennis H. Burchett
V.P. Regulatory Affairs
Clean Crop
419 18th Street
P.O. Box 1286
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Mr. Burchett:
This is in response to your inquiry of April 21, 1987. Pros
information in your letter and fro. your phone conversation of May
8, 1987, with Mike Petruska of my staff, we have concluded that
your spent carbon contains the listed hazardous waste Phorate
(P094). Therefore, the contaminated carbon i eubject to the
hazardous waste regulations. In particular, your company must
comply with the hazardous waste generator reqi ir aents, including
compliance with the manifest. See 40 CR 261 .(.(b). n addition,
the facility that regenerates the carbon must £lso comply with
the appropriate hazardous waste rule.. See 40 C ’! . 26 1.6(c)
The reasoning behind this determination i e follow.:
‘The packaging of the finished Phorate pTl? t ct releases Phorate
to the air. In effect, Phorate is being ‘discarded;”
‘EPA regulations at 40 CR 5261.33 identfl certain commercial
chemical products (among them Phorate) as hazardous waste
when they are discarded;
‘EPA continues to regulate a listed waste even when it is
contained in another material, i.e., tn this case the spent
carbon.
Tb. first point above, concerning the Phorate being discarded,
is critisal to your situation. Even though you capture the Phorate
rele.s.4 to th. air in carbon scrubb.rs and send the spent carbon
for reg.a.ration, the Phorat. contained in the carbon is not
r.cov.r.d but rather is destroyed during carbon regeneration.
This leads us to conclude that you are discarding Phorate. You
-------
—2—
should note, however, that if you were reclaiming or reusing the
Phorate, your regulatory situation would be different. In this
case, the Phorate would not be solid waste, and so would not be
hazardous waste. (see 40 CFR §261.2.)
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike Petrusk
of my staff at (202) 382—4765.
Sincerely,
7
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Tharacterizatjon Branch
CC: Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
-------
9444.1987(16)
2o
Ms. Karen S. Thirman
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Ms. Thirman:
I am responding to your letter of April 30, 1987, requesting
the Agency’s interpretation of the hazardous waste classification
of an etching process waste. Specifically, you ask whether the
process described in your letter generates a listed hazardous
waste.
In reviewing your letter, we believe that th process
described is considered to be a stripping procew that employs
cyanide chemicals, and the waste stream g.neratid is EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F009, “spent stripping and cl€aning bath
solutions from electroplating operations where cyan des &xe used
in the process”. This point is substantiated in r viewing the
listing background document for “Spent Waste Cyanide Soivtions
and Sludges ”, covering EPA Hazardous waste Nos. F007, FO 8, and
F009, where it specifically states (on page 7) that chei ical
etching is part of the listing.
If you requir. additional information, please feel free to
contact Ed Abrama at (202) 382—4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UN lIED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
9444. 1987(17)
MAY 20198T
Mr. 5tephen J. Evans
Environrental Engineer
Modine anufacturing Company
1500 De Voven Avenue
Racine, Wisconsin 53401
Dear Mr. I!vans:
This is in response to your letter of March 30, 19P7, in w”jch
you request guidance as to the proper classification of waste paint
sludge and whether these wastes are subject to the ovewber 7, 1 ’,
land disposal restrictions rule. Specifically, you referred to n int
sludge waste resulting from painting operations w! ere the oaint has
bean thinned with petroleum nantha solvent. Purthernore you indi-
cated that the virgin petroleum nantha solvent contains certain
solvent constituents that are also included under the F0fll— 0fl
spent solvent listings (e.a., xylene and toluene).
Each of the questions raised in Your letter is reetate below
and followed by the appropriate responeel
1. Can we continue to classify the paint sludge as a fl007 waste or
nnist we classify it as an Ffl03 waste?
In order for a waste to meet the criteria of th spent solvent
listings (i.e.. EPA Hazardous Waste Tos. FOOl, FflC2, POOL P0’ 4,
and P005), the waste niiet be generated as the result of a solvent
being used for its solvent properties, that is. its ability to
solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents (e.c ., solvents
used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring; as diluente,
extractants, reaction and synthesi, media). Process wastes containina
solvents where the solvent is an inaredisnt in the forimalation of
a product irs not covered by the event solvent listings. Thus.
painti containing solvents as an ingredient are not covered under
the solvent listings. In the painting process scenario you
described, th. addition of petroleum naptha solvent to a naint
product constitutes the formulation of a modified paint product.
The Agency does not recognize a distinction between paints that
contain solvsnts and paint where solvents have been added.
-------
Therefore, thinned paint (as described in your letter) t1 at is
later discarded as a waste or paint sludge re.ultjna from the
use of the thinned paint would not be covered under the F00l-pnn
spent solvent listing.. If the extract from a reT resenta jv
sample of the paint sludge exceeds the maximum concentration of
chromium for the characteristic of PP Toxicity (40 CPR 261.24),
the waste would be appropriately classified under !PA Hazardous
Waste Number D007.
2. If virgin xylene were used in lieu of petroleum naptha to thin
the paint, is the paint sludae that results en P003 waite (,1
xylene by weight in paint sludge)?
Regardless of whether the solvent ii virain xylene or petroleum
nantha, the solvents are used as ingredients in the formulation
of the paint. As such, the resultant paint sludge would not meet
the criteria for an P003 spent solvent waste (refer to the resoone
to question No. 1).
3. If waste or reclaimed xylen. were used in lieu of petroleum
naptha to thin the paint, is the naint .ludqe that results an
P003 waste (all xylene in paint sludge)?
No. The paint sludge that results would not be properly
classified as an P003 spent solvent waste (refer to the resnonse
to question No. 1).
4. If xylarae were used to cl•an th. spray guns (the solvent/paint
sprayed onto the water wall), would the paint sludge then become
an P003 waite lS xylene in paint sludge)?
Using xylene to clean th. . ray guns constitutes use for
its solvent properties because the xylene solubilizee (dissolves)
other constituent. (i.e., paint). As such, spent xylene that
is generated from this cleaning practice would be covered by the
spent solvent listings, sD.cifically Hazardous Waste No. P003.
Furthermore, in cases where the spent zylene that results from
cleaning spray guns (an P003 waste) is mixed with Daint sludae
produced from th. painting scenarios described under question.
1, 2, and 3, th. r.sultant waste stream would be considered
an P003 vests (in accordance with the mixture rule, 40 CP 261.3
(a) (2) (iv)).
5. If petroleum napthe and zylene were used to thin the oaint
(and th. resulting mixture contained l0% xylene by volume),
is the paint sludge that results an P003 waste?
As mentioned above, paint sludge re.ultina from the oversnrav
of thinned paint does not meet the criteria for an P003 waste, since
the solvents (in this case, Detroleum naptha and xylene) are
ingredients in the formulation of the paint. Thu., the solvent
mixture rule does not apply (see 50 F’ 53315, I”ecember 31. l9PC).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEPI;. .. PROTECTION AGENCY
6. If the paint sludge that results is pronerlv classified as an
r0e3 waste (because it contains ‘1% xylene), and it is nrocee.ec
using a diatillina device that removes all of the solvent arv!
water from the paint sludge, is the resuitina ‘cooked’ s1ud .
an F003 waste even though it no lonqer contains solvent? If so,
can it be delisted? If the ‘cooked’ sludge meets the solvent
treatment standard of 0.15 mg/i for xylene, can it be landfilled7
In accordance with the uderived from ruie (40 CTP 761.3(c) (2)),
the residue from treatment of a hazardous waste remains a hazardous
waste. Thus, ass ing the waste stream is pro erly ilentifiec! as
an P003 scent solvent waste, the cooked sludge resultinci from
distillation of this material remains an P003 hazi’irdous waste and is
subject to the applicable land disposal prohibition reauirements
unless delist.d according to the orovisions, or rendered non—ha ardo q
(see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)). It should be noted thst the delistinc
procedures require that the petitions address all factors that may
cause the waste to be hazardous, not only those for which the waste
was originally listed.
Where restricted wastes and the concentrations of their
associated hazardous constituents meet the applicable treatment
standards, the wastes may be disposed of in a Subtitle C facility.
Therefore, if the ‘cooked sludge meets the treatment sfandard
established for xylene and does not exceed the trestment stanc’ard,
for any other restricted waste constituents, it may be placed in
a hazardous waste land disposal facility.
7. If the water wall and associated tank were removed and replaced
with dry filters, and paint containing 10t by volume of xvlene
was anplied to the product, would the waste taint filters he
classified as an P003 waste? If the waste paint filters
contained 0.15 mg/I xylene, would they be classified as an
P003 waste?
The wiste paint filters described in this scenario would not
be properly classified as an P003 waste sinc, the paint residuals
would not constitute a spent solvent (refer to the resoonse to
question o. 1).
I hop. this information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please feel f r.. to contact William Portune, of my staff at ( C )
475—6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Jacaueline W. Sales. c ief
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT PRC ECTiON AGENCY
94 44.19c7(18 )
MAY 2QI 7
Mr. Frank Ctigier
Envirorunerita]. Department
S & W Waste Inc.
115 Jacobus Avenue
South Kearny, New Jersey 07032
Dear Mr. Criglert
This letter responds to your request for assistance on
identifying whether certain solvent. are covered under the FOOl
through F005 hazardous waste listings, and for clarification
on the applicability of the land disposal restrictions final
rule (51 FR 40572, November 7, 1986). I apologize for the
delay in responding to your correspondence. After the new
regulations were promulgated the Agency received numerous
request. for guidance.
Each of the questions raised in your letter is rest atel
below and followed by the appropriate response.
1. “Since the December 31, 1985 definition of the F P& t -aste
types FOOl through F005, the following •o1vent heve been
added to the ‘listing b. t are not listed in table CCWE—
COUSTITUENT IN WASTE EXTRACT (P.R./Ubl.5l, No 2 /ll-7—
86/Page 40642),
1, 1, 2-Trichloro.thane
2-Ethoxyethanol
2—Ni tropr wan.
Benzene
If these solvents are to be included in the 1i it of
wastes restricted from land disposal, What ma mum
concentrations in waste extract are the treatment
standards expressed as?’
—— The November 7, 1986 final rule does not inclue2e treatment
standards for th.s. four newly listed FOOl throuah £005 spent
solvents. Provisions imder RCRA section 3004(q)(4) require
the Agency to make a determination within 6 nths whether to
subject newly listed hazardous wastes to the land disnos’ 1
prohibitions. However, th. statute does not impose an
automatic prohibition if the Agency misses the ‘ieadline.
EPA expects to make land disp tu rietion deterriinat
s%,.3. I fl—4S-SS3
-------
pertaining to these solvent wastes in association with the
scheduled listed wastes (Si FR 19300, May 28, 1986).
2. Are wastes generated by laboratories as a result of
analytical and research work, where the listed solvents
are used for their solvent prcperti.s (e.g., solvents
used in liquid chrometography, rinsing paraffin off tissue
culture slides, in ion exchange columns, in layer separation,
in distillation, as final step of organic synthesis, in
re—crystallimat ion, etc.) regulated?
Yes. Under the approach promulgated in the final rule,
FOOl—PODS listed solvent. are subject to the land disposal
restrictions. If an analytical or research laboratory generates
these restricted wastes, the wastes suet be manaqed in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 268. In order for a solvent
waste to be covered by the ?001 —T005 spent solvent lietinqe
the waste must be generated as a result of the solvent betnq
used for its ‘solvent properties, that is, its ability to
olubilize (dissolve) or iobilize other constituents (e.g.
solvents used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring; as
diluents, •ztractants, reaction and synthesis media).
In the case of solvent mixtures, the mixture must contain,
before use, a total of ten percent or sore (by volume) of on.
or mor. of the solvents listed In P001, P002, P004, or P005.
Wastes that meet these criteria are covered by the spent
solvent listings and a. such, are •ub ect to the November 7, l99
final rule. -
3. “Are rags contaminated with listed solvents that were
used for their solvent properties (e.a.. in clean—up
work) excluded from £001 through £005 listing awe/or
the November 8th regulations? This same question
was posed to the RCRA—Hot Line, and the foll iny answer
was receiveds
1f th. solvents are poured onto th. surfac. to be cleaned,
thin the contaminated rag . used in the clean-up, fall into
the £00] through £005 listing. If the solvents are poured
onto th. raga that ar. to be used in the clean-up, then
the rmltant dirty rags DO NO? fall into the POOl through
£005 li.ting.
— — Technically, the interpretation of the r.qulat ion . that you
received from the RCM Hotline is correct. The POOl—POOS
solvent listing includes certain haloaenat.d and non—haloqenatel
solvents when spent. A solvent is considered spent When it
ha. been used and is no longer fit for use without being re-
generated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed. Therefore, when
solvent. are applied to a surface or maChinery (and used
for their solvent properties), then cleaned—off with ra’is, the
solvents are spent and the contaminated rags are covered w the
-------
FOOl—F005 listing. ien solvents are applied directly to a ra
prior to use, the solvent at that time is not soent an’i the
rags are not covered by the spent solvent listina.
As a practical matter, however, in each of these scenarios,
the contaminated rags would be basically identical in constituent
make—up and would pose similar hazard.. Furthermore, land
disposal facilities (which are ultimately resnonsible for veri-
fying that only wastes meeting the treatment standards are land
disposed) would not be able to distinguish between rais used to
cleanup spent solvents from other rags contaminated with solvent.
As a result, these facilities may choose not to accent raqs con-
taminated with solvents w less they meet the treatment standards.
In light of these considerations, we recommend that any raas
contaminated with listed solvents be managed as hazardous wastes.
4. wAre dry cleaning filters used to separate solid ‘ines out
of the Fool through P005 listed solvents exempted?N
—_ b. If POOl through P005 listed solvent, are treated usina
dry cleaning filters to separate out solid fines, the resultant
waste filters are also F00l—F005 hazardous waste. In accordance
with the derived from rule (40 CFR 261.3(c) (2) (i)), any solid
waste generated from treatment, storage or disnosal of a hazardous
waste is a hazardous waste. Thus, used filters from the treatm nt
of spent solvents is designated as an FOOl—FOOS waste and is
subject to the land disposal restrictions.
5. Does the process of thinning a paint for it. subsequent
use in the painting of a surface remove the paint from
a non-FOOl through P005 category (a. being a commercial
product) to being an FOOl through P005 west. (du. to
solvent having been used as a diluent) if a part of the
thinned paint is later disposed of as a waete?
—— Process wastes containing solvents wher. the solvent is an
ingredient in the formulation of a product are not covered by
the spent solvent listings. In this specific case, the addition
of solvent to a paint product constitutes the formulation ot.a
modified paint product. The Aqency doe, not recoanize a
distinction between paints that contain solvents and paint tAere
solvents h6V1r been added. Therefore, thinned paint (as described
in the above case) that is later discarded as a waste would not
be covered under the FO0l-F005 spent solvent listings.
6. N..d clarification regarding the P003 solvent listing,
(a) Are we to understand the phrase, ...Atl spent solvent
mixtures/blends containing, before use, ONLY the above
spent non—halogenated solvents... as listed under
the F003 hazardous waste number listing (In P.R. /W’l.
-------
50, P10.251/Tuesday l 2 —3l— 8 5/Pace 53319) to iean that
the solvent mixture nuet consist (before use) 100% of
one or more of the non—halogenated solvents (as listed
in P.R. und.r £003 listing). In other words, if there
is any non—F003 solvent, (i.e., ethanol, mineral s”irits) ,
or other contaminant (i.e., water, oil, etc.) in the
solvent mixture/blend (before use), then the waste
effluent cf the roce.s would not fall under the £003
listing.
—- In order for a waste to fleet the criteria of an P003 snent
solvent mixture/blend it imist include, before use, only
solvent constituents listed under the P003 hazardous waste cole,
or must contain, before use, one or more of the P003 non—
haloqenated solvents and a total of ten Percent or more aolvent
constituents covered under Razar.lou. Waste numbers £001, P0(7,
F004, and P005. Therefore, as you correctly stated, if the
solvent mixture/blend contains (before use) other solvents such
as ethanol, or mineral spirits, the spent solvent would not be
considered a listed waste, in particular an P003 waste. H ,ever,
the Aaency does not intend to exclude such mixture from reaulation
where non—F003 constituents are present a. contaminants in the
virgin products.
(b) ‘P we understand it, if a solvent mixture/blend isused
for its solvent properties (e.g., in cleanina out a reactc r)
and it is made u (before use) of less than 10 percent
P001, P002, P004, and £005 solvent constituents and areater
than 90 percent but less than 100 percent £003 listed
solvent(s), then the resultant waste does not fall into
any of the FOOl through P003 hazardous waste listina(s).
Is the above a correctly interpreted example?’
—- Your interpretation of the solvent mixture provisions as
they apply to the scenario described in the above question is
correct. If a solvent mixture/blend (before use) contains
P003 listed solvents and £001, F002, £004, and £005 solvent
constituents, it would not constitute a listed hazardous waste
(unless th• total of all POOl, P002, P004, and £005 constituents
meet the ten percent threshold). Although such waste streams are
not listed wastes, these solvents may be reaulated under ( 1 P) if
they exbibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste (i.e., corrosivity, ignitability, 7 P toxicity or reactivity).
(C) ‘An often asked question b ’ our clients is described in
the fo1l ,jnq ezampi.. Please indicate whether it exhibits
a correct interoretation of the t 00l characteristic waste
type in liqht of the newly defined P003 listina.
A hatch reactor vessel is used in a production process.
After eac hatch, the reactor must be thoroughly
cleaned Out with pure xvlene. As a resource recoverv/
conservation measure, the clean—out effluent (“eon—
taminated xylene ”) is regenerated )‘y distillation. The
-------
regenerated rylene is re—used as reactor cleaninci stoei ,
and the still bottoms residue must be disposed of as
hazardous waste, classified as EPA WASTE TYP? DOOl
according to the generator, since it exhibits
characteristics of EPA-ignitabiljty.
—— According to the information provided in your example, the
xylene is used solely for the purpose of cleaning out t! e hatch
reactor vessel and is not a reactant or inaredient in a production
process. As such, the pure xylene has been used for its solvent
properties and would be considered an Pfl03 spent solvent when it
can no longer be used without further processina, tiii i otto,iw
generated from the distillation of th. spent xylene also would he
designated as an P003 solvent waste in accordance with the listina
description, not as EPA Hazardous Waste No. DOOl.
7. “RCPA Hot—Line gave us the following example. Are they
correct?”
(a) “A paint reactor is cleaned out between batches with 100
percent zylene. The resulting solution ii purred into
a holding tank in which the solids settle out. Aecordjna
to the RCRA Pot-Line, the solids do not fall into any
of the POOl through P005 waste listings because th xylene
is still considered 100 percent technical, grade and ii
to be re—used after the solids are removed. If the bottor
sludge/solids are found to exhibit characteristics of EPA—
ignitability would they be correctly classified as DOOl
waste? When is the rylene considered contaminated or spent?
If it is considered contaminated after the first “wash out”,
and used for subsequent washes, should the resultant •ludae
be classified as an £001 through P005 listed waste or a
DOOl characteristic waste?’
—— The example described above is an incorrect interpretation
of the F00l—P005 spent solvent listing. Regardless of whether
the bottom sludge/solids removed from the holding tank exhibit
the characteristic of iqnitability, such wastes would be incor-
rectly classified as EPA Razardous Waste No. DOOl. The pure
xylena would become ‘contaminated” when it comes in contact with
the paint or other impurities. Therefore, the xyl.n. would be
considered contaminated after its use during the first “wash—out”
of the paint reactor. As mentioned in earlier resoonses, such
solvents would be considered spent when they are no longer used
without being regenerated, reclaimed, or’ otherwise reprocessed.
Thus, the contaminated zylene placed into the holding tank would
constitute an POOl—POOS ‘spent” solvent because the xylen. is
regenerated by allowing the solids to settle out. The bottom
sludae/eolids accumulated and removed from the settling unit
also would constitute an F0Ol—Pfl0 listed waste based on the
“derived from” rule (40 CPR 261.3(c)(2)(j)).
-------
(b) “If the tank is washed with a mixture of 90 percent
xylIne 10 percent mineral spirits, is the resultjna
sludge an FOOl through F005 listed waste?”
—— If the solvent mixture/blend used to clean out the paint
reactor contained, before use, 90 percent zylene and 10 percent
mineral mints, the spent solvent waste would not meet the
criteria of a listed hazardous waste (on the ba Tj described
above under question 6(a)). The r.sultinq bottom sludqe/,io ljds
would be correctly classified as a DOOl hazardous waste if they
exhibit the characteristic of ianitabilitv.
8. Np specified in 40 CFR 261.32, ‘...solvent washes and sludoes
S.. ” resulting from ink formulation are Droperly classified as
EPA waste type X086. Does this K0fi6 classification hold true
in light of the most recent definition of the POOl threuah
P005 hazardous waste listinas? If a waste meets both waAte
category requirements, that of a waste from a si,ecific source
and also that of an Fool throuqh £005 — non si ecific source,
which waste classification takes precedence?”
—— In cases where tubs and equipment used in ink formulation
are washed by solvents, and the solvents used in the washes are
included under the FOO1—P005 listings, the resultant solvent—
wash wastes are considered hazardous wastes under the apMieahle
spent solvent listings, as well as, the ICOR6 lietina (as indiciited
in the January 12, 1981. Backcround Document). Such wastes must
be managed in accordance with the PCRA reaulations arn,licahle to
both waste classifications. In consideration of the November 7,
1986, final rule, these solvent—wash wastes would be subject to
the prohibitions and would be required to meet the applicable
treatment standards prior to disposal in a Subtitle C’ facility.
I hope this information adeauately addresses your concerns.
Please feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at (202)
475—6715, if you have further questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Jacauelin. V. Sales, CI’iief
Regulation D.v.lopment Section
-------
9444.1987(19)
5 .4.
,
L ’NIT C’ S A ‘! CNvE’ ‘ 4 C.L. RC’TFCrIo M ENc’
F
.. r •T_ i i’ C
NAY 22
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMEROEP.Cy RESPON:
Mr. Edgar R. Santiago
Environmental & Safety Enqineerinq
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Comoany
750 Warrenville Road
Lisle, IL 60532
Dear Mr. Santiaao:
This letter is in response to your April 27, 1987 letter
reqardinq the December 2, 1986 Interpretive Rule on EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006. Specifically, you requested an interpretation
related to the inclusion of cleaning and stripping operations in
that listing.
At line 10 of the first full paragraph on paqe 4335k of the
Interpretive Rule, the P006 listing is said to include wastewater
treatment sludges from ‘... cleaning and stripping when associated
with electroplating operations ( i.e. , common and precious metals
electroplating, anodizing, and chemical etchina and milling).
In your letter, you imply that certain printing industry
processes are not included in the P006 listing because they were
exempted frol the Effluent Guidelines Division.’ requirements
for pretreatment standards for the electroplating point source
category. We disagree with your interpretation. Neither the
P006 listing background document, nor the August 1979 Development
Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the
Electroplating Point Soruce Category referenced therein, exclude
the printing industry from the definition of electroplating
operations. That ii, while the Office of Water may have elected
not to require the printing industry to meet the electroplating
pretreatmant standards, that action does not exclude from the
F006 listing any electroplatinq wastewater treatment sludges
that may bs qenerat.d by the printing industry.
Finally, you inquired as to the status of EPA’. action on the
trivalent vs. hexavalent chromium issue. Comments were received
on thi. issue in the Agency’. proposed Oraanic Toxicity Characteristic
-------
—2—
(see 51 FR 21648, June 13, 1986). This issue will be addressed
as part 1 that rulemaking.
Should you have any question. regarding this interpretation,
please contact me, or David Topping of my staff, at (202) 475—8551.
Sincerely,
2/Yg
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Charactjzation Branch
-------
9444.1987(20)
Zelda Curtiss
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resource.
Off ic. of Chief Counsel.
1303 Highland Building
121 South Highland Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15206—3988
Dear Ma. Curtissi
After careful r.vi.w of your letter of April 24 and the
supporting documentation in Don Zimesr’s letter of May 7, we agree
with your determination on Witco’s API Separator Sludge. Th.
waste is not ysnerated at a facility encompass.d by the oriyinil
listing. Thus, it is not KOS1.
Nevertheless, it is important to keep in hind that some of
the wastes generated by the facility may meet one, or more, of
tne hazardous waste characteristics. AdditionalLy, for future
reference, I also should clarity the types of 4.aciliti.s whicn we
consider to be included in the listing.
The petroleum refineries encompassed oy the ezistin listing
are not restricted to facilitie, that process cruu. oil. Generally,
the refineries covered ar. all facilities in SIC 2911. who pertorm
distillation of crude oil and/or unfinished petroleum derivatives.
Witco does not distil,], the neutral distillate. and doe. not iroduce
motor or heating fuels. Consequently, they ar. not in the listed
industry.
-------
—2-
Hopefully, thi. latter will serve to cLarity th. scope of
the ret mary listings. DO not hesitate to contact Ban Saith of
ay staff at (202) 382 4791, if you requir, any additional informs—
tion.
Sincerely.
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Charact.ritation Branch
cc : Dir., WIlD, kgions I-X
-------
9444.1987(22)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
.UJ 24 1987 O PFICEOP
SOUD WASTE AND SPAS RGEPdCY RESPONSE
Mr. Richard Torrito
Continental Can Company, Inc.
800 Connecticut Avenue
P.O. Box 5410
Norwalk, CT 06856
Dear Mr. Torrito:
This letter is in response to your February 5, 1987 inquiry
regarding the regulatory statue of certain wastes generated at
Continental Can Company’s La Crosee and Milwaukee, Wisconsin
plants. Specifically, you requested an interpretation as to
whether the sludge generated from wastewater treatment processes
associated with the can washers at these plants is a hazardous
waste within the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019——
wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating
of aluminum. -
We have carefully reviewed the attachment to your February 5
letter ( i.e. , the January 9, 1987 letter from Lester Steinbrecher
of Amchem Products to you), as well as Mr. Steinbrecher’a
February 27, 1987 letter to David Topping of the Waste Character-
ization Branch. In those letters, it was asserted that the use
of Anchem’s surface conditioners for the treatment of two—piece
aluminum cans does not constitute a chemical conversion coating
process. We disagree with that interpretation tor the reasons
explained below.
In the background listing document for P019, conversion
coatings are described a. Nprocesees (that) apply a coating to
the previously deposited or basis metal for increased corrosion
protection, lubricity, preparation of the surface for additional
coating. or formulation of a special surface appearance. This
manufacturing operation includes chrornating, pho.phating, metal
coloring. -and immersion plating. The Agency believes that the
use of a sirconium phosphating process to inhibit corrosion of
the aluminum surface is within the scope of-thin definition.
-------
—2—
Several of the statements in the Amchem letters indicate
that the process is not chemical conversion coating because the
process does not impart a crystalline coating. While the listing
background document does refer to crystalline phosphate coatings,
it was not the Agency’s intention to restrict the listing to apply
only to crystalline coatings. Further, the broader definition
(to include both crystalline and amorphous coatings) is supported
by other (non-EPA) definitions of conversion coating.
For example, Chemical and Process Technology Encyclopedia
(McGraw-Hill, 1974Fstates that “conversion coatings are formed
chemically by causing the surface of the metal to be “converted”
into a tightly adherent amorphous or crystalline coating part or
all of which consists of an oxidized form of the substrate metal.”
Also, in Standard B 374—80, ASTM defines conversion coating as “a
process produced by chemical or electrical treatment of a metallic
surface that gives a superficial layer containing a compound of
the metal.” Thus, ASTM does not restrict the definition to crystal-
line coatings.
The fact that the can washing process is within the ommonly
understood definition of chemical conversion coating is also
supported by the identification of that process as chemical
conversion coating in Continental Can Company’s delisting petition
for the Olympia, Washington plant. In that petition, the fourth
stage of the can washing process is described as follows: “The
function of Stage 4 is to apply a chemical conversion coating to
the can which inhibits corrosion, brightens the can surface, and
provides an improved base for the application of organic coating
lacquers.” Also, the zirconium phosphating process is described
as chemical converison coating in a rulemaking petition filed
jointly by Reynolds Metals Company and Miller Brewing Company.
(That petition, recently withdrawn, was to modify the P019 listing
to exclude sludges from “...th. phosphate conversion coating of
two—piece aluminum beverage cans.”)
Finally, in a telephone conversation with Matthew Straus of
the Waste Characterization Branch, you cited the Office of Water’s
November 17, 1983 regulation related to the can—making industry
(see 48 PR 52,399). In that regulation, it was stated that the
sludges ! o. the pretreatment standards was believed to be
-------
—3—
nonhazardous. That statement refers to sludges that have been
treated. That is, it was the Agency’s opinion that the waste—
water treatment sludge could be treated to render them nonhazardous
(i.e., the treated sludge could likely be delisted).
For these reasons, we have concluded that the wastewater
treatment sludges associated with the can washers at the L.a Crosse
and Milwaukee plants meet the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste
No. FO]9. Should you have any questions regarding this interpreta-
tion, please contact Mr. Matthew Straus, Chief, Waste Characteri-
zation Branch at (202) 475—8551.
Sincerely,
- a, • ‘ /
Marcila Williams
$irector
Otfice of Solid Waste
-------
U$iItL) STATE$ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444 • 1987(23)
JUN 30 9E7
Mr. Robert Williams
General Motors Corporation
Fisher Guide Division
200 Georgesvllle Road
Columbus, OIl 43228—0512
Dear Mr. hi]liams:
The Assistance Branch has reviewed your Jetter dat ci
february 27, 1987 regarding the EPA’s elaritic3tion ot the
of EPA ‘ zardous ste No. P006. This baste wSg the
SUL ‘. ct of your i o naP ition 0017?. Wc a now1edg. ‘our
esc:aption c’f the major processes at your plant, inc1ud na
1. Zinc plating on carbon steel on a segregatei h si
2. Mechanical or electroless zinc plating
3. Sulturic acid anodizinj on aluminunt
4. Phosphating on steel.
Both zinc platina on carbon steel on a seqreg €d ba i nd
sulfuric acid anodizing ot aluminum were listed as exe ’tions
from the original P006 listing in November l9t . On Decer ber 2,
1986, a clarification of the FUO6 listing was published (51 FR
43350—43351) which specifically exempted electroiess zinc
plating end phoephating on steel. Theretore, we believe that
your wastewater treatment sludge is not lnc1udc d in th scope
of EPA Hazardous Waste No. P006.
Although your wasteweter tr.atm.nt sludge is not an EPA
listed waste, you are still r.quired to determine whether the
waste exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes
as defined?y:40 CPR $261.21-261.24.
-------
Please contact Mr. Scott Maid, of y staff, at (202) 382—4783
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
L. i / Signed
Suzanne Rudsinski, Chief
Miiitanc. Iranch
cc: Alan bus, R.g. V
Williu Muno, keg. V
Mstths , Straus, HQ
-------
9444.1987(26)
i.t2 1987
MEMORA !D YM
StJEJEC’Ps Clarification of Federal Policy Regarding
Dioxin Disposal
FROM Marcia Williams, by
Offic. of Solid Waste Marcia E. Williama
TOt Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waits Management Division
Region II
In your mamo dated May 20, 1907, you requested our assistance
in developing a definitive stst.a.nt to address certain public
concerns over EPA’s regulation of dioxin—containing wast . Speci—
fically, you requested our assistance in drafting a proposed
response to a letter from Wew York State Senator John Ti4. 1y.
First, I would lik, to clarify the Federal r.gul .ions with
regard to the disposal of dioxin and diozin —contaeinat material.
On January 14, 1985 (50 FR 1978), EPA amended the regu1 tion. for
hazardous waste management under RcRA by listing as acute hazardous
wastes, process wastes Iron the manufacturing use of tetra— penta—,
or hexachlorobenunss under alkaline conditionsi wastes from the
production and manufacturing use of tri—, tetra,- and penta—
chlorophenols and their chiorephenoxy derivativ.s and discarded
unused formulations containing compounds derived from these
chiorophenols. Also listed wer. wastes that are generated in the
course of a manufacturing process performed on equipment previ-
ously used for such operations, except where the equipment was
used only for the manufacture or formulation of pentachiorophenols
or it. derivatives. In addition, soils contaminated with these
wastes are also regulated.
Under 40 C?R 261.31 of OCRA th. dioxin—containing wastes are
brought under Subtitle C control through the listing of specific
processes which generate 4&oxin, it is incorrect to imply that
toxicity is not consider d in the listing proc s.
-------
—2-
Ths basis for listing these vast.. can be sumearise3 as
follows,
• Th. contaminants of concern in the.o wastes are chiori—
nat•d dibenso—p—diozins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibextzo—
furans (Ct Fs) , tn—, tstra—, and p .ntachloroph.nols. and
the chiorophenoxy d.rivatlv.a of these chlorophanols.
• The toxican t. of concern are likely to be present in the
listed wastes at concentrations many orders of magnitude
qreatsr than th. levels of concern in tsrms of human
health. For example, analyst, of distillation bottom.
from manufacturing processes making or using trichloroa.
phenols can contain several hundred ppm TCDDs. filter
aids may contain up to 6000 ppm ?CDDe, and cooling pond
suds were shown to contain as much as 1200 ppm CDDs.
• Th, contaminants of concern are not only present in these
wastes in significant concentrations but are capabl. of
migrating fro. wast, matrices and reaching environmental
receptors in potentially dangerous concentrations, particu-
larly as a result of water run—off or wind dispersion of
contaminated particles. Thes, wastes have been associated
with some of the most serious hazardous waste damage
incidents known, among thea Love Canal and Times $.ach.
V.. therefore, bsUev• that the most hazardous dioxin-
eontainin waste stream. are covered by these listings. Althouah
the Agency recognized at the tie this rul. was promulgated that
there were other wastes which contained or may have contained
dto in. . (i.e., chlorinated b.ng.nea, dichloroph.nol process
wastes, fly ash and emission control dust from low temperature
combustion of chloropb.nols sad presently unlisted residues from
wood preserving) not enough data were available to support rule-
making. For example, the Agency did not have data with regard to
the canc• tration of dioxins in such wastei and the likelihood of
the waste posing a threat to human health or the environment.
Although these waste, are not r.quir.d to be managed in accordance
with the special management standards promulgated under RCRA,
these waste. are most likely toxic and should be carefully
managed. For example, these wastes can be safely managed by high
temperature incineration.
-------
—3—
Since then, th. Agency ha. collected some of this additional
information. This information, for example, has been used by EPA
to support a draft proposed rule, which is currently under Agency
review, to list residues generated from the use of chiorophenolic
formulations in wood preserving and surface treating operations.
The Agency also is continuing to investigate a nuziber of
dioxin issues. For instance, the Water Office is exploring the
formation of dioxin. from the pulp and paper industry’s bleached
kraft process. The Agency is also developing a new exposure
assessment that say be used to enhance our understanding of the
risks associated with dioxin.
It should also be noted that the listing process is only one
zechaniem by which the Agency has control of problems posed by
dioxin. Facilities, which have submitted a Part B permit appli-
cation or are subject to interim status are now subject to the
new corrective action provisions (Sec. 3004(u)). This requires
that all permit applicants musts identify all solid waste manage—
sent units at the facility; identify any releases of hazardous
wastes or hazardous constituents that have occurr.d or are occur-
ring from those units; take appropriate corrective measures to
clean up releases, and demonstrate financial assurance for those
corrective measures.
Furthermore, dioxin and dioxin—contaminated soil are also
subject to clean—up under CER LA a. remedial action if the site
is on the National Priority List or as emergency response if
there is a need to abate a significant threat to public health
and welfare or the environment. To date, the Agency has taken
removal action if the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) issues a health advisory for the sit.. ATSDR
has traditionally viewed 1 ppb as a level of concern for residen-
tial settings. However, under the remedial program, the long—term
threats posed by each site are evaluated and pathways of exposure
are consid•r.d. Based on differing site conditions, EPA may
consider other action levels. The Agency expects to select the
remedy for five remedial sites thi, summer. Thus, the Agency is
in the process of formulating a policy for setting trigger and
clean—up lev.ls in respons. to these anticipated site clean—ups.
-------
Finally, the r.quirs..nts qov.rning the disposal of listed
dioxin wastes (F020—T023, and P026-1028) in landfills are s•t
forth at 40 cra 264.317. Effective Nov.ab.r 8. l 88, th. dioxin—
containing wast•s specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA Bazardo au
Waste Wos. 10201023, 1026. and 1027 are prohibited f roe land
disposal if they do not a.et the tr.atmsnt standards sp.citi.d at
40 CFR 268.41.
Pl.ase fell fT.. to contact ae if you hav• any further
quest ions.
-------
a ,v a,.
,IP1, 9444.19C7(27)
j UNITEC’ STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEP
W 1INGTON. D.C. 20460
4t
1 U. 61967
OFFICE OF
SOlID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPO’
Mr. Gerald 3. Wurtsinith
Federal Screw Works
Romulus Division
34846 Goddard Road
Romulus, MI 48174
Dear Mr. Wurtsmith:
This letter is in response to your June 16, 1987, inquiry
regarding wastes generated at Federal Screw Works’ Romulus,
Michigan plant. Specifically, you requested an interpretation as
to whether the sludge (filter cake) generated from t’ atment of
the rinse waters meets the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F006.
Your understanding is correct that the U.S PA no longer
considers wastewater treatment sludge from zinc phosphating on
steel to be within the scope of the F006 listing. (See enclosed
notice detailing our basis for this reinterpretation.) Since your
manufacturing operations contain a pickling process, however, you
should be aware that spent pickle liquor from fecilities within
SIC Codes 331 and 332 is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062.
If your facility is included within these SIC Codes and spent
pickle liquor is introduced into the wastewater treatment system,
the sludge may meet the definition of 1 (062. In addition, you
should also be aware that the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) hazardous waste program may be more stringent
than the Federal program. Therefore, you will need to contact
the state to see how they would classify your filter cake.
Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation,
please contact me at (202) 475—8551.
ncerel
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444.1987(28)
j(j I3 8T
Mr. James Boggs
Wickes Mechanical Components
P.O. Box 999
Southfield, MI 48037
Dear Mr. Boggs:
As you were informed during your conversation with Mr. Howard
of SAIC on July 1, 1987, some questions have arisen regarding the
classification of your petitioned waste as a listed waate under EPA
Hazardous Waste No. P006. Under the Agency’s reinterpretation of
the P006 listing (see 51 FR 43350), wastewater treatment sludge
from electroplating operatTons involving chemical etching are
considered to be hazardous. Your petition discusses bright
dipping operations that occur at the facility. Bright dipping is
defined as a chemical etching operation (see EPA 440/1—79/003:
Development Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards
for the Electroplating Point Source Category ) and thus the peti-
tioned waste appears to be a listed hazardous waste.
In order to clarify the regulatory status of your petitioned
waste, we will, need more information about your bright dipping
operations. Please describe the the physical and chemical processes
that occur during bright dipping, the properties and characteristics
you are trying to achieve during bright dipping, and the specific
equipment used for the bright dipping. This information should
be provided for each of your bright dipping options yellow
dichromate, bright chrome dip, and bright dip.
Once we have received this information, we will be able to
determine whether your facility is still regulated as a generator
of P006 waste. If it is determined that you are still regulated,
another request will be sent detailing the information required
to complete the review of your petition. If you have any questions
please contact me at (202) 382—4783 or Mr. Howard at (703) 734—3171.
Sincerely,
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Variance Section
cc: Allen Debus, Region V
Bill Miner, Region V
-------
9444. 1987 (29)
June 19, 1987
Ms. Kathie Roos
Chemical Engineer
3738 Harrison Avenue
P.O. Box 4168
Butte, Montana 59702
Dear Ms. Roos:
This is in response to your letter of May 21, 1987, in which
you sought to bring to my attention inconsistencies and problems
your firm has encountered in helping your clients find
appropriate disposal options for various types of
pentachiorophenol wastes. You describe several categories of
wastes ( i.e. , bottom sludge cleaned out of dip tanks, PCP—
contaminated dirt, PCP—containinated sorbent pillows and PCP-
impregnated posts, poles, and railroad ties) for which different
disposal guidance was provided by EPA Headquarters, Regional, and
State Program personnel as well as waste management firms.
In particular, you ask the Agency’s position on whether any
of the waste categories described in your letter meet the listing
description of Hazardous Waste Nos. F021, F027, or KOOl. At the
present time, the KOOl listing includes those sludges that are
generated from treatment of wastewaters produced from wood
preserving processes using pentachlorophenol or creosote; the
F021 listing includes those wastes generated from PCP
manufacturing; and the F027 listing includes unused formulations
of PC? ( i.e. , the F027 listing does not include those
formulations which are used, such as those which have been
contacted with wood curing wood preservation processes (pressure,
vacuum, or non-pressure processes) or surface protection
processes (antisapstain or sapstain control processes). The word
“used” would apply to the material that remains in the process
vessel after the wood has been treated.
Pentachlorophenol which is impregnated in treated wood
( e.g. , posts, poles, and railroad ties), as mentioned in your
letter also does not meet the F027 description for unused
formulation. Also, dirt contaminated with PC? would not meet the
listing description, unless the contamination were the result of
a spill of unused PCP. In addition, the bottom sludge cleaned
out of dip tanks does not meet the KOOl listing description.
Therefore, none of these wastes, except as indicated, are
currently listed hazardous wastes. As a result, these wastes are
not subject to the land restrictions program that was promulgated
on November 8, 1986 (see enclosure). With respect to the PCP—
contaminated sorbent pillows additional information would be
needed ( i.e. , the ways in which they are used, whether they are
part of the wastewater treatment system, etc.) before an answer
could be provided on its regulatory status.
This has been retyped from the original document .
-------
While these wastes are not listed at this time, the Agency
is currently developing regulations for wood preservation and
surface protection residuals which may list these additional
wastes as hazardous. Until that time, however, I agree with you
that good practice requires that these wastes be managed in a
responsible manner ( i.e. , as though they were hazardous under
RCRA).
Finally, you should be aware that the States may have a
regulatory program that is 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.
Thank you for your interest and concern in this area.
Please feel free to contact Mr. Robert Scarberry at (202)
382-4769 if you [ have] any further questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: Solid waste Management Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNiTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOp
9444 • 198 7(30)
JIl. 211981
!r. James Charley
Fnv ronmenta1 Enaineer
New United PAotor Planufacturjna
455OC Fremont Poulevard
Frezont, California 94538
Dear Mr. Charley:
This is in response to your letter of June 1, 1987, in
which you request confir, ation of the proner classification of
used “paint thinner” and whether such solvent wastes are subject
to the November 7, 1986, land disposal restrictions final rule.
Specifically, you referred to a solvent blend called “paint
thinner” which before use contains 80 percent xylene, 9 percent
toluene, and 11 percent glycol ethers.
In your letter, concurrence is requested with respect to
three specific questions. These questions are reststed below
and followed by th. appropriate response.
1. “Are we correct in classifyina this waste as a DOOl rat)er
than as a F003.or P005 waste?”
—— Although this solvent is used for it. solvent properties,
it would not be correctly classified as an FO01-=t O05 spent
solvent. In order for the waste to meet the criteria of a
spent solvent mixture/blend, the solvent must incli., e, before
use, a total of ten percent or more of solvent constituents
covered under Hazardous Waste numbers POOl, P002, P004, and
P005. Where a solvent mixture/blend (before use) contains
an F003 listed solvent (i.e., zylene) and FOOl, P002, P004, awl
P005 solvent constituents, it would not constitute a listed
hazardous waste unless the total of all FOOl, P002, P004 and
P005 constituent. ..t the ten percent threshold. Since the
concentration of toluene (an P005 listed solvent) in th . solvent
blend. before use, is only 9 percent, th. resultant waste stream
would not constitute an P00l—F005 spent solvent mixture/blend.
The waste “paint thinner” would be correctly classified as a
DOOl hazardous waste if it exhibits the characteristic of
ignitability.
iUS—4 7-I 3
-------
2. “Are we correct in stating that this waste is not restricted
under the November 8, 1986 final rule on land disposal?”
—— The hazardous wastes prohibited from land disposal effective
November 8, 1986, include the PO0l—F005 aDent solvents and cert jn
dioxin—containing wastes. Since the paint thinner” waste addressed
in your letter does not constitute a waste covered by the soent
solvent listings, you are correct in assertina that this waste
would not be subject to the November 7, 1986 final rule (51 FR
40572). If this waste stream exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability), it will
be subject to the land disposal restrictions when the Aaeney
promulgates treatment standards for characteristic wastes by th
May 1990, statutory deadline.
3. “If this waste is restricted, are there any variances orovided?
Specifically
a) Soil contaminated with this waste.
b) Shop rags contaminated with this waste.
The waste described above is not restricted from land disposal.
However, if it were a restricted waste (i.e., an rool—roos spent
solvent), the only applicable variances are the following 1) a
24—month statutory exemption (i.e., until November 8, lgRR) from
the land disposal prohibitions for solvent—containing soils aenerated
from Comprehensive Environmental Response, Comoensation, and T4aPiilitv
Act (CERCLA) response actions and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) corrective actions 2) solvent—water mixtur.s, solvent—
containing sludges or solids, or solvent contaminated soils
(non—CERCLA or RCRA corrective action) which contain less than
1% total F00l—P005 solvent constituents or 3) solvent—containina
wastes fror small quantity generators of 100—1000 kg/month.
Soil and shop rage contaminated with solvents are only subject
to a 2—year nationwide variance if they meet at least one of
the above criteria.
I hope this information adecuately adiressea your concerns.
Please feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at
(202) 475—6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Neil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Pranch
-------
— — — — — • I II — I SIfl t I — • — • — — I 1.
9444. 1987(31)
JL2$ T
Ms. Shirlee Schiffman, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous Waste Regulation
and Classification
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, L f 08625
Dear Me. Schiffaan,
This is in response to your letter of June 10. 1987, in
which you requested our interpretation en several issues invoiving
electroplating rinsewaters. Specifically, you requested confirmation
of your conclusions drawn as a result of your telepnone conversa-
tions with Mr. David Topping, of my staff. in addition, you
requested our answers to five specific questions relating to the
hazardous waste/non—hazardous waste status of used ion exchange
resins that were used to treat electroplating rinsewa ers.
First, I would like to respond to the two questionz you
discussed with M x. David Topping. in particular, I agree with
your conclusions that: 1) zinsewaters from electroplating opera-
tions were not meant to be included— the Y009 listiny (spent
stripping and cleaning-bath solutions from electroplatinc opera-
tions where cyanide. are used in the process), and 2) x”; ’ uaj
aroplets of stripping, cleaning, or electroplating solutions
present on the metal would not. make the rinsewaters hawdous by
the mixtuxe xule when the metal parts are zineed of t. In the
first case, rinsewaters are not conaiaez,d spent stripping or
cleaning bath solutions; in the second case, trace amounts of
plating bath solutions that are carried over to rinse tanks are
not considered to be a solid waste mixing with another solid
waste. These material, are in use and are not wastes until they
are spent and removed frosi tne process. The remaining questions
will be answered in the same order that they are presented in your
letter $
1. Yáuz first question asks can a wastewater treatment
system which only is treating a non-hatardous electro-
plating waste (such as zinsewatszs) produce an F006
listed hazardous waste? The answer to this question
is yes; the sludge from the treatment of electroplating
wastewater contains toxic metals at concentration many
times higher than their concentration in the wdstewaters
theisivies. s v nu eu
i sL. . J.aLing tinsewate s n 9 opeci .Lrs eu
—— S• IJ
-------
in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D, they may exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic (EP toxicity) under 41) C1’R 261
Subpart C for certain toxic metals.
2. Your second question asks would an ion excnange
canister which has been used to capture metala and
cyanide from non—hazardous electroplating rineewater
only, be considered to contain wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating operations (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. P006)? The answer to this question also is
yes. Sectaon 260.10 of 40 CFR defines sludges as TM any
solid, semi—solid, or liquid wasts generated from a
aunicpa l, commercial, or industrial wastewatex treatiuet t
plant, water supply treatment plant, or effluent from
a wastewatex treatment plant. Thus, any residuals
generated from treatment of wastewatars from electro-
plating operations for pollution control wouLu be
considered an P006 listed waste.
3. Your third question asks ia the ion exchange lesin,
which is similar in function to activated carbon ( i.e. ,
used to remove pollutant, from wastewaters), considered
a ‘sludge’ in this situation? Once again, the answer
is yes f or the • me reason given above.
4. Your fourth question asks do rinsewatera from electro-
plating operations fall within the scope of any listed
hazardous wa ste s? The answer to this question is no;
electroplating zinsewaters are not a listed hazardous
waste under 40 CFR 261, Subpart D. However, as I
indicated earlier, electroplating rinsewaters may
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic under 40 CFR
261, Subpart C.
5. Your fifth question asks does the ‘mixture rule’
apply to rinsewater. from electroplating operations due
to tne presence of ‘residual dxoplet.’ of stripping,
cleaning, or electroplating soiutiona? This question
was answered previously.
If you have further questions relating to this subject,
please feel fre, to call Mr. Edwin F. Abrams at (202) 3& 2—47b7.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization branch
-------
- .......
9444.1987(31a)
Mr. Sirma
Raynark Industrial Division
1204 Darlington Avenue
Crawiordsvills, Indiana 47933
Dear Mr. Sir anss
After our revi.v of Rayoarks d.]isting petitiOn (00627)
su itt .d to the Ag.ncy on August 16, 1985. and of addttio al
thfornation supplied in support of the petition, tb. Variances
S.ct ion baa established that P.aynark’ s vast. does not si.et the
corrected listing d.scription for Y 062 vests. publishd on
S.pt.ith.r 22. 1986 (51 FR 33612), whiCh an4.d the F 062 l istiuq
pranulgat.d on Itay 28, 1986 (51 FR 19320). The listing D
r.f.rs to pickl. liquor generated by steel finishing operations
of facilities within th. iron and .t..1 industry (SIC Codes 331
and 332). Sinc, you have id.ntified your etching processes $ 5
being classified under SIC Codes 3465 and 3449. your waste pickle
Liquor is not a listed hasard as vast, and may b managed as a
solid waste under Subtitle D regulations. Your p.titiOn is.
therefore, moot•d, and vs have closed your file. Please be
renirided that your waits must still be tested periodically to
verify that it does not demonstrate any of the charaCt sriStiC i of
hasardous vast..
Should you have any questions regarding our evaluation.
pleas. contact Scott Ilaid, of my staff, at (202) 382—4783.
Sincerely.
Myiss Morse • Chief
Variances 8.ctioa
cc, A11.ft Dsbsa, EPA Req. V
William Mune, EPA *.q. V
Ran Br...r, EPA 1.9. V
-------
UNlT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO 1 .4 AGENCY
9444. 1987(33)
AUG 25 1981
Mr. William S. Harer -
CHEM-CLEA
992 Old Eagle School Road
Suite 915
Wayne, PA 19087
Dear Mr. Harer:
I am responding to your letter of May 12, 1987, requesting
an interpretation regarding the regulatory status of a waste
generated by one of your clients. Specifically, your client
requested a ruling on a waste that is generated by caustic
rinsing metal parts that had been cleaned with a solvent
containing over 10%, by volume, trichioroethylene.
The Agency does not consider small amounts of solvent
carried over on the metal parts from solvent degreasing to meet
the listing description of a spent solvent. Therefore, if any
solvent is carried over into the caustic rinse water, the
mixture rule would not be applicable. Thus, the caustic rinse
would only be a hazardous waste if it exhibited one of the
hazardous waste characteristics [ ignitabiljty, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity]. Since your
caustic rinse water does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, as was demonstrated by your client’s analytical
results, the caustic rinse water would not be considered a
hazardous waste under the Federal hazardous waste regulations.
If you require additional information, please contact Ed
Abrams at (202) 382—4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
CHEMi L ®
SUITE 915 • 992 OLD EAGLE SCHOOL ROAD 0 WAYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 19087 . (215) 687 899O
May 12, 1987
Mr. Matthew Stauss
Branch Chief
WH—5628 461 M Sr. SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Stauss:
ChetnClear is a hazardous waste treatment firm. A customer contacted
ChemClear for guidance regarding waste characterization, which I referred to
Bob Scarberry of your staff.
According to the customer, metal parts are degreased in a solvent mixture:
that is over 10% by volume trichioroethylene. Following degreasing, the parts
are dried to evaporate the solvent and then rinsed in an agitated caustic bath
(pH < 12.5) to remove metal shavings. The customer requested a ruling as to
whether or not the caustic rinse is hazardous waste. Analytical results show
that the caustic rinse is not characteristically hazardous. Mr. Scarberry
indicated that if the solvent is evaporated prior to the caustic rinse, then
the waste rinse water is not a listed waste. CheinClear would like to receive
confirnation of that ruling.
If you have any further questions regarding the wastestream, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
A) J
William S. Harer
Environmental Engineer
WSH/dmp
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
. : r ,
9444 • 1987(34)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENc
W1ISNINGTO 0 C. 2 46O
i F 4
O ’ ICEOF
I A SOLID WAS E *P D EMERGENCY RESPO I.S
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Disposal of Wastes from the Environmental Chemistry
Laboratory in Bay,.St. •,Louis, 1 Mississippi
/
FROM: Ziarcia E. Wi11iams,j ’irb tbt, •
Office of Solid Waste ,(WH—562)
I
TO: Allen L. Jennings, Director
Benefits and Use Division (TS—768—C)
This is in response to your July 1, 1987, memorandum in which
you requested our reaction and guidance on your plans to dispose
of wastes generated by the Office of Pesticide Program’& Environ-
mental Chemistry Laboratory (ECL), located in Bay St. L*. is,
Mississippi. ECL analyzes environmental. samples trace levels
(ppm, ppb) of pesticides, herbicides, and related compounds, and
ultra trace levels (ppt) of chlorinated dioxina. You presently
have fifteen 35—gallon drums of miseellaneous labcratoiy wastes
contaminated with low levels of dioxin and the equivalent of
another seventy-five 35—gallon drums of environmental samples;
these drums are currently being stored in freezers and other
storage areas at ECL.
As a result of your July 24 meeting with my staff, it is my
understanding that the wastes in question are not the listed dioxin—
containing wastes under RCRA (40 CFR 261.31) and as such are not
subject to the special management requirements for the listed
dioxin wastes. These wastes, however, are likely to contain low
levels of dioxin. and as such should be managed with care. High
temperature incineration is an appropriate means of disposal. We,
therefore, •nco rage you to proceed with your proposal to send
your laboratory wastes to ThermalKEM for incineration at their
interim status fixed hearth, dual chamber, high temperature unit
in Rock liii, South Carolina.
If you have and further questions, please feel free to con-
tact me.
-------
9444.1987(36
UNITED STATE EPW’ ONMENTAL P OTEC’rION A
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410
III?P T
o ’icio.
$0 1.10 W*SY1 AND SMINQINCY NWON$
MEMORANDUM
SUBJEC’r: Listing Program’s decision on Chevron Chemical
Com ny’s waste from Tower 201 in their polystyrene
production process in Marietta, Ohio.
FROM: Matthew A. Straus
TO: Steve Hirsch
On July 28, you met with Barry Miliman (Dynamac), my staff,
and me, to discuss Region V’s request for assistance in deter-
mining whether Chevron Chemical Company generates an P005 waste
in Tower 201 in their polystyrene production proces. in Marietta,
Ohio. I assigned Chuck Lawhead tsith the task of gathering the
information necessary to enable us to make a decision. On
August 4, he submitted to me a summary of the arguments relevant
to the issue, as we defined it in the meeting mentioned above.
(See attached memo) The decisioti a which we arrived te out-
lined below. If you have any quoationa or comments, p1e se sub-
mit them to me by August 26. We intend to write George l mper
(Region V) to inform him of our decision.
Listinq Program’s Decision on the Chevron Issue :
The Listing Program has decided that toluene is used as a sol-
vent in Chevron Chemical Company’s polystyrene production process
and, therefore, that waste from Tower 201 is the listed hazardous
waste, P005, still bottoms from the recovery of spent toluene.
This decision was made, based on the following information:
1. In a document submitted by Squire, Sanders, and Dempsey
on behalf of Chevron, it was stated that the toluene
as a diluent’ in the process. The toluene
is also used as a carrier, or diluent, for the additives
which are used in the process.
2. Both styrene and toluene are recovered in Tower 201,
they are separated from the tars in this column. There-
fore, the waste generated at this point in the process
qualify as still bottoms from the recovery of spent
toluene, an P005 waste.
-------
—2-
3. The Closed loop recycling process exemption does not
apply to this process.
4. Chevron made several arguments that have not been ad-
dressed by this decision. We feel that the (3) deter-
minations above resolve the issue by themselves.
Sup rt for the decision :
1. Peter Oxenbol of Chevron Chemical Company commented that the
term, ”d.il ent’ had been used by them before th ealized
that C. carried u1q..F— such a weighty connotation (lkLLLLi
use as a diluent constitutes use as a solvent.) He sug-
gested that a different word or description could be
used which would not be as sensitve as the work ‘dilu—
entu. The definit p ,g the word udLluent , however,
is quite clear, an’d, it was chosen previously as a
accurate description of the role that toluene plays in
the reaction. Chevron wishes to use a different word
now, but toluene’s function will not be changed by
doing so.
2. Of the feed that enters Tower 201, roughtly 83% is unreacted
styrene and 4% is toluene and they are both separated,
together, from the tars in the column. Toluene may not be
the major component in the feed stream to the column, but
it is nonetheless being recovered at this point in the
separated from the styrene.
3. The Federal Register excerpt on the closed loop recycling
process reads as follows: It should be noted thal under
today’s rule, although secondary materials stored in
closed—loop reclamation processes that fit within the
exclusion of S261.4(a)(8) are not solid waste, wastes from
their management are solid wastes. Thus, still bottoms
from solvent reclamaton in a no exclusion applies for
anoth.r reason, and can be hazardous wastes if they are
idntified or listed. In this regard, the Agency notes
tMt many still bottoms from solvent reclamation are listed
vistis, as ar. the residual spent solvents themselves
( azardous Wastes P001—005).’ (51 FR 25443)
4. Chevron’s other arguments, that toluene is present in the waste
in the in only de minimis quantities, that toluen. ‘is an
essential ingredient in the process from a kinetic stand—
point, etc., became moot pints because it was decided
that the waste was the listed waste, P005.
Attachments: C 1 )
-------
UNØB $‘PAYIS ISSI IEMTaI. PlCTICT .A 94441
,; R. ’. Z.ci Lk, Ih.b.
T.chnical Manager
American chrcs. and Chemicals, Inc. ‘. ‘ 9
Buddy Lawrence Drive
P.O. Box 9l3
Corpus Christi, TX 78469
ar Mr. Barnharts
This letter is in respons. to your July 13, 1987 inquiry
regarding the status of the K006 wastes and the Onsjte disDosal
unit containing these wastes at your Corpus Chriatj facility.
As mentioned in your letter, these wait.. received a temporary
exclusion on May 25, 1982. Based on our evaluation of the
information sub jtt.d in support of your petition, however,
the temporary exclusion for this wait, was revoked and a final
exclusion denied on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 41320 -41321) with
an effectiv, date of May 14, 1987.
The State of Texas has been authorized by EPA to administer
and enforce a hazardous vast, management program pursuant to
Section 3006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. $6926. In light of the State’s
authority, the future status of this disposal unit should be
determined by the Texas Water Commission. This will ensure that
the use of th. unit vi ] ], b. commensurat, with ongoing and planned
waste management r.quiremen s at the facility.. IrL.a similar-
manner, if this unit is to close in th. futur., all closure
requiremen should be det•rmjned by the Commission.
I hope this explanation has addressed all of your concerns
regarding th. status of your petitioned wastes and the on —site
disposal unit in which they are contained. Should you have any
further questions concerning the Federal regulatory cemplianc.
for the petitioned waste, pl.as. feel fr.. to contact Suzanne
Rudzingkj of the Office of Solid Waits at (202)382—4206.
Sinc.r.ly,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Allyn f vt , legion VI Div. Dir.
Lee Has , Region VI listing Contact
Sam Becker, Region VI M nforc.mmnt Contact
Randy Brown, Region VI I& Branch Chiof
Bill Honk.r, Region fl mete..
-------
9444 .1987(37a)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
AUGUST
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
1987
8. Definition of Solid Waste and Reclamation
A distributor of a U—listed commercial chemical
product finds that the product is no longer saleable
(for example, it is past is shelf life). If the
distributor ships it back to the manufacturer for
reclamation, the material is not a solid waste under 40
CFR 261.2 because listed commercial chemical products
are not solid wastes when reclaimed. However, in many
cases the manufacturer will not know whether the
material can be reclaimed until a sample is analyzed.
Could the distributor ship the entire lot back to the
manufacturer, while not knowing whether the material was
a solid waste?
Yes. The distributor can ship the entire lot back
to the manufacturer, while not knowing whether the
material was a solid waste. There are no
provisions in the RCRA regulations restricting
shipments of commercial chemical products.
Technically, it remains a commercial chemical
product until such time as they are discarded or
intended to be discarded (Section 261.2 and Section
261.33). This decision is made by the
manufacturer. The U—listed commercial chemical
product would still be shipped pursuant to
applicable DOT and U.S. Postal Service regulations.
It would not need to be manifested as a hazardous
waste.
-------
9444.1987(38)
September 1, 1987
MEMORANDUN
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director (WH—562)
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Director
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
Our office has reviewed the information you provided in your
July 29th memo, in which you requested an interpretation of 40
CFR 261, as it applies to a still bottom waste generated during
the production of polystyrene at the Chevron Chemical Company,
Marietta, OH. We have decided that toluene is used as a solvent
in the process; therefore, the tower 201 still bottoms are a F005
hazardous waste that is generated during the recovery of spent
toluene.
The following information was used to make our decision and
to address the concerns outlined in your memo.
1. In a document submitted by Squire, Sanders, and Dempsey
on behalf of Chevron, it was stated that the toluene is
“added as a diluent” in the process. The toluene is also
used as a carrier, or diluent, for the additives which
are used in the process. The property of a RCRA solvent
is the ability to solubilize, or to act as a diluent.
2. Both styrene and toluene are recovered in Tower 201; they
are separated from the tars in this column. Therefore,
the waste generated at this point in the process are
still bottoms from the recovery of spent toluene, and
F005 waste.
3. The closed loop recycling process exemption does not
apply to this process. (See attached discussion)
4. Chevron made several arguments (e.g., the waste is not
ignitable and, consequently, not hazardous; the waste
does not contain toluene) that have not been addressed by
this decision. We feel that the three determinations
above resolve the issue of, whether the material in
question is hazardous waste.
This has been retyped from the or gina1 document .
-------
Additional discussion on items 1—4 :
1. Peter Oxenbol of Chevron Chemical Company commented that
the term “diluent” had been used by them before they
realized that it has carried with it such a weighty
connotation (that use as a diluent constitutes use as a
solvent.) He suggested that a different word or
description could be used which would not be as sensitive
as the word “diluent”. The definition of the word
“diluent”, however, is quite clear, and it was chosen
previously as an accurate description of the role that
toluene plays in the reaction. Chevron wishes to use a
different word now, but toluene’s function will not be
changed by doing so.
2. Of the feed that enters Tower 201, roughly 83% is
unreacted styrene and 4% is toluene. They are both
separated, together, from the tars in the column.
Toluene may not be the major component in the feed stream
to the column, but it is nonetheless being recovered at
this point in the separation from the styrene.
3. The Federal Reaister excerpt on the closed loop recycling
process reads as follows: “It should be noted that,
under today’s rule, although secondary materials stored
in closed-loop reclamation processes that fit within the
exclusion of §261.4(a) (8) are not solid waste, wastes
from their management are solid wastes. Thus, still
bottoms from solvent reclamation, if an exclusion applies
for another reason, can be hazardous wastes if they are
identified or listed. In this regard, the Agency notes
that many still bottoms from solvent reclamation are
listed wastes, as are the residual spent solvents
themselves (Hazardous Wastes FO01-005).” (FR Vol. 51, No.
134, 25443).
4. Chevron’s other arguments, that toluene is present in the
waste in only de ininimis quantities, and that toluene “is
an essential ingredient in the process from a kinetic
standpoint”, etc., became moot points because it was
decided that the waste was the listed waste, F005.
If you wish to discuss the above in further detail, please
call Yvonne Garbe on FTS 4/5—66/9 of my staff.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1987(39)
S 2! T
Mr. John S. Ramsey
Hazardous Waste Section
Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Topeka, KS 66620—0001
Dear Mr. Ramsey:
This is in response to your recent letter which requested a
clarification of the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste 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”. In particular, you were concerned with the
regulatory status of wastewater generated from this production
process.
In a recent telephone conversation, I concurred with your
interpretation that this exclusion applies only to vaz’tawaters from
hydrogen chloride purification. However, after reeear.ching the
issue, I learned that no wastewater is generated from 1 y”product HC1
purification and that the Agency had intended the 3xclusion to apply
to all process wastewaters.
I apologize for this hasty determination. As you indicated in
your letter, an EPA memorandum dated March 29, 1985, also clarifies
that the RCRA “Dioxin” listing specifically excludes wastewaters
resulting from the PCP manufacturing operations. I hope that my
error has not inconvenienced you in any way.
If you require additional information, please teel free to
contact ma or Ed Abrama of my staff at (202) 382—4787.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Scarb.rry
Chief, Listing Section
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
9444.1987(40)
WASHINGTON. D.C. Z0460
OFFICE O
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SEP 9 j’ 81
Mr. Alfred A. L evin
Manager
Toxics Substances Control
Velsjcol Chemical Corporation
5600 River Road
Rosemont, IL 60018—5119
Dear Mr. Levin: -
This is in response to your letter of July 16, 1987, regard
ing whether certain materials contaminated with the registered
pesticides, chlordane and heptachlor would be considered hazardous
wastes. s stated in your letter, professional pesticide applica-
tors dilute the concentrated pesticides and apply them for ise to
control structural termites.
You describe three scenarios that result In the contamination
of materials due to the accidental spilling or over—application of
these pesticides. In the first scenario, the pesticide solution
is applied around a home with a swimming pool. Water from the
swimming pool moves through cracks in the pool’s wall and enters
the soil. Soil contaminants then move out of the soil into the
pool. The pesticide was then discovered to have migrated into
the pool. You want to know whether the water in the pool (when
discarded) is a hazardous waste. s stated in 40 CFR 26].(d)(1)(3),
listed commercial chemical products are not iastes when applied
to land if that is their normal manner of use. Since the contami-
nation of the pool water resulted from the normal use of the
pesticide aa a product, rather than from its disposal, the pool
water is not hazardous waste via the mixture rule.
In the second scenario, a professional applicator spills
some of the pesticide outside on the grass (soil) away from the
intended site of application, creating a very low—level contami-
nation of the sod. He collects the contaminated soil and you
wish to know whether it is a hazardous waste. The contaminated
soil that is collected is a hazardous waste; disposal is defined
at 40 CFR 260.10 to include spilling any solid or hazardous
waste into or on any land. Under 40 CFR 261.33(d), hazardous
-------
—2—
wastes are deftned to include contaminated soil or debris resulting
from the cleanup of spill on any land of listed commercial chem-
ical products, which includes chiordane and heptachior. Thus,
the contaminated soil is subject to regulation provided you exceed
the small quantity generator limit ( ., clean up more than 100
kg in a calendar month). If you clean up less than 100 kg per
month, you are subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 261.5(f)
(for heptachlor) or (g) for chlordane.
In the third scenario, a professional applicator either over—
applies or spills the pesticide, resulting in a residue on the
carpet or wallboard of a house. You want to know whether the
contaminated carpet and wallboard, after they are removed, are
hazardous wastes. Regardless whether it is spilled or overapplied,
contaminated carpet or wallboard should be safely managed. Depen-
ding on the individual circumstances, sound management i8 required
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (?t A)
or RCRA. First, if the contaminated carpet or wallboard results
from overapplication of the pesticide, the carpet or wallboard
would not be a hazardous waste, since the contamination resulted
from the use of the pesticide. This would be a violation of
FIPRA, however, and the Agency could take proper action under
FIPRA to ensure safe disposal. On the other hand, if the carpet
or wallboard became contaminated as a result of spilling the
pesticide, the carpet or wallboard (after they are removed)
would be a hazardous waste, since this would be considered disposal
of the pesticides. The cleanup of this debris would be covered
by 40 CFR 261.33(d), as discussed above for the second scenario.
In response to your inquiry into the possibility of a delist—
ing of the dilute wastes generated by professional applicators,
we believe it is most appropriate to evaluate these materials on
a spill—specific basis. These materials can vary in hazardous
constituent concentrations, waste volumes, an exposure scenarios.
Consequently, we believe it is inappropriate to promulgate a
generic exclusion for spill residues and related materials.
You also requested the Agency’s advice as to what information,
in addition to the requirements discussed in the Delisting Guid-
ance Document, would be useful for the evaluation of petitions
to delist dilute solutions or minimum concentrations of chiordane
and heptchlor. One requirement which is not listed in the current
-------
—3—
guidance document is that four quarters of ground water monitoring
data from a compliant system under SubDart F must be submitted
by the petitioner for any on—site land—based management unit.
Other available data which you submit will be considered, but be
aware that the current Agency licy is that del.isting is waste—
specific, and site—specific factors (i.., intended management,
local hydrogeo]ogic attenuation properties) are generally not
considered.
If you have additional questions, please feel free to cal].
Me. Wanda LeBleu—Biswas, of my staff, at (202) 382—7392.
Sincerely yours,
Marc Wil1iams
Dire tqt
1 Offic of Solid Waste
-------
9444.1987(41)
Ms. Sharon Rilimey
Regulatory Coordinator
Colonial Printing Ink Corporation
1BO East Union Avenu.
East Rutherford, P1 w Jersey O7( 73
Dear Ms. Ril1mer
This responds to your Aucust 4, l9 7, letter reauostjna
clarification of the EPA Pazardous Waste Plui,her for your waste
from in formulation. You are uncertain whether the .p.nt
solvents contained In the vast, stream an, included under tt e
K086 listing, or also must be designated as an pflOi -p spent
solvent.
Au stated in an earlier phone conversation, there lii no
question that Your waste elite the deserjpt ion for EPA N&z.rd s
waste Number 0A6 pursuant to 40 CPR 261.32. wev.r, mu the
background document for the U ) 6 listing (entitled o qround
Document Resource Conservation and Recovery P ct Subtitle C
Identification and Listing of Razardous Wase.) states.
if these solvents are used in ink formulation •r d are
di pos.d of, they are consleiered hazardous wastes unde the
•arlier listino as well as the present listira.’ Tr ret’ore,
should your waste also meet the description. for the P0fl1. -pOo
spent solvent wastes, your vast. must be designated as ore (or
more) of th. P00l-P005 hazardous wastes, as veil as beine
designated as
Absent the X016 listing, most wastes from ink formulation
would be listed only as POOl -POOS spent solvents, though not
necessarily (not all 0 6 wastes contain the listed spent sol-
vents, and therePore, would floe be liut.d as eucPW ovever,
the solvent listings do not address the eonutitue ta of concern
in th. ink formulation wastes (i.•, lead and hs av.lent chromium).
Therifore, ths K086 listing is reauired to address this. eon-
stituents of concern, and the P-listing is neoulrmd to address
the spent solvents whin appropriate.
In our initial discussions on the proper d . ianation for
your wastes, the assumption was that the EO 6 waste also contained
spent £005 solvent constituents. If this was the case, both
-------
the p086 and P005 d.signatione would be r.quf red. ove.er,
upon further investigation, ft was aseirt.jn.d that the •ol..nt
of concern is a mixtur, of cycloh.xanon. (an P003 solvent) and
a naphtha solvent.
A solvent mixture containing cyclohexanone would be
designated as P003 when spent only if, before us., the mixture
contains only the solvents listed und.r P003, or a total of 10%
or sore (by volu,.) of th. solvents included under the POOl,
P002, P004, and ØØ listings. ecaui. the cyclohexanone used
in your process is mixed with only a non P00l—P 05 solvent, the
waste cannot be designated as an P003.
Therefore, your waste would only be desiqnated as
without a designation for the solvent constituents. The solvent
designation is not included because the solvent, befor. use, does
not meet the criteria for the £003 listing (not because the
solvents an, included in the xos listing).
t hope this has clarified the classification of your waste.
Should you have any questions or need further information, pleas.
feel free to call at (202) 3S2 4S05.
Sincerely,
pitch Ki .ll
Pnvironmental Protection Specialist
-------
9444 • 1987(42)
‘ P Z$i
Jill . blunoon
oppera Company, Inc.
Legal ecvics•
4J eVSnth Ave.
h itts0ucgh, U 1 2l9
o.ac is. lundon;
Zn your July 10, l O Letter, you r.que.t written coariran—
tion or ne regulatory status uno.t tni Masourc. Conservation an4
a.oov.sy Act ot s.v.raL aunstanc.s containing c lotopDinoLic
coipounos.
virst, you r.queat clariricatioa 01 tnw regulatory atus 01
tn. coaarciai proøuct soztane•, a rorauLation tnat is lc Dy
toppers as an anti—staining aat.riaL tot iu aosc (surxaco prøt.ction
agent). sy statt nsa contirned in convers&tIo3s wits y t aat
p.ntscb loropn.no l is tn. sol. active iagteai.nt at tais r lation.
oiacarasa unused zorauLstlons of p.ntacbiorop n.noi, such Sc.
MOZtsDe• ate listod hanarcous wastes under vart 4e 1.il o the
Code of federal t•gu.Latiens, asasLy &#A Masarooun wast, no. ii)27
(Di.caro.d unusso toraulatioss containing tn—, t.tra—. or
p.ntacnloropnsnol, or discarden unusea ronaulations containing
compound. denivee trot t sse cnloropnenoLs).
s.cos.. you zeq a.at cianitication 0* ths r.giaLstocy status or
wood clips 150 sawousl derived trot vooo which nsa neon treat.c
witS peata 1oropflosoL Imostane•). rh... woou cnip Inc sawaust
vast. ins 0 currently listed as asaroous waste unoer either
D*gt 2S1.flss 2il.3 S. TbeceZo , tans. wastes dou.Lo D a*.ignat.c
as hazardous under £G IIA only U tSS7 •zaiDttsd on. or more or in.
cflaractutsUcs unoin uup.rt C at Datt 2*1.
-------
-2—
You should be aware that the Office of Solid Waste is
currently considering listing as hazardou, a number of wastes
from processes which use chiorophenolic compounds to prevent the
staining of wood Including spent formulations as well as sawdust
and planar shavings. Although these wastes are not currently listed
as hazardous wastes, they do contain hazardous constituents and I
recommend that you dispose of them in an environmentally safe manner.
Finally, you inquire whether wood chips and sawdust is
prohibited under EPA regulations. Unless the mat•rials exhibit
a characteristic of hazardous waste 1 then there an, no EPA regula-
tions that prohibit their disposal or incineration.
If you have any aueetions, please contact Dr. Cate Jenkins
of my staff at (202) 382—4786.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
944 4 . 198 7 (4 3
o r gi9
Ms. Barbara E. Pace
Hogan & Hartson
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Dear Ms. Pace:
This letter is a response to your August 19, 1987, letter in
which you request an interpretation of 40 CFR Section 261.31 as
it applies to the filter cake waste generated during the produc-
tion of methyldopa at a Merck and Company facility. Based on a
review of the process information that you have provided, we have
determined that the filter cake waste described in your letter is
not a listed spent solvent waste (F005) for the reason stated
below.
The waste in question is generated as a result of filter-
ing the product stream to remove iron. Although toluene is being
used for its solvent properties, (i.e., to mobilize or solubilize
the product), at this point in the process the toluene is not
spent. Thus, the iron cake is neither a residual, from the treat-
ment of a spent solvent nor a mixture of a solid waste and a
spent solvent, but rather a waste that is contaminated with
toluene. Pursuant to the listing background document and the
preamble to the Reaister notice, the Fool through F005
solvent listings do not apply to process waste streams that are
contaminated with solvents.
Please advise your client that our decision is based on the
information provided in your letter and that deviations to the
described process could result in a different interpretation. In
addition, the generator is responsible for testing this waste to
determine if the residual exhibits any RCRA hazardous character-
istics (e.a., corrosivity, toxicity, reactivity, or ignitability)
as defined in 40 CTR Subpart C.
-------
If you wish to discuss this matter further, please call
Yvonne Garbe at (202) 475—6679, or myself at (202) 475—8551.
Sincerely,
Robert Scarberry
cting Branch Chief
c4aste Characterization
Branch
cc: Yvonne Garbe, WCB
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIROWMENTAL P... (ECflo$ AGENCy
9444• 1987(44)
Phillip G. Retallick, Director
Division of Air and Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
State of Delaware
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
Dear Mr. Retallick:
This is in response to your October 1, 1987 letter requesting
EPA’S interpretation of the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste as it
applies to Standard Chlorine’s proposed thermal oxidizer and
hydrodechlorinatjon processes. As you know, a panel of the
District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals held (in a 2-1 deci-
sion) in American Mining Conaress vs EPA , No. 85—1206 (D.C.
dr.), that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority in certain
respects by including within its definition of solid waste
certain types of materials not intended by Congress to be “clis-
carded materials” under RCRA section 1004(27). we are still
studying the court’s opinion and we plan to issue an interpr eta-
tion as to how the EPA regulations are affected by the ruling by
about mid or late November. we cannot comment on how EPA
regulations affecting Standard Chlorine’s processes are affected
by the court’s ruling at this time.
Since Delaware has adopted under State law rules equivalent
to EPA’s, you have asked for an interpretation as to how Standard
Chlorine would be regulated under EPA’s January 4, 1985, rules,
if the court’s opinion did not exist. Based on the materials
that you sent to Mike Petruska in August and September, we have
reached the following conclusions:
Cl) Standard Chlorine’s “polychlor material” is the
distillation bottoms from the production of chlorinated
benzenes, and therefore, is a by-product that meets the
listing description of hazardous waste No. K085. (We do
not agree that these bottoms are a co—product, as
Standard Chlorine claims.)
-------
—2—
(2) The Agency considers both the thermal oxidizer and
hydrodechiorination processes to be forms of reclama-
tion. These processes are designed to recover materials/
products (lluriatic Acid, chlorobenzenes, or benzenes)
from a listed by-product; and under Section 26l.2(c)(4),
this constitutes reclamation.
(3) Pursuant to Section 261.2(c)(3), listed by-products that
are reclaimed are solid wastes.
In sununary, our interpretation under the January 4, 1985
rules would be that the polychior material is a solid waste
when reclaimed using either the thermal oxidizer or the hydrode-
chlorination process, and thus is a hazardous waste subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
If you have further questions in this area, please feel free
to continue to deal with Mike Petruska of my staff, at (202)
382—7729.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9444.1987(47)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20410
p.-— , . , 0F ICE0F
‘ 3 501.10 WASTE AND EME QENCy RESPON
Mr. Michael Mclaughlin
Vice President
SCS Engineers
11260 Roger Bacon Drive
Reston, VA 22090—5282
Dear Mr. Mclaughlin:
This is in response to your letter of September 1, 1987, to
Matt Straus, concerning regulation of supernatant liquid resulting
from treatment of spent pickle liquor (EPA waste K062).
In the situation you have described, the impoundment would be
a regulated unit under RCRA if it stores any supernatant liquid
from the lime-stabilization of waste pickle liquor. The super—
natant forms during clarification of the lime—stabilitecl mixture.
The preamble to the June 5, 1984 R gj e. (49 FR 23284)
states that “. . . sludge from the treatment of spent pickle liquor
(K062) is generated by a well known technique involving lime
neutralization, flocculation, clarification, and, in IiQSt cases,
dewatering of the resultant sludge.
According to Agency policy (see OSWER Directive number
(9441.12184) attached), the exclusion under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)
applies to the sludge generated from the treatment process, but not
the supernatant liquid. Because Section 261.3(c)(2)(ii) does not
address the supernatant portion arising from lime stabilization of
waste pickle liquor, that liquid portion would be derived from
K062, and thus a hazardous waste, per Section 261.3(c)(2)(i). A
surface impoundment holding this supernatant portion would be
subject to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C.
-------
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike
Petrusica of my staff at (202) 382—7729.
Since rely,
M -
Ma1 cja E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC 9444. 1987 (48)
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4L
OFFICE OF
lOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY PESPQNSI
_, ;) 1ci51
Kevin Mouser, R.P.S.
Hazard Materials Specialist
Bureau of vironmenta1 Health
Department of Water Quality and
Hazardous Materials Management
Marion County Health Department
22 East Ohio Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Dear Mr. Mouser:
This is in response to your September 25. 1987, letter to
Matt Straus concerning the dioxin-contaminated oils. This letter
explains the regulatory requirements for the used oil in question,
and then (as you requested) recommends additional managemont
practices you may want to consider.
First, from the information you provided, the contaminated oil
is not an EPA-listed hazardous waste, and would only be a hazardous
waste under RCRA if it exhibits any of the hazardous chara ter-
istics. The only wastes listed as hazardous under RCRA du to the
presence of dioxins are found in 40 CTR 261.31 under the h ., rdous
waste numbers F020—23 and F026-28. Most of the listed dioxth
wastes are manufacturing process wastes; the exception is TQ27
which covers discarded unused formulations containing tn-, tetra-,
or pentachiorophenol or compounds derived from these chloro-
phenols. The waste in question is actually lubricating oil
contaminated with TcDD. The contamination resulted from use of the
TCDD as an analytical standard, rather than from mixing of the oil
with TCDD that is intended for discard. Therefore, the contain-
mated lubricating oil would not meet the F027 listing.
-------
Second, please note that all used oils, whether they are
hazardous by a characteristic or not, are subject to 40 CFR Part
266. Subpart F, if burned for energy recovery (or made into a
fuel). If you decide to manage the oil in some other manner,
however, no EPA regulations apply. You should check with the
appropriate State agency to determine if State regulations
apply.
Finally, you asked for storage and disposal recommenda-
tions. With regard to disposal, the most protective approach
would be to ship the oil to a permitted hazardous waste
incinerator. The regulations that EPA promulgated for small
quantity hazardous waste generators, which are summarized in the
enclosed handbook, contain recommended practices for storage.
(The handbook also includes the address and phone number of the
State regulatory agency in your area.)
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska at (202) 382-7729.
Sincerely
A - ‘ uJ L
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9444.1987(49)
CT26 !C797
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 consultant, Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc.,
EPA’S understanding of the waste generation process is 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 of f site for
proper management as P003 wastes. A light coating or residue
consisting of fragrance oils and trace amounts of solvent remains
on the walls of the vessel. 1FF then washes the vessel out with
soap and water. This waste washwater carrying the oil and
solvent residue then flows to an oil/water separator for
treatment.
Based on this scenario, the Agency’s interpretation is that
the solvent-contaminated washwater is not within the scope of the
Hazardous Waste No. P003 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
wastewater contaminated with solvent constituents. This waste is
very different from a solvent stream that has been used and as a
result of contamination can no longer be used as a solvent
without further processing (see Section 26l.2(c)(1) and 50 ER
53316). It is not the Agency’s intent to regulate water from
washout of a reactor vessel as P003.
-------
—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 ignitability charac-
teristic. According to 40 CFR Section 261.3(c) and (d), 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,
4/
Marcia E. Williams
Director, Office of
Solid Waste
cc: Kurt W itford, N.J. DEP
Sam Eze)cwo
EPA Region II
Air and Hazardous Waste Division
-------
9444.1987(51)
DEC -4
Mr. Joe Berkant
EP C0, Inc.
P.O. Box 2193
East Gadeden, Alabar,a 721 0l
rear FIr. erkar2t:
Based upon our revIew of your original de1i tjng petition
(40583) and additional inforpiatton auhvii ted to e ur office, as
well as irtfor atjon provided In conversations between Xerrn sth
Layton 1 P.C. (Robison & L&yton, Inc.) and Cecil ‘ roea (SAIr,), we
have re—evaluated the processe3 at your plant with respect to
EPA’s recent clarification or the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste
No. P006. On Decenber 2, 1986, a redefinition of the P006
listing was published (see 51 PR £S335C.. 3351) which exemptecc
electz’olees plating processes, ai ong others, from coverage as a
listed hazardous waste. Since external currents are not used in
association with coating processes at your facility, and n o of
the r?anufacturjn roceeeea described in your ;‘ tition tell £nto
the arOup of .rocesaes current]y defined as el troplatjn ,ro—
cesees, we conclude that your wastewater treatrant s1udg a
described in your hetitlon, Is not included wi’ in the ecc pe of
CPA iazardous Waste ‘!o. P006. e, therefore, tre cloMIn your
petition file.
Alt}ioubh your wastewater treatrent sludbe 13 n an PA
listed waste, you are still required to periodically iet€r ir.e
whether the waste exhibits any of the hazardous waste ‘n ao—
terjstica ‘tafined by O C.F.R. Sectiors 2 l.2l 2 1e’fl. In
addition, future roceee chances, it any, coulci cnu e f P e waste
to be Classified as hazardous.
Please call me at (202) 382—1206 if you have nr - 1uesti s
concerning our evaluation.
i’tcerely,
Terrance Gro an, t P fef
Variances Section
cc: Cecil Cross, SAIC
“ricia Herbert, F Aflegion IV
-------
December, 11, 1987 9444.1987(52)
Mr. Jordan Dern
Manager, Environmental Regulatory Programs
Koppers Company, Incorporated
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Dear Mr. Dern:
The Permits and State Programs Division has reviewed your
September 21, 1983 petition (#0528) requesting an exclusion from
regulation for sludges, presently classified as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K035, generated at the Koppers’ Follanabee, West
Virginia facility. We will recommend to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that your
petition be denied. There are two reasons for this
recommendation: (1) groundwater monitoring data indicates that
the subject units and waste may be contaminating groundwater; and
(2) the waste has not been sufficiently characterized to
demonstrate that it is non—hazardous. (Note: We have not
previously requested some of the missing information because of
(a) confusion created by the petition as to which wastes are
treated in the system, and (b) the evolving requirements of the
Delisting Program). The specific bases for our recommendation
are further described below.
However, before further explaining our denial
recommendation, let us first address your contentions that the
waste to be delisted is not subject to regulation.
Your firm contended that its wastewater treatment system
does not generate or treat a listed hazardous waste.
Specifically, you argued that the waste is a sludge generated
from the biological treatment of creosote production wastewaters
and that the K035 listing (wastewater treatment sludges generated
in the production of creosote) is not applicable to this waste
because the listing background document does not include
biological treatment sludges.
The Agency disagrees. The K035 listing background document
specifically includes biological sludges:
2. Creosote Wastewater Treatment Sludge
The wastewater treatment sludges that remain after
biological treatments are also hazardous. The carcinogenic
constituents of creosote, namely benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(a)pyrene, are specifically
likely to be present in the treatment sludge since these
constituents absorb to sediment at very high levels (App.
B). Where treatment is incomplete, creosote (which is,
This has been retyped from the original document .
-------
however, somewhat amenable to biodegradation (App. B), is
projected to be present in the sludge as well. If these
sludges are placed in a leaking landfill, an unlined holding
pond, or an improperly sited facility (i.e., as in an area
with permeable soil), the waste constituents may be
released.”
For this reason, the Agency concludes that the wastewater
treatment sludge generated at the Koppers’ Follanabee, West
Virginia facility is a listed hazardous waste K035.
In addition, your firm contends that the aeration basins are
tanks, not surface impoundments, and are therefore exempt from
regulation under 40 CFR 261.4(c). As explained in the attached
October 11, 1985 letter from Stephen Wasserang (EPA Region III),
EPA examined the structural details of the aeration units and
found that the units do not meet the criteria for tanks.
Therefore, the §261.4(c) exemption does not apply.
Because the units and waste are subject to Subtitle C
regulations, we evaluated the merits of your delisting petition.
As mentioned previously, our evaluation has resulted in our
decision to recommend the denial of your firm’s petition. The
primary basis for this decision is that the submitted groundwater
monitoring data indicates that the waste units may have
contributed to groundwater contamination. Also, we are concerned
about the adequacy of your ground—water monitoring system.
Finally, you did not supply all of the data needed to fully
characterize the waste in the treatment system. We address each
of these concerns in more detail below.
It is EPA’s policy not to exclude any waste until the
petitioner demonstrates that it poses no past or present threat
to the environment. For waste that has been treated, stored or
disposed of in a land—based unit, EPA will investigate the
potential for ground-water contamination. Our policy is to
request four consecutive quarters of groundwater monitoring data
from a groundwater monitoring system meeting the requirements in
the 40 CFR 265, Subpart F. These data must show no exceedance of
regulatory standards.
We reviewed the data that Koppers submitted and concluded
that two of the monitoring systems (wells in the R-A and R-B
series) were not adequate to monitor ground—water quality in the
uppermost aquifer underlying the aeration units because they were
installed in shallow fill materials that are typically dry. The
R-C series wells which are downgradient of the units and the
upgradient A-115 well, although not fully complying with the
Subpart F requirements, can be used to sample the uppermost
aquifer. Koppers submitted two quarters of data from these
wells. Data from the downgradient wells showed concentrations
exceeding background levels for the following hazardous
constituents, which are among those we would expect to find in
This has been retyped from the original document .
-------
K035 waste: cadmium, barium, phenanthrene, benzo(a)—pyrene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1, 2, 3—c,d)pyrene, anthracene,
chryzene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and phenol. In all cases,
concentration levels at the downgradient wells exceeded the
levels of regulatory concerns that EPA uses to evaluate delisting
petitions. In some cases wells at the background (upgradient)
well also exceeded these delisting levels. Moreover, the
downgradient wells also showed higher concentrations of TOC, pH,
and specific conductants, three of the four general indicators of
ground—water contamination measured under the Subpart F
monitoring requirements. Appendix I presents these data in
greater detail.
We discussed the need for data on ground—water contamination
with representatives of Koppers in 1986. At that time, we
focused primarily on a CERCLA action that addressed ground-water
problems at a different part of the facility. We were concerned
that releases from the wastewater treatment units might be
contributing to that problem. In response to our letter of March
1986, Koppers submitted information intended to show that the
wastewater treatment units were not contributing to the ground-
water contamination subject to the CERCLA response. We have
serious questions about this demonstration. More significantly,
that demonstration provides no basis for us to conclude that the
wastewater units are not contributing to the contamination closer
to the units at the three R—C series wells. Because samples from
these wells contained a large number of constituents frequently
found in K035 waste, and because the wells are located
downgradient of the units, we have tentatively concluded that the
units are contributing to the contamination at those wells.
Accordingly, we must recommend that the Agency deny your
petition.
Furthermore, as mentioned briefly above, none of the wells
in the vicinity of the aeration units fully complies with the
monitoring standards in Part 265, subpart F. For example, two of
the monitoring systems (the initial R series and the RR series)
were installed in fill materials that are typically dry, and have
been determined to be inadequate for monitoring groundwater
quality in the uppermost aquifer underlying the aeration units.
EPA ’s current delisting policy also requires us to recommend
denial of your petition on this basis.
Finally, we must again recommend denial because your
petition does not fully characterize the wastes in the wastewater
treatment units. Without a complete understanding of the
composition and nature of these wastes we not exclude these
wastes or associated treatment units from regulation under the 40
CFR Parts 262 through 268 and 270. Each of these deficiencies
discussed below.
First, Koppers requested that the waste in all units of the
wastewater treatment systems (i.e., 2 aeration basins and 1
This has been retyped from the original document .
-------
clarifier) be delisted. Among other things, delisting procedures
require that the petitioner (1) properly sample and characterize
the waste in all units seeking delisting; and (2) analyze the
waste for factors (including constituents other than those for
which the waste was listed) which may cause the waste to be
hazardous. The Koppers petition is significantly deficient in
both these areas.
Koppers provided sampling data only for the waste in the
clarifier, We do not consider the samples taken from the
clarifier to be representative of the waste that accumulated in
the two aeration basins because potentially hazardous organic
residues (that may be more dense than the wastewater) may be
settling out in the aeration basins. This may cause the waste in
the aeration basins to be substantially different from the
clarifier wastes. Therefore, the Agency has no basis to decline
the uncharacterized aeration basins.
Second, submitted data indicate that material other than
K035 waste was added to the wastewater treatment system. Your
firm added contaminated groundwater removed from other locations
at the facility (as requested under CERCLA) to the wastewater
treatment system before the units were sampled, but failed to
clearly document the source or contents of the added groundwater.
This information is essential under EPA’S definition of
“hazardous waste.” Mixtures of listed hazardous wastes, such as
K035 and another solid or hazardous waste, are hazardous wastes.
See 40 CFR §261.3(b)(2) (“the mixture rule”). EPA would need to
evaluate all of the constituents in the resulting mixture before
granting a delisting petition. To succeed, your petition would
have to demonstrate that the ground water that you added to the
units contained no wastes. Even if you could show that the
ground-water contained no RCRA wastes, you would need to perform
a full Appendix VIII analysis if you wanted to demonstrate that
any of the constituents found in the samples from the R-C series
wells originated in the contaminated ground-water from the CERCLA
action rather than the K035 waste.
Third, the constituent analyses you conducted were limited
to the constituents for which the waste was originally listed.
However, available data indicate that other processes at your
facility use pyridine, picoline, cyclohaxane, or naphthalene. It
is not clear whether constituents from these processes may end in
the petitioned wastewater. Further, contaminated groundwater
containing these and/or other constituents has been added to the
wastewater treatment system. Consequently, your petition should
have included an evaluation of the aeration basin wastes
(including the volume of previously generated waste) and the
clarifier wastes for the total concentrations of the following
constituents as well as for other constituents that may be
present from these process waters and/or contaminated
groundwater:
This has been retyped from the original document .
-------
acenaphthylene 2—inethoxy-4 —methy lphenol
arsenic dibenze , h) anthracene
barium ethyl benzene
benzene fluoranthene
benzo(a)anthracene indeno(l, 2, 3-c,d)pyrene
benzo(a) pyrene lead
benzo (b) fluoranthene mercury
benzo (2-chioroisopropyl) ethernapthalene
cadmium nickel
chrysene phenol
chromium picoline
cyanide pyridine
cyclohexane silver
creosote selenium
2,4—dimethyl phenol toluene
Fourth, a petitioner must also provide data indicating the
waste to be delisted would not be hazardous based on any
characteristics of the waste. You failed to provide such data
despite our requests for it. The aeration basin wastes should
have been analyzed for corrosivity (pH), ignitability,
reactivity, and EP toxicity.
Finally, submitted data indicate that mercury, although not
expected to be present in K035 waste, is present in the waste.
This fact further supports the Agency’s position concerning the
inadequacy of the waste characterization and analytical data you
provided. Specifically, we are concerned with the source of this
metal contaminant. The summary EP toxicity data submitted on
November 17, 1986 showed that the mercury concentration in the
March 12, 1986 sample, when subjected to the VRS model, exceeded
the regulatory level of concern (i.e., National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation for Mercury).
we recognize that we have not previously requested that you
submit some of these missing data (e.g., aeration basin waste
characterization data). As we explained above, however, your
groundwater monitoring data and the status of your groundwater
monitoring well network provide independent grounds for denying
your petition. Therefore, even if you had supplied the missing
data, and if it had allowed us to predict that no constituents in
the waste exceeded a level of regulatory concern, we would have
recommended denying your petition. The missing data, although
potentially useful, is therefore not needed to support our
decision.
For all of the above reasons, we consider the waste to be
hazardous and subject to regulation under 40 CFR Part 262 through
264 and to the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270.
Accordingly, we will recommend to the Assistant Administrator
that a denial action will be published in the Federal Reaister .
This has been retyped from the original document .
-------
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of
withdrawing their petition to avoid publication of a negative
finding in the Federal Register . If you prefer this option, you
must send us a letter withdrawing your petition and indicating
that the petitioned waste is considered hazardous and will be
managed as such. If you send such a letter, it should be
forwarded to me within two weeks of the date of receipt of
today’s correspondence. If you choose not to withdraw your
petition, a denial decision will be published in the Federal
Register . You and other interested parties will be able to
submit comments if you disagree with the Agency’s decision.
If you have any questions regarding our decision, please
contact Mr. Scott Maid of my staff at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Bob Greaves, Region III
Sharon Feldstein, Region III (Superfund)
This has been retv ed from the original document .
-------
Mr. Verrill N. Norwood, Jr. 9444.1987(53)
Director, Environmental Affairs
Olin Chemicals Group
P.O. Box 248
Lower River Road
Charleston, Tennessee 37310
Dear Mr. Norwood
This letter is in response to your June 3, 1987 letter,
concerning your petition (#0381) to delist the pyridine still
bottoms (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F005) generated from the
Thermolin 101 process at your Lake Charles, Louisiana facility.
On May 25, 1987, we informed you of our intention to deny
your delisting petition on the basis of predicted levels of
pyridine, at the compliance-point, that exceed the regulatory
standard for pyridine. On June 3, 1987, we received your letter
withdrawing your petition. Your basis for withdrawal was the
belief that the Agency’s F005 listing is not appropriate for your
waste. Specifically, you stated that pyridine is used as a
catalyst and not as a solvent in your process and you contended,
therefore, that the residue generated during reclamation does not
constitute an F005 waste. Based on the information received to
date, however, we believe that pyridine functions as a solvent in
your process and that your recovery wastes are therefore
accurately listed under EPA Hazardous Waste No. F005. The waste,
therefore, should be considered hazardous and is subject to
regulation under 40 C.F.R. Parts 262 through 265 and to the
permitting standards of 40 C.F.R. Part 270.
Since you have withdrawn your delisting petition, my office
will not investigate this topic any further. However, since the
waste is hazardous, we are forwarding our files to appropriate
Region VI officials.
In the future, if you decide to submit a new delisting
petition to the Agency, in addition to the information requested
in the letter of May 26, 1987, you must provide the following
information.
o A complete description of the Thermolin 101 process.
o A description of all process equipment involved in the
Therinolin 101 process, including complete schematic
diagrams.
o A list of all materials used in the process and their
functions.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
o A complete description of all reactions involved in the
process. This should include a description of the most
likely chemical mechanisms of the reactions.
o Molar amounts (mass or volumetric amounts are also
acceptable) of all materials used and generated in the
process (including intermediates). Include a rationale
for use of specific ratios of raw materials used in the
process.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Scott Maid, or my staff at (202) 382—4783.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Lee Haze, EPA Region VI
Bonny Romo, EPA Region VI
Bill Taylor, EPA Region VI
Bill Honker, EPA Region VI
Jim Anderson, Olin
Henry Huppert, SAIC
This has been retyped from the original document .
-------
IITED STATES EM P4MENTI TECT ENCYj,
9444. 1987(
DEC 28 87
? r. R.P. Weimep
Union Carbid• Corporation
Linde Division
P.O. Eox
Tonawanda, New York l 15lOO
Dear Mr. Wein era
We have received your letter ezrressin yonr inter.t or to
withdraw your deliating petitior. (eOb c) for wastewater treat—
ent sludçe generated at pour Tonawanda plant. Pnllowina your
conversation with Carolyn Soseernen of science Applicatthna
International Corporation, we were infornel that corttrarj to the
process description in your original petition (Ucleaning, etch1n -,
and paaaivatioj of carbon steel, stainless steel, and aliu,iniin”),
your plant doe3 not pertorr’ etching of either carbon steel or
stainless steel, but only pickles these metals. Je understand
that your plant performs etching of a1ui inuri, but alui 1nurn etching
La exenpte from the listing for EPA 3azardous Waste No. PO0’ and
your petition for this waste is therefore moot. Purthernore, w
understand that the spent pickle liquor (FPA Tazardoua ‘sst
K062) generated when the pickling baths are periodically di pos.-’
is sent off—site to a licensed hazardous waste facility and es
not enter the wastewater treatment plant.
Please be advised that the dectelon to moot your p tit on ti
based on the assumption that you will eonti’ i ’e to ce re ate 1”e
spent pickling bath solutions 1 .rop . .t) e retitioned waste. . hou1
this situation change and oau a’e the woste to includo EPA T azardot’
Waste No. 1 (062, or any other list 1 hazardous waste, it Is Union
Carbide’s responsibility to notify the Stats of Hew York accor-
dirigly and manage th. waste as hazardous.
It IO U any further comments or questions, please call
Scott laid, or ap staff, at (202) 3 2—*7 3.
Sincerely,
Terry Qrogan, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Ja ee Yoran, NYDEC
Jehn Cornan, I2FA ! i ?L ,
Gjr 3 n
1.J.
-------
ILC rATEs ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE’.10N AC!p’:
9444.1988(01)
JAN 988
Mr. John H. Lovgren, Jr.
Environmental Engineer
Leach and Garner Company
Attleboro, ? 02703
Dear Mr. Lovgren:
This is a response to your November 17, 1987, letter to me
regarding the regulatory Classification of certain metal finishing
sludges. Your letter describes a number of processes used in metal
finishing, including pickling, tumbling, burnishing, heat treating
and contact cooling. In addition, during a recent phone conversa-
tion you provided my staff with further details regarding the
generation of several different wastestreajns and sludges. Our
decisions on the regulatory status of these residuals are discussed
below.
On December 2, 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
clarified the scope of the F006 listing (See g j 1 E gister
43350); this clarification narrowed the scope of EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006 to include only wastewater treatment sludges from
common and precious metals electroplating, anodizing, chemical
etching and milling and stripping when associated witI these
processes.
In addition, the FOOS listing applies only to the sludge
generated from treatment of wastevaters associated with electro-
plating operations, Wastes resulting from treatment of spent baths
and Solutions that are not wastevaters would not be considered
F006. However, sometimes these spent baths become mixed with
wastewaters from electroplating operations; in these cases the
sludges from treatment of the mixture would be F006. Also, depend-
ing on their composition, the spent baths and wastes derived from
their treatment may meet the listing descriptions of other EPA
hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 or exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste defined in 40 CTR 261.21 through
261.24.
.s. l•I . 7.I
-------
—2—
One vastestream you described is a spent SOlUtjofl from metal
burnishing and polishing that contains soaps and metals. In the
process, small pieces of metal are tumbled with rocks and soap to
smooth the metal pieces. Under the clean Water Act, the spent
tumbling solution must be treated to remove the metals and soap
before discharge. As you have described this mechanical burnishing
and polishing process, it is not an electroplating,
anodizing, chemical etching and milling, or chemical etching and
milling, or cleaning and stripping associated with these
processes. Therefore, the metal hydroxide waste derived from
treatment of the spent burnishing and polishing solution would not
meet the F006 listing. If, however, the waste solution Is mixed
with “electroplating wastewaters, the wastewater treatment sludge
would be F006.
Another waste that you described was sludge from lime neutra-
lization of a spent pickling bath. The pickling bath is used to
remove oxide scale from precious metals and does not meet the
definition of the K062 listing. In addition, this spent bath is
neutralized, the resulting sludge would not be F006. If the metal
is subsequently rinsed, however, and this pickling process is a
cleaning or stripping operation associated with an electroplating
process, then sludge from treatment of the rinsewater would meet
the F006 listing.
A third process that you described (the manufacture of gold
beads) also generates a spent bath. In this process, nitric acid
is used to etch out the copper base metal in a gold bead. (The
bead is moulded from gold-plated copper tubing.) Treatment of the
spent nitric acid bath produces a metal hydroxide waste. The spent
acid is not a wastewater; thus, waste derived from direct treatment
of the acid would not be F006. However, sludge from the treatment
of wastewater associated with the etching process could be defined
as F006.
You also inquired about the status of sludge generated from
the treatment of contact cooling water. If the contact cooling
water is used only for cooling and is not, for example, also used
as a rinsewater in an electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching
and milling, or associated cleaning stripping operation, then the
treatment sludge would not be F006. If, however, the cooling water
is combined with other electroplating related wastewaters for
treatment, the resulting sludge would meet the T006 listing.
-------
—3—
I hope this answers your questions. If you require additional
information, please contact Ed Abrams of my Staff at (202)
382—4787.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
‘TECHNOLOGY DMSION
ATTLEBORO. MASSACHUSETTS 02703
November 17, 1967
Ms. Marsha William.
Director of Solid Waat
& vironmental Protection Agency
WH562, 401 N Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Williams:
This letter is being submitted as a request for clarification of the F006
listing for hazardous waste from non—specific source..
I represent the Leach & Garner Company which is in the precious metal product
industry. Our operations range from producing intermediate precious metal
products for furtner processing by our customers to the the production of
electrical contacts. These operations require a substantial amow t of metal
finishing operations such as pickling, tumbling, burnishing, heat treating and
contact cooling. As a result of teating the .ffluent or mestewater, me
generate a variety of metal hydroxide filter cakes and sludges. Two of the
five operations vnich generate the wastewater sludges are involved with
electroplating. One of tn. operations generates its sludges by chemically
treating burnishing and tumbling solutions which contain soaps and metals.
Tne sludge generated during this process has been testd for toxicity and
n s a passed.
I have reviewed documentation from the Federal Register dated December 2, 1986
which refers me to tn. Effluent Guidelines for pretrea ent standards for the
e lee tropla ting point soura. category.
I would appreciate your interpretation as to the proper classification of our
metal finisning sludges. If you require any further information regarding
this request, plea.. teal i re. to contact a. at 617—222—7400, •it. 390.
Sincerely,
Jolm H. Lovgr.n, Jr.
ivironmen tal D gtheer
JHL :bb
-------
9444.1988(02)
JAN 20 1988
3. Carter S. Gray
Secretary/Counsel
Earth Industrial Waste Management, Inc.
3536 Fite Road
Millington, Tennessee 38053
Dear Mr. Gray:
This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1987, to
Michael Petruska concerning classification of your solvent wastes.
The waste you describe appears to be a mixture of several
commercial chemical products that are listed in 40 CFR Section
261.33(f). In addition, you also indicate thatlat times the
solvent mixture would exhibit the ignitability characteristic --
referred to in your letter as DOOl. If the commercial chemical
products flushed from the line are intended for reclamation (i.e.,
solvent distillation) they would not be wastes under the hazardous
waste regulations and thus, would not be subject to any Federal
regulation, including labelling requirements. If however, the line
flushings are intended for discard, they are hazardous wastes
provided they contain a U-listed commercial chemical product or
exhibit a characteristic.
With respect to your specific concern, the Agency recognizes
that generators may have difficulty identifying and manifesting the
waste as a result of this multiple U—waste classification. One
possible means of reducing the generator’s burden is to segregate
the wastestreants as they are generated, and thus limit the number
of different wastes in each drum. For example, chlorinated
solvents could be segregated from non—chlorinated solvents, and
solvents that are hazardous only due to their flash point
(ignitability) should be segregated from those that are listed as
hazardous due to their toxicity.
-------
With respect to proper identification of the multiple U-listing
wastes on the manifest, the generator should seek guidance from the
regulating State agency. The National Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest (EPA Form 8700-22, codified at 40 CFR Part 262, Appendix)
includes a continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) for multiple
waste shipments. Some states, however, prefer the generator to
simply use more than one manifest for multiple waste shipments;
either approach is acceptable to EPA.
If you have further questions, please continue to deal with
Michael Petruska at (202) 475—8551.
)&cia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
94 44.1988(02a)
SI
UNITED STATES ENVIRON 4rNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHING1’,i D.C 20460
‘
.ii i : 2
OFFICE ).
SOLID WASTE AND EMEP C .ENCY RESPONSE
N EMORA.NDIJM
SUBJECT: New Jersey linç Compaip’
FROM• Marcia E. ‘Williams , Cirector
Office of SDlid Waste W11—562)
TO: Robert E. reaves, Chief
Waste Management Branct (3HW30)
T’iis is in response to youi .i nio dated November 3, 1987. in
which you requested that the Off e of Solid Waste (05W)
proviie assistance on a number regulatory issues surrou 1 J.ing
the N. w Jersey Zinc company sitr. n Palmerton, PA.
AMC v.. EPA .
A Federal Registe, : notice (attached) interpreting the
decision was signed by t ie Admi2jistrator December 31, 1987. Our
reading of the opi 1ion is that the New Jersey Zinc Compa ”s
operation is not affected by the opinion, i.e. , it still
involves solid waste management (at least up until it is bur .ed
in an industrial furnace) and the company must still obtain
RCRA permit for their K061 storage pile. Further, we do not
think the opinion affects EPA’s speculative accumulation
provLsions at all. You should note, however, that the
speculative accumulation provisj ,n determines when certain
secondary materials are solid wa!:tes; it does not distinguish
between storage and disposal. “iiisposal” is defined in the
regulations at Section 260.10.)
The last of your first set 0’ questions concerned parti . .ly
recla’med zinc oxide that require. further reclamation.
NorinaJly, a partially reclaimed solid waste remains a solid
waste as long as it must still be reclaimed before use, and t.he
Section 261.3(C)(2)(j) “derived—Irom” rule would make the
parti lly reclaimed material a hazardous waste. As I unders 1 .and
the s.tuation at New Jersey Zinc, the partially reclaimed zi c
-------
2—
oxide is both a solid and a hazardous waste. However, as is
discussed below in the context of the Waelz Kiln residue, i New
Jer3ey Zinc were to change their process so that the only
hazardous waste they were to burn in the kiln was K061, the
residues from that kiln may theri not be hazardous waste.
Regulatory Status of Waelz Kiln Residue
The regulatory status of the kiln residue (and the Partially
reclaimed zinc oxide) depends on the type of feed to the kiln.
As I understand the process Currently employed at New Jersey
Zinc. I concur with Sam Rotenberg’s assessment that the res...due
is a hazardous waste via the derived-from rule, and further,
that the residue has been a hazardous waste since 1980. The
following are the factors upon w 1 ich this determination is
basea.
The kiln resi 1 iue i ; not exempt Under RCRA Section
300l(b)(3)(A)(jj) because the K061 feedstock is a tste
from the primarj stee.Unaking industry. Steelmakjnci
constitutes an alloyin i P OC SS, which the Agency 1-is
determined not to be “rc cessing of ores or minera s.”
- Waste produced by recl.Lrtdtion of other minerals from
non—Bevj ll. waste is noc itself a Bevill Waste.
o The “indigen us secondary material” discussions that
have appeared in the Fiderpi Register over the last 3
years ( 50 630—1, January 4, 1985; 50 49167,
November 29,, 1985; and 52 16989—91, May 6, 1987) are
flOt applicable to this unit because I understand that
F006 and P019 are introd’iced to the furnace -- these
wastes a q certainly not indigenous to a zinc smelting
process. ‘
J/ Your letter also stated that K062 is added to the furnace.
We would not view K062 as indigenous to zinc smelting either,
but as I understand it, what is actually introduced to the
furnace is sludge from lime stabilization from waste pickle
liquor that is exempt from the ‘erived-from rule under Section
25].3(C)(2)(jj) Therefore, introducing this exempt sludge into
the furnace does not affect the regulatory status of the kiln
residue.
-------
—J--
You should note that New Jersey Zinc might be able to ch3nge
the status of the kiln dust oy ceasing to add any hazardous
waste but KO6l to the kiln. Under the May 6, 1987 proposal %52
f 16990), K061 would be consider c1 indigenous to a zinc
smelting operation because K06l i generated in furnaces use r&
primary steel production (i.e., botn are forms of metal smelt-
ing). If this rule is finalized as proposed, then the derived-
from rula will no longer apply to residue from smelting of
K061. Of course, if New Jersey Linc continues to add F006 ; ind
E’019 to the kiln, the kiln residue would continue to be haz trd-
OUS no matter what is decided concerning K06l. In fact, as a
final point, the introduction of F006 and F019 to the kiln calls
into question the kiln’s status a reclamation device. ( -
50 630-1, January 4, 1985.) TI-at is, the F006 and F0l9
wastewater treatment sludges are not ordinarily associated with
zinc smelting, and these wastes may contain Appendix VIII
constituents different than normal zinc smelter feed materi .Is.
(Id.) The kiln, as it is currently operated, may be more
properly classified as a hazardous waste incinerator as opposed
to a reclamation furnace.
Regulating ExemDtEd Wa Un ’r RCRA Corrective Action
Your second set of questions concerned the applicability of
RCRA Section 3004(u) corrective a .tion ‘authority to releases
from exempt units. The units you asked about are:
1. Bevill exempt;
2. Pre—RCRA inactive units, and
3. opinion exemptions.
(1) The question about units containing Bevill wastes w
settled recently when EPA issued the second HSWA codific ’-
tion Rule, signed by the Administrator on November 16,
1987. EPA determined that the RCRA Section 3001(b)(3)
exemptions (i.e., those established for “Bevill wastes”) do
not extend to Section 3004(u). This decision is explained
fully in the preamble of the second Codification Rule. (
45790, December 3, 1987.)
-------
—4
(2) Releases from pre-RCRA inactive units are certainly
within the authority of RCRA Section 3004(u). 40 CFR
Section 264.101 provides that an owner or operator of a
facility seeking a RCRA permit must institute correction
action for releases from unit:s at the facility,
H... regardless of the time at which waste was placed in such
unit.,,
(3) Releases from units excluded from RCRA jurisdicticri
under the C opinion, should there be such exclusions,
‘ou1d be handled the same as other product or process
releases. That is, the unit holding the product is not a
SWMTJ, but areas contaminated by “routine and systematic
discharges” from the unit are S ZM1Js.
If you have further question - in these areas, contact
IlicJ’ael Petruska of my staff at ITS 475 -98€8.
tta:hment
-------
.bNAoC Cj V1jIQl MEMTM. PROTEC1IONAGEN( 9444.19B8 3)
FEB I I 1988
Mr. A. S. Heinze
ASH Environmental Consulting, Inc.
843 Claymont Drive
Baliwin, MO 63011
— — — ‘ —
Dear Mr. Heinz : - -. - -- ..I U L CNL,
This is in response to your November 7, 1987, letter to
Michael Petruska concerning the regulatory status of spent pipeline
filter cartridges. The status of the cartridges depends on whether
the solvents that pass through the filters meet one of the listing
descriptions at 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D.
If the solvent in question has been used and otherwise meets
one of the NF listings in Section 261.31, then the filters are
hazardous waste under the ‘derived from rule in Section
26l.3(c)(2)(1). The filters would be hazardous waste unless a
delisting is granted by EPA under Section 260.22.
If the solvent contained in the filter is a discarded coumier-
cial chemical product listed in Section 261.33(e) and (f), then the
filters are contaminated with, or contain, a hazardous waste and
must be handled as hazardous waste until it no longer contains the
hazardous constituent. - -
From the information you have provided, it appears that your
client has filters in both categories. As such, the filters are
subject to the regulations at 40 CTR Part 261—268, Part 270, and
the notification requirements of RCRA Section 3010.
If you have further questions, please continue to deal with
Michael Petruaka at (202) 475—8551.
Sincerely,
,
Marcia E. Williams
Director,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITE YATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO . GEp4C
9444.1988(05)
AR 1H988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Refractory Wastes at U.S. EPA Combustion
Research Facility
FROM: Jeffery D. Denit, Acting Director
ffice of Solid Waste (WH—562)
TO: Sam Becker, Chief
Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch (6H-C)
This is in response to your memorandum to Robert Scarberry
dated December 22, 1987, regarding the regulatory status of ref rae-
tory waste at EPA’s Combustion Research Facility (CRY). Solid
waste that is generated from the treatment of a hazardous waste is
a hazardous waste if it: (1) contains a listed waste, (2) is
derived from a listed waste, or (3) exhibits a characteristic of a
hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(c) and (d).
According to 40 CFR 26l.3(c)(2)(j) “any solid waste generated
from the treatment, storage or disposal of a hazardous waste.., is
a hazardous waste.” EPA interprets this provision to mean that the
“derived from” waste cairies the same EPA Hazardous Waste designa-
tion as the original vaste. (See 50 FR 37338 (Sep. 12, 1985); 50
FR 1995 n. 26 (Jan, 14, 1985); . 50 FR 619 n. 7 (Jan. 4, 1985)).
This is important because apparently dioxin—containing waste (F020)
was burned at the facility; and F020 is subject to special require-
ments in 40 CFR 264.317. (As you suggested, residue resulting from
the treatment of many different listed wastes should be handled as
the most restricted of the listed wastes.)
As related to us by Johannes Lee of CR? and Jerry Truitt of
your staff, the wastes generated from the rotary kiln incinerator
at CR? during the time that the dioxin waste (F020) was incinerated
are the following: (1) removed refractory material, (2) dismantled
pieces of the former scrubber system, (3) departiculate air filt-
ers, (4) scrubber wastewater, (5) soil contaminated with scrubber
-------
—2—
wastewater, and (6) ash. Based on the following assessment, we
have determined that all of these wastes are acute hazardous (H)
wastes, or contain acute hazardous wastes, and are thus, s .thJect
to t’he special requirements of 40 CFR 264.317.
The wastes listed above which are hazardous because they were
“derived from” waste are: (1) departiculate air filters, (2) scrub-
ber wastewater, and (3) ash. These wastes may be delisted under
Section 260.22: otherwise they must be managed as dioxin-containing
hazardous waste (i.e., under Section 264.317, as well as other
applicable requirements).
With regard to materials that are contaminated with listed
waste, and thereby contain hazardous waste (i.e., hazardous
constituents from the waste), EPA has determined that such
materials must be managed as hazardous waste for as long as they
contain any of the listed waste. (You should note that for
contaminated materials, a formal delisting is not necessary;
rather, the generator of the contaminated material must manage the
material as hazardous waste, or must be able to demonstrate that
the material has been decontaminated so that it no longer contains
any listed waste.) Following the same logic as cited above for
“derived-from” waste, material contaminated by a listed waste
carries the same designation as the most restricted listed waste
that it contains, i.e., in this case, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F020.
The wastes listed above that are designated as contaminated
materials include: (1) refractory material, (2) dismantled pieces
of the former scrubber system, and (3) soil contaminated with
scrubber wastewater. These wastes must be treated as acute
hazardous (H) wastes, unless and until. they are decontaminated and
no longer contain the listed waste (I.e., F020).j/ A detailed
description of decontamination procedures should be a part of the
facility’s closure plan as described in Section 264.llz(b)(4) and
Section 264.112(e)
1/ If the material Is decontaminated so it no longer contains
F020, but it still contains constituents from other listed wastes,
the material would be managed as nonacute hazardous waste.
-------
—3—
Al ]. hazardous waste generated at the CRF must be managed in
accordance with Section 262.34 or under the facility’s permit. If
on—site storage of hazardous waste for time periods greater than 90
days is necessary, and is not addressed in the permit, then the
permit must be modified to address the on-site storage of these
wastes.
Please feel free to call Emily Roth, of my staff, if you have
any further questions; her telephone number is FTS 382—4777.
-------
UNFVL - £TATES ENVIROHMEP4TAL PROTECTIONAGE$CY 9444.1988( 06)
t 3 I
Mr. Michael J. Fox, Manager
Chemical Engineering Services
ptech
Post Office Box 3440
Sunnyvale, CA 94088—3440
Dear Mr. Fox:
This is in-response to your letter of March 9, 1988, in
which you seek written confirmation of an opinion given you by
the RCRA/Superfund Hotline concerning solvent/mixture blends.
The information you were given is correct. P spent solvent
mixture/blend that contains, before use, a total of less than ten
percent of the solvents listed in the FOOl, F002, F004, or F005
categories would not be considered a listed hazardous waste.
(See 40 CFR 261.31 and 50 53315—20.) The situation which you
describe in your letter falls within the realm of the above
regulation, so the clarification you were given by the Hotline is
correct. However, if the waste exhibits the characteristics of
corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity, or extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity (40 CTR 261.20—261.24) the spent solvent/mixture
blend would be considered a characteristic hazardous waste.
It should be noted that state regulations may be more
stringent. Therefore, please contact your state environmental
authorities to find out what their regulatory requirements are.
manic you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions, please call the RcRA/Superfund Hotline at
(800)424—9346 or (202)382—3000.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Acting Director
Characterization and
Mseessaent Division
-------
April 7, 1988 9444.1988(07)
MEMORANDtJN
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Assistance Request -
Determination for Viability of “F-Waste” Electroplating
(F007—F009) Listings at Lewis Industries, Inc.
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrarice, Director (WH-562)
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Wagoner, Director
Waste Management Division, Region VII
This is in response to your memorandum dated December 31,
1987 in which you request guidance as to whether rinsewaters that
are generated by electroplating operations are regulated as
hazardous wastes under RCRA. Specifically, you describe the
electroplating process at Lewis Industries, Inc., located in
Kansas City, MO, and inquire if the rinsewaters generated by
their operations might be listed hazardous wastes according to 40
CFR 261.31. As your analysis of the listing background document
to 40 CFR 261.31 correctly indicates, rinsewaters from
electroplating operations are not within the scope of the F007,
F008, or F009 hazardous waste listings. Rather, these
rinsewaters would only be considered hazardous under these
specific listings if the F007, F008, or F009 is deliberately
mixed with the rinsewaters from electroplating operations. (See
40 CFR 261.3(b) (2).)
During the plating process, rinsewaters may be contaminated
with cyanides carried over from plating or cleaning bath
solutions. The mixture rule applies when a hazardous waste is
mixed with a solid waste. (See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv).) The
rinsewaters are not a solid waste when they become contaminated;
therefore, these rinsewaters would not be hazardous waste due to
the mixture rule. In addition, based on the available data that
you submitted, the rinsewaters do not exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste set forth in 40 CFR 261
Subpart C. Therefore, the rinsewaters generated by Lewis
Industries, Inc., would not be designated as a hazardous waste
under RCRA. Please feel free to contact Mr. Ed Abrams at FTS
382-4787 if you or your staff have any further questions.
This has been retv ed from the original document .
-------
9444.1988(09)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU) (ARY
? PRIL 88
4. Spent Solvent Listings
The owner of a metal working facility uses a cutting oil to cool and lubricate metals during
a drilling process. The cutting oil, before use, consists of eighty percent (80%)
1,lj,trichloroethane and twenty percent (20%) lubricating oil. When spent, this fluid is
sent for disposal. Would this material meet the F002 listing found in Section 261.31?
Yes, Section 261.31 of 40 CFR describes the requirements for listing spent solvents.
These requirements were codified in the December 31, 1985 Federal Register . The
December 31,1985 f explains that: “the spent solvent listings cover only those solvents
that are used for their solvent properties — that is, to solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize
other constituents.” For example, solvents used in degreasing, deaning, fabric scour-
ing, as diluents, extractants, reaction and synthesis media, and similar uses are covered
under the listing (when spent). A solvent is considered “spent” when it has been used
and is no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise
reprocessed” (50 f 53316). The 1,1,1, trichloroethane in this circumstance, is being
used as a diluent for mobilizing the constituents in the lubricating oil and is therefore
covered by the F002 listing in 40 CFR Section 261.31.
Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475-8551
Research: Steve Campbell
-------
9 444.1988u 0)
P4ITED TES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION
! 1ORAN1Dt1M
SUBJECT: Guidance on Chlordane and Heptachior PestiSm Wastes
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Off ice of Solid Waste (WH—5623)
TO: Sua n H. Wayland, Deputy Director.
Office of Pesticide Programs (TS-766C)
This is in response to your memorandum dated March 3, 1988,
in which you request guidance on the regulatory status of
chlordane and heptachlor pesticide waste under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. My staff has researched
the specific questions raised in your memorandum; our responses
are given below.
QUESTION NO. 1: Are products containing either chiordane or
eptacnior, or both chl.ordane and heptachlor covered by ths .P
r “U” listings of 40 CFR 261.33 (e) and (f) respectively?
‘ Commercial chemical products or manufacturing intermediates
that contain any of the compounds listed in 40 dR 261.33 (a) or
261.33 (f) are potential pU or “U” wastes. For our purpose,
conunercial chemical products or manufacturing intermediates are
defined as materials which contain either the pure or technical
grade of the listed chemical, crude product, or a formulation in
which the listed chemical is the sole active inaredient . Also
included as potential “P” or “U” listed wastes are
off-specification products which, if they met specification,
would have the generic name included in either of these lists.
When two or more compounds listed in 261.33 are present as
active Ingredients in a formulation, the formulation is not a
-------
—2-
intended for the product). Fillers, solvents, propeliants, and
other components with no pesticidal role are functionally inert
ith recard to pesticide formulations and are therefore not
actlve ingredients. It is possible for a hazardous constituent
from 261.33(e) or (f) to be a functionally inert component of a
commercial chemical product, for example, a solvent carrier.
In these cases, its presence does not prevent the formulation
containing another “P” or “U” constituent as the sole active
inaredient from being a “P” or “U” listed waste.
With regard to chlordane products that contain small
amounts of heptachlor, these formulations are considered to
contain only one active ingredient. It is our opinion that the
small amounts of heptachior, which are not economical to
extract from chlordane during its manufacture, do not
constitute a second active ingredient because heptachior occurs
as an impurity in the synthesis of chiordane and is not mixed
with chlordane to formulate a new product.
Finally, in order for commercial chemical products or
manufacturing intermediates to be subject to regulation as “P”
or “U” hazardous wastes, they must be discarded or intended for
discard as described in 40 CFR 261.2 (a)(2)(i). This
requirement is satisfied when materials are “abandoned” as
defined in 40 CFR 261.2(b), “when they are mixed with waste oil
or used oil or other material and applied to the land for dust
suppression or road treatment, when they are otherwise applied
to the land in lieu of their original intended use or when they
are contained in products that are applied to the land in lieu
of their original intended use, or when, they are produced for
use as (or as a component of) a fuel, distributed for use as a
fuel, or burned as a fuel.”
Q JESTION NO. 2: Is there a critical cutoff concentration or
percent active ingredient at which chlordane or heptachlor
product would fall under the umbrella of the listing?
Jo. Under the existing regulations, there is no critical
cutoff concentration or percent active ingredient at which
chiordane or heptachlor product would fall under the listing.
The Agency is initiating a program that will establish
concentration thresholds for compounds listed at 40 CFR 261.33,
below which they will no longer be the listed waste. This
effort, however, will take a number of years to complete.
-------
9 444. 19 88(11)
_*o ‘p4,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENt..
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20480
L
HAY—5
OFFiCE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. William Lindberg
Regulatory Affairs Coordinator
SWI, Inc.
P.O. Box B
Saukville, WI 53080
Dear Mr. Lindberg:
This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1988 to
Mr. Steven Wei]., in which you ask if paints containing solvent
const uents are subject to F listings (40 CFR 261.31).
You are correct in stating that “solvents that are used for
their ‘solvent’ properties——that is, to sOlubilize (dissolve) or
mobilize other constituents” (50 ZB 53316, December 31, 1985) are
covered by the spent solvent listings. However, the Federal
Register notice goes on to state that “process wastes where
solvents were used as reactants or ingredients in the formulation
of commercial chemical products are not covered by the listing.
The products themselves are also not covered.” (Id.) Paints,
which are included in the classification of such commercial
chemical products are, therefore, not F—listed spent solvent
hazardous wastes.
Thank you for your letter. If you have any further
questions, please call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at
(800)424—9346.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9444.1988(12)
UNITED stATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ENCY
Michael Fox
Chemical Engineering Service.
APTE E -
P.O. Box 3440
Sunnyvale. CA 94088—3440
Dear Mr. Fox:
This letter is in response to your April 21, 1988 letter to
Mr. Matthew Straus in which you request clarification of the
hazardous waste listing..
The passage you cited from the Handbook for Small Business
(EPA 1986) is correct. The remainder of this letter provides
some explanatory information.on the hazardous waite listing..
Discarded commercial chemical product. are hazardous waste. if
they are listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (the P’ and UUU lists) or if
they exhibit one or sor. of the hazardous waste characteristics
of Part 261, Subpart C. A comment in Section 261.33 (d)
clarifies that the listing appliesto Commercial and technical
grades of the product, and to formulations in which the chemical
is the sole active ingredient. Sole active ingred& ntN means
the active ingredient is th only chemically active component for
the function of th. product. If the discarded product ii a
formulation with sor. than one active ingredient, it would not be
within the scop. of the listing in Section 261.33.
The listings of Section 261.31 for spent solvents apply only
to solvents which have become contaminated through use.
Formulations with many Uactive ingredients may be covered by the
spent solvsnt listings in Section 261.31.
If a waits do.. not meet any of the listing., the generator
is required under Section 262.11 to either test the waste or use
his knowledg, to determine if the waste exhibit, a hazardous
waste charact.ristic. - -
-------
UNITE ,i ATES ENVIROMMEN TM. PROTECTION ENCY
—
In addition, the generator should check with his state
hazardous waste agency for additional wastes which say be
regulate j under stat . laws or regulation..
If you have further question., please contact Mike
Petruska at (202) 475—9888.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Div is ion
-------
UNI is $TAT mmaowM,n,I. P*OtIC1 i A t y 9444 • 1988(13
ii. 2 8
Mr. T. Wayne Vickers
V.P., Marketing and Sales
Columbus Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 257
Ashville, Ohio 43103—0257
Dear Mr. Vickers:
I am respon ir g to your letter dated June 27, 1988, in which
you requested information regarding the disposal of paint filters
and our opinion on the veracity of an advertisement for paint spray
booth filters. Specifically, your questions deal with an
advertisement for a styrofoam paint spray booth filter appearing in
the April, 1988 issue of FINISHER’S MANAGEMENT magazine.
We can not comment on the veracity of the advertisement, but we
can offer some information regarding the disposal and hazardous
waste classification of related wastes.
Used paint filters are not a R RA listed hazardous waste (i.e.,
not listed in 40 CFR 261.31—33). However, they may be
characteristically hazardous if they exhibit any ot the four
hazardous waste characteristics (ignitability, corrosivi y,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity - see 40 CPR
61.2l—24).
The advertisement claims that the filter is soluble in paint
thinner for easy disposal. If the thinner is one or more of the
solvents covered by the EPA hazardous waste listings F001-F005, and
the thinner has been used for its solvent properties (i.e., to
solubilize or mobiliz, another material such as in a cleaning
operation or in-dissolving the paint filter), then the resultant
solution of the paint filter and the thinner will become a listed
hazardous wa*e on disposal.
I hope this information will be useful to you.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
-------
9444.1988(14)
c, 4 ,
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
‘ L D O’
O ’CE
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS
MEMORANDM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Secondary er Variances
FROM: Sylvia K. t.owrance, D
Office of Solid Wàst
TO: Waste Management
Division Directors, Regions I—X
This memorandum provides guidance to assist you in handling
variance requests you may receive from secondary lead smelters.
Owners and operators of secondary lead smelters are likely to
request variances from being classified as a solid waste for
their lead plates and groups that are stored in storage piles.
More detailed information is included in the attached report
from Midwest Research Institute. Questions in this area should
be addressed to Filomena Chau or Mike Petruska at FTS 382—4795
or 475—8551.
A. General .
Section 260.30(c) provides that the Regional Administrator
may grant a variance from classification as a solid waste for
those materials that have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed
further before recovery is completed If, after initial
reclamation, the resulting material is “commodity—like.” This
determination is to be based on five factors specified at
Section 260.31(c)(].)—(5), and “other relevant factors”
(paragraph (c)(6)).
Secondary lead smelters reclaim lead from spent lead acid
batteries (a characteristic hazardous waste). An intermediate
step in this reclamation process is the breaking and component
separation of batteries, which results in partially—reclaimed
lead—bearing material known as “plates” and “groups.” These
materials may be stored in piles and subsequently fed to blast
or reverberatory furnaces for re—smelting. Under certain
conditions, these plates and grcups may meet the criteria in
Section 260.31(c) and, therefore, would not be a solid or
hazardous waste.
-------
—2—
In some instances, the granting of a variance for plates and
groups could lead to a smelter becoming exempt from the need to
comply with the interim status requirements or obtain a permit.
For example, if a smelter can set up an operation where incoming
batteries are introduced directly into the recycling operation
without prior storage, and where emission control dust (K069) is
recycled either without storage or stored under Section 262.34,
the smelter would have no activities subject to permitting
(absent the plate and group storage pile).
B. Factors 1—4 .
After analysis of a considerable body of information, OSW
has determined that secondary lead smelters on a national (or
“generic”) basis meet the criteria of Section 260.3l(c)(l)—(4).
The basis for this determination is summarized below. - (For more
details, see the attached draft report from Midwest Research
Institute (MRI).)
o The first factor (paragraph (c)(l)) is the degree of
p.rocessing a material has undergone and the degree of
further processing that is required (for the resulting
material to be “commodity—like”). Available
information indicates that the battery—breaking and
component separation steps can be labor—intensive and
often represent a significant percentage of the
resources required to recycle a battery; we would view
these steps, then, to account for a substantial amount
of processing.
o The second factor (paragraph (c)(2)) is the value of
the material after initial reclamation. We have
determined that plates and groups do have significant
market value, i.e. , prices for plates and groups are
listed in industry publications, and until recently
smelters have purchased large amounts of plates and
groups from independent battery breakers.
o The third factor (paragraph (c)(3)) is the degree to
which the reclaimed material is like an analagous raw
material. We have determined that plates and groups
are similar to galena ore in terms of lead
concentration, and based on available data do not
contain significant amounts of hazardous constituents
not found in galena. (Arsenic concentrations do appear
to be slightly higher in the plates and groups, but we
note that small amounts. of arsenic are Viewed as
desirable in secondary lead smelting as an alloying
metal; therefore, our determination is that
-------
—3—
the slightly higher arsenic concentrations in lead
plates and groups do not change the conclusion that it
is substantially comparable in composition to galena
ore.)
o The fourth factor (paragraph (c)(4)) is the extent to
which an end market for the reclaimed material is
guaranteed. Typically, secondary lead smelters break
and separate batteries at the smelter site. This
arrangement provides an end market for the partially
reclaimed material because it is unlikely a smelter
would close without processing remaining plates and
groups. We do not, however, reach such a conclusion
for independent battery breakers. The end market value
for their broken batteries is heavily dependent on lead
prices, and has been very insecure for the past several
years.
C. Storage and Handling Practices .
Ssctjon 260.3](c)(5) identifies as a factor, “the
extent to which the reclaimed material is handled to minimize
loss.” osw reviewed information on plate and group storage and
handling practices at most secondary lead smelters in the U.S.
We are unable to reach any conclusions on a national basis for
this industry because the available information indicates a wide
variation in practices (i.e., some smelters store the lead
plates and groups in a manner that minimizes loss while others
do not). Each smelter facility will have to be evaluated
individually to determine if the standard in paragraph (c)(5) is
achieved. Factors that Regional (or State) personnel may want
to consider include:
o Whether the storage pile is under a roof;
o Whether the pile is on an impervious base, e.g. , coated
concrete;
o Whether runoff controls are in place, e.g. , retaining
walls, drainage collection, etc.;
o Whether wind dispersion controls, e.g. , sprinklers,
vents, etc., are in place.
Plate and group piles may be evaluated in a manner similar to
those hazardous waste piles considered for the limited exemption
under 40 CFR Section 26 4.250(c), ihich calls for âonsideration
of these same sorts of factors.
-------
—4—
Also relevant is a comparison of storage and handling
practices at the secondary lead smelters to handling practices
employed by primary lead smelters for galena ore. Available
information indicates that galena ore is always stored under
cover, but galena storage areas are not always totally
enclosed . Therefore, some outdoor plate and group storage areas
may meet the paragraph (c)(5) factor without being enclosed in a
building, but a plate and group pile without any cover would
appear much less likely to satisfy the “minimize loss”
criterion.
Finally, while concrete pads are the norm for plate and
c.oup storage areas, typically the top layers of these pads
(which may be an asphalt liner) become damaged by the acid
remaining on the plates and groups, and by front—end loader
traffic and, therefore, have to be periodically replaced.
Normal maintenance of a plate and group pad includes periodic
replacement of the top (i.e., “sacrificial”) layers. Therefore,
part of the paragraph (c)(5) evaluation should include a review
of the smelter’s pad replacement schedule. Consideration should
be given to requirements for coating the concrete pads with an
acid resistent material.
In summary, a plate and group pile that is stored under
cover, where run off and wind disposal is controlled, and where
pad replacement prevents soil contamination, would appear to
meet the paragraph (c)(5) “minimize loss” criterion.
D. Other Relevant Factors .
Under Section 260.31(c)(6), the Regional Administrator
may consider other relevant factors in the determination of
whether to grant the variance. These factors may be raised by
the petitioner, the Agency, or other interested parties . As OSW
has evaluated information on secondary lead smelters, the
following additional factors have been raised as potential
concerns. Although these factors. may not be directly applicable
to the Regional Administrator’s decision to grant a variance,
they may be relevant in, for example, assigning priorities to
evaluate a facility’s petition.
1. Economics of battery recycling . Recent EPA studies
indicate that national battery recycling rates, while apparently
stable at this time, have experienced a long term decline over
the past 30 years. The result is that more batteries are
disposed of, often in municipal landfills. In addition, loss of
recycling capacity (i.e., smelter closures) has placed
generators in àome regions (e.g., the Pacific Northwest) in the
position where they must transport batteries long distances to
recycle. This obviously adversely affects recycling rates.
-------
—5—
Environmental compliance costs may be a major component of a
secondary smelter’s capital and operating expenses. The next
few years may be critical for many of these smelters, as they
face the choice of full RCRA compliance and permitting versus
facility closure. Prompt processing of variance petitions may
allow well—run operations, for example, to expand operations
without the need for a permit modification (or perhaps without a
permit at all), and thereby maintain or increase regional
recycling rates, even if other facilities close.
2. Corrective action . Facilities in the secondary lead
smelting industry have had problems in the past and some are
currently involved in clean—up activities. One implication of
granting a variance is that certain facilities, as noted above,
may become exempt from permitting and interim status
requirements and, therefore, the corrective action provisions of
RCRA Section 3004(u) and 3008(h) would no longer apply. (CERCEJA
Section 106 and RCRA Section 7003 actions would not be affected
by granting the variance.) The Regional Administrator may want
to consider the need for clean—up at a site under paragraph
(c)(6), or t least in the timing of when a variance is
granted. For example, final granting of a variance could be
considered as part of clean—up action at the facility.
In summary, disposal of spent lead—acid batteries is
becoming a serious national problem. One means to increase
battery recycling rates is to exclude plate and group storage
piles at those secondary lead smelter facilities that meet the
Section 260.31(c) criteria from classif.jcatjon as solid waste.
If a secondary lead smelter facility stores and handles its
plates and groups in a manner that minimizes losses and
otherwise runs a sound operation (as evidenced by, for example,
clean—up of past releases), OSW would deem it appropriate and
certainly consistent with national policy for the Regional
Administrator to grant the solid waste variance.
Attachment
-------
9444.1988(15)
29 1988
Hazards in the Environment
Action League
HEAL-New Brighton
P.O. Box 12611
New Brighton, MN 55112
Dear Members of HEAL—New Brighton:
This is in response to your letter dated July 25, 1988, in
which you expressed your concern about the use of pentachiorophenol
as a wood preservative at two local sites in New Brighton, MN.
More specifically, you urged the Agency to reclassify
pentachiorophenol (PCP) as an acutely hazardous material and, if
possible, to ban its use in the United States.
Wastes from the production of or manufacturing use of PCP (EPA
hazardous waste ?021) and discarded unused formulations containing
PCP (EPA hazardous waste F027) are currently designated as acute
hazardous wastes. (See 40 CFR 261.31). However, the Agency has
received a petition to reclassify these two wastes as toxic wastes
based on the results of a recent toxicological study. In April of
1988, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a draft report
on the results of a study of the toxicity of purified and technical
grade PCP, containing measured levels of MxCDD as well as other
dioxin homologs in lower concentrations. (See enclosed citation).
The Agency is in the process of reviewing these data and will
respond to the rulemaking petition in the near future. This
response will be a Federal Register notice and will request public
comment. At that time, HEAL may submit its comments on EPA’S
decision.
Regarding the banning of PCP for use as a wood preservative, we
have forwarded your letter to our Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPTS) for separate reply. The banning of chemicals is
outside the purview of the Office of Solid Waste.
We look forward to your comments in the future.
Sincerely,
42’
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
XTATION
McConnell, E.E., DVM, Chemical Manager. k1 Technical Report on
the To jcoloqv and Carcjnogenjsj 5 Studies Pentachiorophenol ( AS
No. 87- -5) in B6C3F1 Mice . Peer Review Draft. National
Toxicology Program. Research Triangle Park, NC. April, 1988. NTP
TR 349.
-------
9444.1989( 02)
.. .%O %I ..,
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (J NC
WASIHNGTON. D.C. 20460
—
M iAI4 g
. I
SOi.iO . aO R 5P
4ORN UM
SUBJECT: Pesticide Standards for Formaldehyde and
Paraformaldehyde
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Directot
Characterization and Assessment Divjsj (flS 33fl)
TO: Chet McLaughlin, Chief
State Programs Section 1 Region vii
This is in response to your memorandum of July ?6, 1988 to
Matthew Straus, in which you asked for our comments concerning
an Office of Pesticides Programs’ (OPP’s) manual € ntitled
“Guidance for the Reregistration of PesLicide Products
Containing Formaldehyde and Paraformaldehyde as an Active
Ingredient.” You asked about the effect of this manual on the
“sole active ingredient” clause regarding P and U listed
hazardous wastes included in 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f). You
also asked if many of the pesticides on the P and U lists wou]d
no longer contain a “sole active ingredient” as a result of the
subject document.
The intent of the regulations concerning sole active
ingredients can be found at 45 78532, November 25, 1980.
The concept of sole active ingredient was used for the purpose
of “removing all trade names from the lists of 40 CFR 261.33(e)
and (f), but clarifying that the scope of the 40 CFR 261.33(e)
and (f) includes, in addition to the commercially pure grades
of the chemicals, all technical grades and all formulated
products in which the listed chemical is the gjg active
ingredient ” (emphasis added). The 5gj5 j Notice
explains that many of the trade products regulated under this
section are pesticides or fungicides, produced for the express
purpose of destroying plant or animal life. It is evident that
such a substance, when discarded, meets the RCRA definition of
hazardous waste” (45 fl 78539). The Rsg.js.t.ex Notice
also states (45 78538) that “the product is considered to be
the chemical comprising Its active portion,” and refers to the
-------
F j Chemicals Handbook , which “lists all trade products having
a generically-named chemical as the sole active ingredient as
‘other names’ for that chemical.” The Federa], Reaist Notice
Clearly States that, under RCRA, the term “active ingredient”
refers to the pesticide Constituent on which the commercial
product and the 40 CFR 261.33 regulations are based, not “inert
ingredients which tend to magnify its toxic effects (e.g.,
solvents and surfactants)” (45 78539).
The OPP Guidance Manual states that formaldehyde and
paraformaldehyde, when added to preserve the formulation, in
the past had been classified as inert ingredients. However,
according to FIFRA Section 2(a), an active ingredient is “an
ingredient which will prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any
pest.” Therefore, when these chemicals are added to preserve
the formulation by preventing deterioration by bacteria and
fungi, the Guidance Manual concludes that formaldehyde and
paraformaldehyde are active ingredients. The Guidance Manual
also directs that the following statement appear on the label
for such products: “Formaldehyde (or paraformaldehyde) is
present solely to preserve the pesticide formulation and does
not otherwise contribute to the product’s pesticidal
activity.” (p. 21)
When formaldehyde (or paraformaldehyde) is added solely to
preserve the activity of a pesticide formulation, it is not
considered an active ingredient for purposes of the sole active
ingredient requirement of 40 CFR 261.33. Thus, the OPP
Guidance Manual’s determination that formaldehyde and
paraforinaldehyde are pesticidally active and the requirement
that the labels state they are “pesticidally active when used
as a preservative in pesticidal formulations” does not affect
the determination of whether a waste is hazardous under
40 CFR 261.33.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions, please contact Ron Josephson at FTS 475-6715.
cc: Juanita Wills, OPP (H7505C)
—2-
-------
9444. 1989(02a)
1 [ RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
II MARCH
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
1989
3. K061 Waste
Emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric
arc furnaces is listed as K061 waste under RCRA. A facility owner uses an
electric arc furnace (EAF) to make steel billets. Is the emission control dust
from this EAF a K061 waste?
On December 18, 1978, (43 ER 58959), EPA originally proposed the K061
listing under SIC code 3312 as iron m icing: electric furnace dust and
sludge.” The American Iron and Steel Institute commented that the
electric furnace process is only used for steel mnking and not iron and steel•
making as listed in 1978. In response to this comment, EPA promulgated
the listing on May 19, 1980, (45 ER 33124) as emission control dust/sludge
from the electric furnace production of steel.” The American
Foundryman’s Society then pointed out that the Agency had insufficient
data to show that foundry electric furnace emission control dusts and
sludges were sufficiently similar in composition to warrant inclusion in the
sawe listing. Therefore, on -November 12, 1980, the Agency modified the
listing of K061 to what it is today clarifying that the listing applies to
“primary” steel producers only (see 45 EB 74892). The Agency intended only
to distinguish steel production from other metal production processes (i.e.,
foundry operations) when it added the word “primary” to the November 12,
1980, listing (45 EE 74892). Foundry emission control dust is excluded from
the scope of 1(061 listing (see Figure 1 attached).
In summary, steel producers using scrap metal in an EAF will generate
K061 waste from their emission control equipment. For example, emission
control dust generated from EAFe used to produce “semi-finished goods”
such as steel billets or rolled steel, is regulated as 1(061 waste when
dispoBed. However, emission control dust and sludge from foundry
operations that use EAFs remitin excluded from the context of the K061
listing and may only be identified as a hazardous waste if it exhibits any
characteristics of hazardous waste per 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C.
-------
[ RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
I MARCH
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
1989
061 W te ( Cont’d )
SCRAP
METAL
Figure 1
STEEL PRODUCTION
Air Poflutcn
Cont,oI Equip
(wet.dty)
DustlSludgo
K061
FOUNDRY:
Enisslons
Ii
Excluded
from K061
-------
II RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MARCH 1989
4. Spent Solvents in Scintallation Cocktaij 9444 .1989( 02b)
A nuclear power facility owner/operator generates a low level radioactive
wastewater. In order to measure the activity of the radionudlides in the
wastewater (a measurement of radioactivity), the owner mixes four parts
radioactive wastewater to 19 parts of a scintillation cocktail (xylene with fraces
of p-terphenyl). In the resultant mixture, beta particles from •the
radionuclides excite the p-terphenyl, which emits photons. The photons are
detected in a scintilloxneter which amplifies and counts the photons on a
photoinultiplier tube. This count provides a measurable level of radioactivity.
The zylene contributes nothing to the above-described reaction and counting
mechanism, other than providing a suspension media. After the testing
procedure, the cocktail becomes a solid waste when it is discarded. Is the
liquid waste identified as a F003 listed hazardous waste or only as a DOOl
ignitable characteristic waste?
In this particular process, the zylene is serving as a reaction media, in
which the p-terphenyl and radioactive wastewater are suspended in order
to allow a reaction to occur. The reaction in the xylene medium permits
actual photon counting to determine radioactive levels. The preamble
language of the December 31, 1985, Federal Register (50 53316) clarified
the listing of spent solvents, FO01-F005: 1)ie spent solvent listings cover
only those ‘solvents’ that are used for their solvent properties—that is, to
solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents. For example, solvents
used for degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants,
reaction and synthesis media... .“ A December 6, 1988, letter from
Devereaux Barnes, Director, Characterization and Assessment Division,
Office of Solid Waste to Arthur Moretta, EPA, Revlon V, reiterated this
point: “The spent solvent listings cover those efreAme that are used to
solubilize or mobilize other constituents? An argument that the xylene is
used as a reactant or ingredient in the formation of a commercial chemical
product and therefore not covered by the listing is not sound; the xylene is
neither a reactant nor an ingredient in a commercial chemical product.
The used scintillation cocktail contRining xylene is defined as EPA listed
hazardous waste F003.
Pad i ctive
Water
Scirtlllatbn
Cocktail
Scirtffkrneter
+
Hazardous
Waste
Howl
R adion uclides
-p
Xylene +
pterphenyl
With
pIxtomutp1 r
tube
FOO 3
Spent
So Went
-------
9444.1989(02C)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MARCH
1989
2. Definition of Soent Solvent
The owner of a metal working facility uses a cutting oil to cool and lubricate
metals during a drilling process. The cutting oil is purchased as a product
and consists of 80% 1,1,1 .trichloroethRne and 20% lubricating oil. When spent,
the fluid is sent for disposal. Would this material meet the F002 listing found
in 40 CFR Section 261.31?
This question was addressed originally in the RCRA/ Superfu.nd Industrial
Assistance Hotline Monthly Report for April, 1988. At that time, the
Agency viewed the material in question as an F002 hazardous waste in
accordance with 40 CFR Section 261.31. Since that time, the Agency has
amended the answer previously given to read as follows: The December 31,
1985, Federal Register (53 ER 53316) specifies which materials are covered
by the spent solvent listings in 40 CFR Section 261.31. One of the key factors
in meeting the F001-F005 hazardous waste listing is determining how or for
what the material was used. In order to meet listings, the material must
be used for its solvent properties. More specifically, the December 31, 1985,
Federal Resister specifies that “the spent solvent listings cover only those
solvents that are used for their solvent properties, that is, to solubilize
(dissolve) or mobilize other constituents. For example, solvents used in
degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants, reaction
and synthesis media, and similar areas are covered under the listings
(when spent). A solvent is considered ‘spent’ when it has been used and is
no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise
reprocessed (50 LB 53316).” However, the December 31, 1985, Federal
Register also specifies that “process wastes where solvents were used as
reactants or ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical
products are not covered by the listing. The products themselves are also
not covered (50 ER 53316).” The 1,1,1-trichloroethane, in this circumstance
is being used as a cooling ingredient in the formulation of product cutting
oil. The metal working facility is using the cutting oil to coat and lubricate
metals during their drilling operation. When the cutting oil can no longer
be used, it meets the definition of a spent material in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(1).
However, even though the cutting oil meets the definition of a spent
material, it does not meet the spent solvent listing because the cutting oil
formulation was not used as a solvent as described by the December 31, 1985
Federal Register . Likewise, the 1,1,1-trichioroethane is an ingredient in
the cutting oil and this is not a use covered by the F001-F005 spent solvent
listings found in 40 CFR Section 261.31. Therefore, the spent cutting oil in
this circumstance does not meet the spent solvent hazardous waste listings
found in 40 CFR Section 261.31.
-------
9452.1989(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
SEPTEMBER
1989
1. Manifest Requirements and the Off-Site Definition
Within an industrial park, a corporation leases four contiguous plots of
property to wholly owned subsidiaries on one large piece of land. As all
the companies use similar solvents, the corporation has built a central
recycling facility which would accept transported spent solvents from each
of the different production plants. While each of the four companies has a
separate EPA ID Number, all facilities are connected via private roads on
the corporation’s property. If the solvent wastes are trucked from one
company, over another’s leased property in order to get to the central
recycling facility, do the manifest regulations apply?
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
0
C,
PUBLIC ROAD
-------
I RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
I SEPTEMBER 1989
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
(Continued)
When wastes are moved within a corporate park without use of public
roads, the waste is not considered to be transported off-site. Therefore,
a manifest is not required. Section 262.20 of 40 CFR requires “a
generator who transports, or offers for transportation, hazardous waste
for off-site treatment... must prepare a Manifest....” The definition of
“off-site” is interpreted as that which is not on-site. Section 260.10
defines “on-site” to mean, “the same or geographically contiguous
property which may be divided by public or private road...Non-
contiguous properties owned by the same person but connected by a
right of way which he controls and to which the public does not have
access, is also considered on-site property.” As long as the right of
ways are controlled by the lessors, and the public access is restricted,
the movement of hazardous waste does not constitute transportation
“off-site”; a manifest, therefore, is not required.
2
58
-------
bYL .1 1A 4CY ’ 9444.1989(03)
ill 28t9
MEMOPANDTJM
SUBJECT: Classification of Solvent and Commercial Chemical
Product Waste Streams -
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (05-330)
TO: Howard Wilson, Manager
Environmental Compliance Program
Environmental Health and Safety Division (PM-273F)
This memorandum is in response to an inquiry you sent to
Ron Josephson of my staff, dated June 8, 1989, and to questions
presented at a meeting on June 14, 1989. Specifically, you
request a definitive classification of solvent-contaminated
wastestreams in order to prepare a guidance document for EPA
laboratories. We will answer each of your concerns point by
point in order to ensure clarify.
1) During organic liquid-liquid extractions, solvents
( e.a . methylene chloride) are used, which are minimally (<2%)
soluble in water. Thus, after the extraction, the aqueous
phase contains trace amounts of solvent. Does this aqueous
phase need to be disposed of as F002 spent solvent, since the
“before use” solvent concentration was greater than 10%?
The aqueous phase from this separation is considered to be
analogous to a process stream which has become
contaminated with solvent constituents; this waste is not
a spent solvent stream and would therefore not be
classified as F002.
2) In other analyses, the extraction of an organic
analyte is performed with solvents contained only in the F003
listing, such as methanol. Should the aqueous waste be
classified as £003 spent solvent even if it is not ignitable?
Again, the scope of the listing did not include aqueous
rnyip injn fpd with snivent
-------
3) In a memorandum dated December 6, 1988, the Agency
states that Solvent-contaminated aqueous streams resulting from
liquid—liquid extractions are spent solvent and need be
managed as a hazardous waste Only if they exhibit one of the
four characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21 — 261.24. Is
this still true and is this applicable to the above situations?
Yes. The memorandum you reference pertained to processes
at a pharmaceutical production facility. However,
sufficient analogies exist among these situations that the
process waste interpretation may be used in these cases.
4) A laboratory buys a commercial chemical product in
order to formulate standards for quality assurance (QA)
purposes. The QA standards are then sent to other laboratories
for analysis. If excess standard solutions existed which were
not needed for analysis but need to be disposed, would these
formulations be considered commercial chemical product wastes
under 40 CFR 261.33 (assuming that there is a sole active
ingredient)?
Yes. Dilution of a commercial chemical product with water
is not considered use of a commercial chemical product in
this case. Thus, the excess QA standards intended for
disposal would be listed hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
261.33.
5) A laboratory synthesizes a chemical to be used as a QA
standard. The lab then distributes this chemical (or diluted
QA standards) to other laboratories for analysis. Would excess
quantities of these materials be considered hazardous wastes
under section 261.33 (assuming that there is a sole active
ingredient)?
Yes. Materials synthesized in a laboratory in lieu of
buying a commercial product (because of cost savings or
because the product is difficult to obtain) are equivalent
to commercial chemical products, and therefore would be
regulated under 40 CFR 261.33 when disposed. Again,
excess QA standards made by diluting these compounds are
also covered by the listings, when disposed.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any other
questions on these topics, please contact Ron Josephson at 475-
6715.
2
-------
444.1989(O4)
1J_
SUBJECT: Characterization of BTL Specialty Resins Corporation
Waste as to Whether It Is R RA Listed Hazardous Waste
K02 2
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS—330)
TO: David A. Ulirich, Associate Director
Office of R RA
Waste Management Division, Region V
This is response to your memorandum of March 22, 1989, in
which you asked whether a waste produced by BTL Specialty Resins
Corporation is RCRA Listed Hazardous Waste K022. Our
determination is based on information sent by your office and
subsequent telephone conversations between Walter Francis of your
staff and Ron Josephson of my staff.
Based on our review of the information that you provided, we
have determined that the waste produced by BTL is RCRA waste K022
(“Distillation bottom tars from the production of phenol/acetone
from cumene”), as listed in 40 CFR 261.32. The process
generating BTL’s waste meets the listing description and is not
different in any significant respect from exemplary processes
described in the listing background document. Th. argument
presented by BTL’s counmal, Mary Bryant, that BTL does not
generate K022 because their waste is a “liquid” and not a “tar,”
is clearly erroneous. Tars are defined, .g 1 ,, in Wbit .!i
Dictionary , ac “viscous liquida.” Moreover, the process
information privided by your staff indicates that more than one
wastestream i mixed in the waste tank in question which, along
with the templ?ature and pressure in the tank, explains why BTL’s
tar may be less,, rather than more viscous.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions on this topic, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff
at pwrs 475—6715.
-------
9444.1989(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
o ’,c s.)’
SOLID WASTF A iD EMER U.iCv RESD3S.SE
..flL 21 33
Shirlee Schiffman, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous Waste
Regulation and Classification
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
CN 028
Trenton, New Jersey 08625—0028
Dear Ms. Schiffman:
This is in response to your letter of April 5, 1989, and the
subsequent conversation my staff had with you and your staff on
April 20. Specifically, we are answering several questions on
the applicability of hazardous waste regulations under
40 CFR 261.31 and 261.33 to situations enumerated in your letter.
In the first situation, you asked if the regulatory
interpretation provided in a letter sent by the former Office of
Solid Waste Director, Marcia Williams, dated October 26, 1987, is
still valid in the case of acetone-contaminated water from the
washout of a reactor vessel after removal of spent solvent. The
Agency has not changed its interpretation.
In the second situation, you state that a company uses
methanol and acetone to wash a product in order to remove water.
From the telephone conversation, your staff indicated that the
solvent mixture is 50% acetone and 50% methanol before use. To
answer this question, two questions must be answered: 1) does use
as a drying agent constitute use as a solvent? and 2) does the
solvent mixture meet the listing description? First, use as a
drying agent does meet the definition of solvent use because the
material is used to extract water. Second, methanol and acetone
are listed ignitable solvents under F003; therefore, the F003
listing applies because the solvent mixture consists solely of
F003-listed solvits.
You asked during our telephone conversation vhether the
mixture rule u er 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(jjj) would apply to this
situation. ‘The mixture rule applies iit the waste has been
generated and is then mixed vith a solid waste. The mixture rule
specifies that if the mixture no longer exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability, then the waste is no longer
considered hazardous. In this situation, the spent F003 solvents
collected after the washings are EPA hazardous waste F003 until
-------
they are subsequently mixed with solid waste and no longer
exhibit any hazardous waste characteristic
In the third example, a transporter delivers P and U wastes
in tanker trucks. The heels are drained, and the collected
materials are drummed and manifested as hazardous waste. Once
the tank trucks have been drained, Subsequent washes may still
contain small quantities of the Origina’ chemical. The answer to
this question depends on whether the truck at the time of rinsing
qualifies as an empty container, under 40 CFR 261.7. The wash
waters generated after draining, assuming the commercial
chemicals have been removed by reasonable means and less than one
inch or less than 0.3% of the tank volume remained, would not be
hazardous wastes. If these conditions are not satisfied, then
the wastewater would be hazardous waste because they Contain
unused discarded Co ercjal chemical products. (See
47 Z 36092 —36097, August 18, 1982.)
The fourth situation involves a company that uses toluene as
a solvent in a chemical production process. After the product is
made, most of the toluene is recovered. However, the wash water
is contaminated with traces of toluene, which then contaminates
the plant’s process wastewater and settling tank sludges. The
wash water may be considered a process stream that is
contaminated with a solvent constituent and not a listed spent
solvent. The wastewater and settling tank sludges also are not
listed spent solvent wastes.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any other
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at
(202)382—4770.
Sincerely,
—
Devereaux Barnes
Di rector
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: George Neyer, EP Region II (2AWM-Hwc)
2
-------
9444.1989(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 89
1. Clarification of P009 Listing
Title 40 CFR Section 261.31 describes the hazardous waste listing F009 as “spent
stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations where
cyartides are used in the process.” Does this listing incbde all spent stri 1 .piii
and cleaning baths from cyanide electroplating processes or only those stripping
and cleaning baths used at scme point after the cyanide bath?
Discussion of the scope of P009 in the RCRA Listings a } round DOCU1:i€iitt
indica EPA ’s intent is to regulate wastes that contain cya ide. A cleaning
and s-tng bath used prior to the cyanide plating bath wou’d not contain
cy ____ taminatlon from carry over. Spent cleaning and st’npping baths
that f w cyanide plating baths at some point in the dip sMue e wou!d
have levels of cyanide In them due to dragout. Therefore, it is EPAf Intent ‘ ,
regulate only those spent cleaning and stripping baths from electioplatiii.:
processes that are used at some point after the cyanide bath. However, if
cleaning and stripping baths are conmtin led with other baths occurrng
during or after cyanide plating baths or if cyanide containing solutions or
wastes are introduced or recycled in the process upstream of the cyanide
plating baths, then these cleaning or stripping baths would be F009.
Source: Robert Scarberry (202) 3824770
Research: Gwen Herron (202) 382-3112
L !it yt
-------
fl O $TAT I E*TAL PRoTECT N I1 T
9444.1989(07)
Mr. Thomas R. Mastalerz
Technical Sales Representative 9
GSX Services, Inc. p 53 21
P. 0. Drawer C
Greenbrier, Tennessee 37073—0903
Dear Mr. Mastalerz:
This letter is in response to your letter dated July 31,
1989, in which you asked for clarification of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations as they pertain
to “U” and “P” listed wastes found at 40 CTR Section 261.33(e)
and (f).
When characterizing any commercial chemical product (CCP) as
a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA, a person must first
determine if the CCP can be defined as a solid waste (see 40 CFR
261.2). If the CCP is a solid waste, the CCP would also be a
hazardous waste if it is either a “U” or ‘P ” listed waste in 40.
CFR Section 261.33(e) or (f) and/or if it exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR Subpart
C of Part 261. If the ccP is not defined as a solid waste, it.
cannot be a hazardous waste.
As stated in 40 CFR Section 261.33(b), “The following
materials or items are hazardous wastes if and when they are
discarded or intended to be dl.scarded...any off-specification
commercial chemical product or manufacturing chemical
intermediate which, if it met specifications, would have the
generic name listed in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.”
Section 261.33(d) provides that commercial chemical products on
the “U” and “P” lists would also include commercially pure grades
and technical grades of that chemical.
The July 28, 1989 Federal Racister (54 31336) explainS
that the “U” ox ‘P ” lists do not apply to chemicals that have
been used for their intended purpose. If the laboratory’s
“chemical A (U???)” described in your letter is ‘unused’ and
stills remains a technical grade of that chemical after the 0.5%
- 5.0% contamination you indicated, then the chemical must be
classified! as a U listed waste when discarded or intended for
discard/d .fapOsal. In addition, if the laboratory s “unused’
chemical A was no longer considered a technical or commercially
pure grade d ta to contamination, it would be considered an of f-
specification species of that chemical. As the November 25, 1980
Federal Recister (48 78540) explains, “off—specification
-------
materials that, if they met the specification, would be
Commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates” would be listed hazardous wastes when discarded or
intended for discard/disposal.
If you have a CCP that has been used, then it would not be a
“U” or “P” listed waste. It may, however, still exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste defined in 40
CFR Part 261 Subpart C. It is the responsibility of the
generator to make this determination.
You should also be aware of the fact that if the CCP were a
solvent (i.e., used for its solvent properties) and it was spent,
it may meet one of the spent solvent hazardous waste listings
found at 40 CFR Section 261.31 (Hazardous Waste Nos. FOOl through
F005).
Finally, please be advised that States may have regulations
that are more stringent or broader-in-scope than those of the
Federal government. You should always check with the appropriate
state agency.
If you have any further questions, please call the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800—424-9346.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
2
-------
9444.1989(08)
August 21, 1989
Mr. Stephen J. Evans
Environ]nenta 1 Engineer
Modine Manufacturing Company
1500 De Koven Avenue
Racine, Wisconsin 53403
Dear Mr. Evans:
This letter is in response to your letter dated August 3,
1989, in which you ask for classification, under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), of wastewater treatment
sludges resulting from your metal cleaning process.
Your first and foremost question is whether the sludge
generated from the treatment of process wastewaters resulting
from your metal cleaning process meet the listing description for
RCRA Hazardous Waste No. F006. Based on the information in your
letter, Modine’s cleaning operation is not associated with
electroplating. If this is the case, then the sludges generated
from treating these cleaning baths (in a wastewater form) are not
considered RCRA Hazardous Waste No. F006. This is based on the
fact that cleaning is a separate and distinct process from
chemical etching and milling. (See EPA’S publication Development
Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the
E1ectro latinp Point Source Category , August 1979, publication
No. EPA44O/1-79/003, pages 41 and 42 for the definitions of
chemical etching and milling. Note that this document was
referenced in the background document for the F006 listing). As
the December 2, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 43350) states, “The
F006 listing included only common and precious metals
electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching and milling, and
cleaning and stripping when associated with these processes.”
This continues to be EPA’s policy; cleaning must be associated
with one of these three processes in order to be included in the
listing description for Hazardous Waste No. P006.
Your second question relates to whether an electrical
current is a prerequisite for a process to generate an F006
sludge. The application of an electrical current is not a
prerequisite; chemical etching, for example, does not involve the
application of an electrical current, but sludges generated by
treating wastewater from a chemical etching process are included
in the F006 listing. Unfortunately, the interpretation mentioned
in your letter that you received from the RCRA Hotline on May 15,
1989 relative to this question was incorrect.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
As you mention in your letter, however, the sludge generated
in your wastewater treatment process may be characteristically
hazardous ( e.g. , EP toxic); it is the generator’s responsibility
to determine whether his/her waste exhibits one or more hazardous
waste characteristics as defined in 40 CFR Subpart C of Part 261.
Please be aware that many states have been authorized to run
their own RCRA programs. State regulations may be more stringent
or broader—in—scope that Federal regulations so you should always
contact the appropriate state agency.
Should you have any additional questions, please feel free
to contact David Topping of my staff at (202) 382—7737.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1989( 09)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 89
1. Waste Identification of Discarded Thermometers
A manufacturer of mercury thermometers produces a batch of contaminated
thermometers that must be discarded. If the manufacturer discards the
unused thermometers intact, would the waste need to be managed as 17131 or
would the manufacturer need to test the waste to see if it exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic?
40 CFR Section 261.33 contains a listing of commercial chemical products
that are hazardous wastes if and when they are discarded. Under Section
261.33(d), the phrase “commercial chemical product is defined as a
chemical substance which is manufactured or formulated for commercial
or manufacturing use ....“ Furthermore, according to th final rule
preamble in the November 25, 1980 f al gj j (45 78541 , the
Agency did not intend for the phrase commercial chemical product to
apply to manufacturing articles that contain a chemical listed in Section
261.33. The intent was to regulate only those commercial chemical
products and manufacturing chemical intermediates that are known by
the generic name listed in Sections 261.33(c) or (f). Thus, a thermometer
containing mercury is not itself a commercial chemical product and would
not meet the 17151 listing. The manufacturer would then need to check
the discarded thermometers for the hazardous waste characteristics,
specifically to see if the waste would exhibit EP toxicity and thus need to be
managed as RCRA hazardous waste D009. Waste not subject to federal
regulations may be regulated under specific state requirements which are
more stringent
Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475.6715
Research: Mary Beth Clary
-------
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any additional
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my Office at
FTS 475—6-715.
CC: SUSan Bromm, OWPE (OS-520)
John Smith, OTS (TS-798)
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I, II, IV - X
2
-------
9444 . 1989 (11)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OCT 31989
Mr. Jeffrey 0. Cerar
Squires, Sanders, and Dempsey
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20004
Dear Mr. Cerar:
This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1989,
concerning the petitions of the Ferroal].oy Association and
Macalloy Corporation to withdraw the K090 and K091 hazardous
waste listings.
As indicated in your letter and our meeting on July 17,
the Agency does believe that trivalent chromium is a more
serious health concern than previously believed. Recent
evidence suggests that Chromium (III) may be a potential
carcinogen.
The toxicokinetics of chromium have been well studied and
are documented in the literature. Chromium (both III and VI)
have been found to be absorbed in hun ans and animals following
inhalation, oral, and dermal exposure (Tox Profile for
Chromium, 1987). Chromium (VI) is taken up through the cell
membranes and reduced to Chromium (III) intracellularly. In
addition tO the Chromium (III) metabolites, several other
potentially genotoxic chromium metabolites are formed such as
chromium (V and IV) as well as reactive peroxides and oxygen
radicals. (Tox Profile for chromium, 1987). However, it is
thought that chromium (III) may be the predominant genotoxicant
producing DNA-protein cross links and DNA strand breaks
(Beyersmann and Koster, 1987).
Until recently it was assumed that chromium (III) was
unable to permeate the cell membrane due to negative results
from in vitro genotoxic assays and positive results with
isolated nuclei and purified DNA (Tox Prof i].e for Chromium,
1987). Recent studies, however, have shown that chromium (III)
complexes can penetrate biomembralleS and induce DNA damage (de
Flora et al., 1984; Beyersmann and Koster, 1987).
-------
In light of the existing studies Showing absorption of
Chromium (III) via inhalation, oral and/or dermaj. exposure;
permeation of chromium (III) across cell membranes, and
evidence that chromium (III) is a genotoxican , chromium (II:
should be regarded as a potential carcinogen. Our
toxicologists would be happy to meet with you to disCuss thi
further.
Because of our toxicological concerns with trivalent
chromium, the Agency is also rethinking the appropriateness c
the exclusion under section 261.4(b) (6) for wastes which
contain chromium which IS nearly exclusively in the trivalent
form. As you stated in your letter, however, we will need tc
go through rulemaking to amend the regulations.
In addition, the Agency remains concerned about the
conversion of trivalent chromium to the more toxic hexavajent
form under certain plausible mismanagement scenarios, which t
the original basis for the listing of K090/9]. Thus, data
submitted by the Ferroalloy Association on the K090/K09]
proposed listing regarding valence did not affect the Agency’
listing determination. Given these concerns with both
trivalent and hexavalent chromium, we believe that the decisj
to list K090 and K091 on the basis of total chromium was
appropriate.
In your letter YOU indicated your concern with how the
Agency lists wastes based on the presence and concentration o
Appendix viii constituents. It has always been the Agency’s
practice to consider the factors outlined in 40 CFR
26 1.j1(a)(3) when listing a waste as hazardous. For the
reasons described above, EPA believes that the listing of K09:
and K091 was appropriate after considering all the relevant
factors.
You also expressed concern over the variability of the
waste covered by the K090 and K09l listings and indicated tha
the Agency should not regulate them if the wastes are not
Consistently hazardous. Although the technologies which
generate the waste differ and chromium levels vary within the
ferrochromjum industry, the wastes are all generated by air
pollution Control devices from furnaces used in the manufactui
of ferrochromium or ferrochromium silicon and all wastes
contain sufficiently high levels of chromium to warrant
listing. We believe that the individual wastes covered by the
listings are typically or frequently hazardous if mismanaged.
In regard to data obtained from the extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity characteristic, EPA has always maintained that
the EP levels are concentrations which are clearly hazardous
based on the simulated leaching of certain toxic Constituents
from a waste. Concentrations below the EP levels also may po
2
-------
a su.bstantial hazard to human health and the environment; thus,
the Agency will not remove a listed waste from regulation based
solely on data utilizing the EP toxicity characteristic.
Finally, you stated that delisting employs different
criteria than listing and is not an appropriate option for your
Association’s members due to the timefraine and because you
believe that the Agency should withdraw the listings. First,
delisting requires the Administrator to determine, among other
things, that the petitioned waste does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed. Thus, although
delisting may consider additional factors, it is not accurate
to say that delisting applies different criteria. As stated in
our previous letter of June 16, 1989, EPA does not presently
intend to withdraw its listings. We must, however, go through
proposed and final ruleinakings to respond to your members’
petitions as well as the petitions regarding the other 4
hazardous smelting wastes. Completing this process may take at
least another year. Therefore, delisting may still be an
option for your consideration. If the Agency were to apply its
VHS delisting modeling tool, chromium bearing wastes may be
delistable if the total chromium concentration does not exceed
between 0.315 ppm and 1.6 ppm depending upon the annual volume
of waste generated and assuming the waste does not exhibit
other factors (e.g., additional toxic constituents) which would
make the waste hazardous. See the description of the VHS
model, 50 FR 48896 (November 27, 1985) for details.
I would like to emphasize that this letter contains only
tentative reactions to the issues you have raised. A final
determination on your members’ petitions to withdraw the
listings will be made only after notice in the Federal Reaister
and a full opportunity for public comment. We will also make
your August 16th letter, this response, and the technical
materials cited above a part of the public record for your
petition.
I hope thi.s letter has provided further clarification on
the Agency’s position. As indicated earlier, our toxicologists
would be happy to meet with you to discuss our health concerns
with trivalent chromium. Please feel free to contact Dr. Susan
Griffin at (202) 382-4295, if you would like to arrange a
meeting.
Since rely
Robert M. Scarberry, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
3
-------
UNITED STATES Ef4VIRONME)ltlL PRDT’E ttON AGEk’
9444.1989(12)
OCT05
Ms. Sonya E. Shashoua
Supervising Environmental Specialist
Bureau of Hazardous Waste Regulation and Classification
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN—028, 401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625—0028
Dear Ms. Shashoua:
This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1989, in which
you asked several questions related tO specific waste codes under
40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f). As you requested, this office will
clarify the points you have raised so your own hazardous waste
lists are consistent with the technical corrections to S261.33
the EPA published on April 22, 1988 (53 FR 13382). we will
answer your questions in the order you raised them.
1. The chemical name “3-(a lpha-Acetonylbenzy l)-4-
hydroxycoumarin” (POOl, CAS *81-81-2) was dropped from
40 CFR 261.33(e) while the name “Warfarin” was retained. What
was the reason for this deletion?
Warfarin is the common name for this substance, and the name
in the 9 th Collective Index (CI) of Chemical Abstracts was
changed.
2. There were two chemicals on 40 CFR 261.33(f) with the number
Ul26; Glycidylaldehyde (CAS *765-34-4) and 1-propanol-,. 2,3-epoxy
(CAS #556—52—5). After July 1, 1986 the latter chemical was
dropped from 40 CFR 261.33(f). Why wasn’t it retained with a
different “U” number?
Glycidylaldehyde appears to be correct and 1-propanol,
2,3-epoxy was added as an incorrect synonym in 1981. When
the Agency again addresses the issue of making technical
corrections to S26l.33, we will review the old support data
to confirm the correct entry.
3. Can you verify that the Chemical Abstracts service (CAS)
number for 11136 Cacodylic Acid is 75—60-5? The source I am using
as a double check lists the number as 75—50-6.
iou may v LlLy UUL LcI JdyllL cu ld by
! c Kegj5trY, tn .&-a i tIb L,1th t.Lie l x y u
— __._ z—. • _i ..i_.4.. —-———— - r iik1 4
.......a.....á 4 ö
•..ens...... .e•I(
A
ee ee .
.e.ee• ...... . . ..
hi_—----_ .i.—’
nfl———.fl.se
. .
eeee•• .fle .IS .a.ea.s..... .e S...
I I
DA?I 1
SPA P.. 13204 (1240)
OFFICIAL
-------
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH).
4. What is the correct name and CAS number for U036: Chiordane,
technical (CAS #12789-03-6) or Chiordane, alpha and gamma isomers
(CAS *57—74—9)?
Chiordane, alpha and gamma isomers (CAS *57—74-9) are the
commercial products associated with the 9 th CI name;
Chlordane, technical (CAS #12789-03—6) is associated with
the 8 CI name. Since no commercial grade of clilordane is
a pure compound, any formulation in which chiordane is the
sole active ingredient is probably regulated under §261.33.
5. What are the correct listings for creosote and coal tar?
have found:
U051 Creosote -
U051 Creosote CAS * 8021-39—4 (40 CFR — July 1, 1987 edition)
Appendix VIII Coal tar creosote CAS * 8007-45-2
Appendix VIII Creosote No CAS * U051
Appendix VIII Coal tar creosote CAS #8001-58-9 (40 CFR, July 1,
1987 edition)
Creosote, U05l, with no CAS Number is correct since the
Agency wants to include all forms of creosote under the
listing. See enclosure for more details.
6. What is the source for the CAS numbers for “nitrogen
mustard” and Nitrogen mustard N-oxide?” These compounds are not
listed in the reference book I have.
The CAS Registry and RTECS are both sources for the CAS
numbers for these substances.
7 The listing for U161 “Pentanol, 4-methyl” appears to be in
error. The name “2-Pentanone, 4-methyl” has the CAS *108-10-1
and would agree with the other two entries for U16l: “Methyl
isobutyl ketone” and “4-Methyl-2-pentanone” both having the CAS
#108—10—1. Could you please clarify this listing?
You are correct in the statement that 4-Methyl pentanol is
an incorrect name for U16l. Methyl isobutyl ketone and
2-Pentanone, 4—methyl (CAS #108-10-1) are both correct names
for U].61.
Thank you for your inquiry. Many times the Government
Printing Office makes typographical errors and omissions when it
publishes our regulations in the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations. Such mistakes cause many people to send in
inquiries about the accuracy of our listings and force us to
publish technical corrections to the listings from time to time.
You may also be interested .in checking the accuracy of the CAS
2
-------
numbers used in §261.33 and Appendix VIII by contacting the
Chemical Abstracts Service (a part of the American Chemical
Society) in Columbus, Ohio at (614)447-3600.
Sincerely,
Ron J hs6n
Environmental Engineer
Listing Section
Enclosure
cc: George Meyer, EPA Region II (2AWM-MWC)
3
-------
9444.1989(13)
C UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D C 20460
‘4,
4
OCT 20 1989
r,rfucL O
SOLID v 4S1 £N E’ RGE .CY RESPONSE
Mr. Kevin Anthony
Environmental Assistant
MagneTek Ohio Transformer
1776 constitution Avenue
Louisville, OH 44641
Dear Mr. Anthony:
Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1989, in which you
requested information concerning the handling of “F”.series solid
wastes. More specifically, you requested that we send you
information on handlers and alternate disposal or reclamation
processes for rags and similar materials, which have absorbed
various volatijes and “F” wastes through wipe down and cleaning
processes. In general, the EPA Regional Offices are responsible
for this type of inquiry. However, because you have indicated that
Region 5 referred you to my office, my staff has coordinated with
them to prepare the following response for you.
Rags and similar materials may be incinerated and the residue
landfil led. Laundering these rags is an alternative to
incineration, for those rags which can be laundered. Dan Patulski
of Region 5 did not have any additional information on handlers and
alternate disposal or reclamation processes for rags and similar
materials.
If you have any further questions, you can contact
Mr. Patuiski at (312) 886—0656. He has your letter and will be
given a copy of this reply.
Sincerely,
via K. Lowrance, Director
of Solid Waste
-------
RCRA/SUPERFTJND HOTLINE StJXMA y
44.1989(14)
NOVEMBER 1989
3. 40 CFR Section 261.33: Spills of Commercial Chemical Products
Any residues or contaminated soils, waters or other debris “. . . resulting from
the cleanup of a spill into or on any land or water of any commercial chemical
product or manufacturing chemical intermediate having the generic name listed
in paragraph (e) or (f).. .“ of Section 261.33 are hazardous wastes if and when
they are intended to be discarded. (40 CFR 261.33 (d)) Does 40 CFR 261.33 only
apply to spills “into or on any land or water,” or are other types of spills covered
(i.e., debris that result from a cleanup of a spill wholly contained within a
building)?
In the November 25, 1980 Federal Register . EPA states that the purpose of 40
CFR Section 261.33 is to regulate the listed chemical products (and spill
residues thereof) as hazardous wastes when they are discarded or intended
to be discarded. (45 , 78540) Although not specifically stated in Section
261.33 (d), EPA intends that this section apply to all spill residues, regardless
of where the spill occurs. The scope of this regulation includes not only
spills on land or into water, but also other types of spills.
Source: Ron Josephson, OSW (202) 475-6715
Research: Sean White
-------
WUT STAm $“I• A Y’ 9444. 19 89 C 10)
SEP 22 989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Regulation of a Spill of Tetracli].oroethylene
Contaminated with Polychl.orinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS—300)
TO: Steven Wassersug, Director
Waste Management Division, Region III (3HW-OO)
This memorandum is in response to a June 9, 1909 letter fro$
Lawrence Falkin of the RCRA Enforcement General Section to Pat
Carter of the Headquarters Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
(OWPE). In this letter,- your staff asked for a dete cmination of
whether tetrachloroethy]ene contaminated with PCB8 from the
washout of transformers is a RCRA-regulated hazardous waste.
Specifically, the tetrachloroetfly lene was used as a temporary
transformer dielectric and to remove residual PCBs from
transformers.
Although use as a dielectric does not meet the description
of a solvent use, it is clear that the primary reason that the
tetrachioroethylene is used is to remove the PCBs from the
transformer. Use of tetrachloroethylene (where the before—use
concentration is at least ten percent b volume) in “degreasing,
cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants, reaction and
synthesis media, and similar uses” is a solvent use covered by
the F002 spent solvent listing description. (See 50 FR 53316,
December 31; 1985.) Here, the before—use concentration of the
tetrachlorothylene is close to 100%. Spent tetrachloroethylene
contaminated vith PCBs is a spent solvent (F002) under
40 CFR 261.31 and is subject to all RCRA waste management and
corrective action requirements. Further, the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) in no way supersedes RCRA requirements
applicable to such wastes. If a conflict between RCRA and TSCA
authority were to be found, the more stringent requirements would
apply. (See, e.g., 52 FR 25769 — 25770, July 8, 1987.)
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SU!
9444 . 1990 C 01)
JANUARY 1990
I. SIGNIFICANT OIJESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—TANUARY 1990
A. RCRA
Two Parts to the Definition of Treatment
To facilitate disposal, a generator consolidates two spent solvents, which
are listed in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D, into a single container. Is the
mixing of these wastes considered to be treatment of hazardous waste
under RCRA? Would a person consolidating waste need a RCRA permit
or interim status designation for treatment of hazardous waste?
The definition of treatment is a two-part definition. The definition
indudes “any method ... or process ... designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or composition of any l ’-ardous
waste so as to neutralize such waste, or so as to recover energy or
material resources from the waste, or so as to render such waste non-
hazardous; less hazardous; (or) safer to transport, store, or dispose of’
(40 CFR Section 260.10).
Putting two RCRA hazardous wastes into one container with the
purpose of facilitating disposal is treatment if, for example, the
mixing makes one or both of the wastes less hazardous or safer to
transport. (OSWER Directive 9432.05-84; November 6, 1984) Any
person, unless otherwise excluded from regulation, consolidating
wastes needs a RCRA permit or interim status designation for
treatment if the mixing results in treatment according to the
definition in 40 CFR Section 260.10. (Certain generators accumulating
wastes and treating the wastes in tanks and containers may not be
subject to permit requirements (51 EE 10168, March 24, 1986).)
Regardless of whether or not the person is treating hazardous waste,
he may need a RCRA permit for storage. A generator would need a
permit or interim status designation for storage if waste is stored
longer, or is accumulated in amounts greater, than the limitations in
40 CFR Section 262.34. A transporter also would need a storage
permit if, for example, he stores waste at a transfer facility for longer
than ten days (40 CFR Section 263.12).
Source: Jim Berlow, OSW (202) 382-4627
Mitch Kidwell, OSW (202) 382-4805
Richard Kinch, 05W (202) 382-7917
Chet Oszman , 05W (202) 382-4499
Research: Monica Genadio
-------
9444.1990(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAR 22 1990
OFFICE 0
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Richard A. Jainison, Jr.
Micron Diagnostics, Inc.
Point Breeze Business Center
2200-c Broening Highway
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
Dear Mr. Jamison,
This letter responds to your March 14, 1990 correspondence
regarding the regulatory status of your product, Micro-Clear.
In order for a material, to be defined as a hazardous waste
subject to regulation under Subtitle c of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), it must first be defined as a solid waste
according to the requirements set forth in 40 CFR 261.2. Unused
commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates do not qualify as solid waste unless they are
discarded or intended to be discarded, burned for energy recovery
or used to produce a fuel (if this is not their normal manner of
use), or applied to the land (if this is not their normal manner
of use). If a commercial chemical product is used, reused,
recycled or reclaimed in lieu of being discarded, it does not
qualify as a solid waste and cannot be a hazardous waste subject
to regulations under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Your letter does not indicate the final disposition of the
Micro-clear, but you do state that Micro—Clear is a commercial
product. Provided this commercial product is being used for its
intended purpose, it would not qualify as a solid waste and would
not be subject to RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction. However, if this
product could no longer be used for its intended purpose (e.g., it
is off-specification or outlives its expiration date) and is
intended for disposal, it would be a solid waste and could be
subject to R RA Subtitle c jurisdiction.
A generator of solid waste is required to perform a hazardous
waste determination for his solid waste pursuant to 40 CFR 262.11.
This regulation requires the generator to determine if his waste
meets a listing of hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261.
If the waste is not listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261, he must
determine whether the waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261.
-------
Assuming that a quantity of Micro-Clear was intended for
disposal and that you have previously determined that it does not
meet a listing of hazardous waste, the test data supplied with your
letter appears to demonstrate that Micro-Clear does not exhibit any
of the characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C
of 40 CFR Part 261. You should be aware, however, that although
your data indicates that Micro—Clear does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, each individual aenerator is
responsible for evaluating his own waste and making this
determination. Furthermore, the EPA recently finalized the
Toxicity Characteristic rule. This rulemaking amends 40 CFR 261.24
(Characteristic of EP Toxicity) by adding an additional 25 organic
constituents of concern and establishes regulatory thresholds for
these constituents. Your letter indicates that a sample of Micro-
Clear was evaluated for most of the constituents found in Table 3.
under 40 CFR 261.24 (cadmium is not included with the metals which
were found to be non—detectable). However, after the effective
date of the Toxicity Characteristic regulations, generators must
evaluate their solid wastes for the presence of these additional
toxic constituents.
Should you have further questions regarding the regulatory
status of your Micro—Clear, I encourage you to contact the••
appropriate Regional office or authorized State regulatory agency.
The regulatory interpretations provided in this letter apply to
Federal requirements. State and local regulatory agencies may have
regulations that are more stringent than those at the Federal
level. You may want to contact the appropriate State regulatory
agency to determine what, if any, additional requirements apply.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9444.1990(03)
4 1I $Fa,
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Iif?
APR ‘
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Chuck Kreider
BASF Corporation
8 Campus Drive
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
Dear Mr. Kreider:
This is in response to your letter of February 22L1990 to
Mr. Jace Cuje of Ceo-Resource Consultants, Inc. (the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline) concerning the commercial chemical
product listing (40 CFR 261.33) for xylene (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. U239). Specifically, you wanted to know if the listing for
dimethyl benzene (a chemical synonym for xylene) was listed for
ignitability and toxicity, or ignitability only.
On April 22, 1988, the Agency promulgated technical
corrections to the S261.33 listings. (See 53 FR 13382.) In the
process of doing this, the Agency added Chemical Abstracts
Service (CAS) numbers to the listed chemicals, as well as
chemical synonyms, to make understanding these regulations easier
on the regulated community. After these corrections appeared in
the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations, we
realized that a few typographical errors had been made. The case
of dimethyl benzene is one of them. The listing for “benzene,
dimethyl” (U239, CAS No. 1330—20—7) should be only for
ignitai,ility. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have
caused you.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any tdditional
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at
(202)475—6715 or the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)424-9346.
Sincerely,
Robert N. Scarberry, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
R.qcfr4 Papi’
-------
9444.1990(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- Z t990
Mr. Frank Jaroriik
Coral International, Inc.
135 LeBaron Street
c’Iaukegan, Illinois 60085
Dear Mr. Jaroni]c:
This is in response to your letter of March 27, 1990,
concerning the exclusion from the F019 hazardous waste listing
which was finalized on February 14, 1990 (55 FR 5340). You
wanted to know whether this exclusion applies to wastewater
treatment sludges from zirconiwnphosphatjng of two-piece
aluminum food cans in addition to aluminum beverage cans.
The F019 exclusion would apply to sludges from this process
on aluininu n food cans provided the conditions outlined in the
February 14 g . gA Register are met. The conversion coating
process must involve the exclusive use of zirconium phosphating
solutions that do not contain cyanide or chromium. Further, this
process must not be associated with electroplating or conversion
coating steps where hazardous constituents are used.
Should you have any additional questions, please contact
Ms. Denis Wright of my staff at (202) 245—3519.
Sincerely,
6d 4L
Robert M. Scarberry
Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
UN ITE STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444.1990(05)
Mr. James B. MacRae, Jr.
Acting Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
New Executive Office Building
Room 3019
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. MacRae:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the Agency’s
response to issues raised in OMB’s review of the petroleum
ref inery sludge hazardous waste listing regulation. Since
receiving your letter on September 6, 1990 the Agency has spent
considerable time reviewing the issues raised, re—analyzing the
data that support the rule, and developing written responses, the
most recent of which we sent to you on October 5. Both the
Deputy Administrator and I have spent significant amounts of time
personally on this matter; we have both been briefed by staff on
the issues, we have formulated the Agency’s response, and we have
met with you or talked personally on the phone. As late as the
morning of October 16 EPA and 0MB staff were engaged in detailed
discussions on the text of the preamble. I am sure you will
agree that •the Agency has been quite responsive to your concerns.
As you know, the fundamental purpose of this regulation is
to complete the work begun in 1980 when the Agency listed the
first group of primary wastewater treatment sludges from
petroleum refining. A major weakness in the original listing was
that it failed to capture all of the primary sludges generated at
petroleum refineries. This final listing regulation simply
completes RCRA coverage of the these primary wastewater treatment
sludges, all of which have the potential to present significant
risks to human health when mismanaged. I therefore strongly
encourage you to complete your review of this important
regulation. Your speedy action is particularly important since
the Agency is now under order of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia to promulgate this rule by October 22, 1990.
-------
Following is a summary of the Agency’s responses to your
concerns in the order presented in your letter.
EPA’S Decision to List Is Based en Arbitrary Distinctions Between
Waste TyDes
Your September 6 letter raised two concerns about the scope
of the listing determination. Your first concern is that the
preamble fails to document the distinction between primary
separation and biological separation sludges and thus calls into
question the Agency’s rationale for listing.the former but not
the latter. You provide data to support your conclusion that the
levels of hazardous constituents in the two types of sludges are
similar enough to justify the listing of both. Your second
concern is that the listing determination fails to account for
the variability in levels of hazardous constituents in the
primary sludges and thus over-regulates.
With respect to your first concern, the Agency has never
intended to include biological sludges in this listing nor have
we published any documents suggesting that we were considering
such an action. Our intent has always been simply to regulate
the primary sludges that were not captured by the 1980 listings.
Since biological sludges were not within the scope of the
rulemaking, we have never undertaken a major sampling effort and
therefore have only limited data. This limited data and our
engineering judgment lead us to believe that biological sludges
contain significantly lower levels of many hazardous constituents
than primary sludges and thus pose less of a risk to human health
and the environment. In attempting to re-create the figures
shown in the table on page 4 of your letter, we realized that
your figures for the concentration of hazardous constituents in
biological treatment sludges include data from some units that
would be regulated as primary treatment units under this listing.
Your figures therefore overstate the concentration of hazardous
constituents in aggressive biological treatment sludges and do
not by themselves provide a rationale for listing biological
treatment sludges. In our October 5 letter we transmitted new
preamble language and data that more clearly explain why the
Agency cannot justify the listing of biological sludges at this
time.
Your letter also states that the levels of hazardous
constituents in primary sludges vary by orders of magnitude
across facilities and between units and thus the listing is over-
inclusive. The Agency’s data do not support this conclusion.
While it is true that individual constituent concentrations vary,
virtually every sample of primary separation sludge collected by
the Agency contains one or more hazardous constituents several
orders of magnitude above the applicable health-based levels.
2
-------
Thus, notwithstanding variation among constituent concentrations,
these data clearly demonstrate that all primary sludges have the
potential to pose a risk to human health.
Selective At Dlication of the Factors for Consideration in
6 261.11 (a) (3)
Potential for Human ExDosure
Your letter states that the Agency has not provided evidence
of contamination in drinking water wells down-gradient of
petroleum refineries. In response, we have provided preamble
language documenting evidence found in Region VI of contamination
of RCRA groundwater monitoring wells by currently listed primary
separation sludges. As we stated in our earlier written response
and in our October 4 meeting, it would be time-consuming and
costly for the Agency to monitor drinking water wells (as opposed
to monitoring wells) for the purposes of regulation development.
Even if the monitoring data were collected, it would also be
difficult to identify the specific source of any contamination
detected due to the prevalence of contaminants surrounding
petroleum refineries. The same limitation on identifying
contamination sources applies to monitoring conducted by public
drinking water treatment utilities. Therefore, as a standard
practice, we rely heavily on modeling of constituent fate and
transport to predict the potential for drinking water
contamination from particular wastestreams. In the case of this
industry, we have an unusually large database containing real—
world information on toxic constituents, current management
practices, site hydrogeology, and distances to public and private
wells. It is our view that the fate and transport model, coupled
with extensive real—world data inputs and the Region VI damage
cases provide clear evidence of the potential for these sludges
to contaminate down-gradient drinking water sources when they are
mismanaged.
Factors Xnadeauatelv Addressed in the Draft Preamble
Risk Reducin Effects of Drinkina Water Recrulations
Your letter suggests that the benefits analysis and the
decision to regulate should take into account both the effects of
existing regulations under the Safe Drinking Water (SDWA) and the
effects of contaminant taste and odor on drinking water use. You
imply that it would be less costly to society to rely on SDWA
regulations to prevent human exposure to any groundwater
contamination through public drinking water treatment systems and
to rely on contaminant taste and odor to prevent human exposure
through private wells.
The Agency views this approach, which focuses on cleanup, as
contrary to both the statutory goals of RCRA and the Agency’s
pollution prevention strategy. Prevention of pollution often has
3
-------
proven to yield long-term benefits. The Agency nonetheless
agrees that the existence of drinking water regulations for some
of the hazardous constituents of primary separation sludge is
relevant to the quantitative benefits calculation. However,
drinking water regulations do not exist for all of the hazardous
constituents, most notably the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
that are common in the petroleum sludges at issue here. The
Agency did not therefore invest its limited analytical resources
in a further refinement of the benefits analysis to measure the
exact impact of drinking water regulations. We did provide in
our October 5 letter additional language for the preamble and the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that qualitatively addresses
this limitation in the analysis.
Contaminant taste and odor would be an unreliable approach
to protection of private well users. The concentration threshold
at which people taste and smell contaminants varies, and in the
case of benzene, the threshold is several times higher than the
drinking water regulatory level. Such an approach would
obviously not be effective for contaminants that have neither
taste nor odor.
The Agency also does not dispute the fact that treatment of
contaminated groundwater is less costly in the short term than
full iinplezdentation of RCRA Subtitle C. We are not convinced
however, that the long-term costs to society would indeed be
lower, given the mandates of both RCRA and CERCLA to clean up
contamination and the essentially unquantifiable value of an
uncontaminated natural resource. The policy and legal
implications of implementing a treatment approach are profound,
and would require the Agency to undertake a comprehensive re-
thinking of the RCRA and CERCLA programs. We do not believe that
it is appropriate to undertake such an effort at this time or in
the context of this individual rulemaking. We would welcome the
opportunity to discuss the environmental implications of relying
on groundwater treatment instead of prevention and remediation
later this fall as we begin to prepare for the reauthorization of
RCRA.
Other ApDropriate Considerations
1) Alternative Means of Achieving Equivalent Risk -
Reduction Benefits at Less Cost
You suggest that EPA should have given further consideration
to a range of alternatives for the regulation of primary
separation sludge. Examples given include a g ininiinis approach,
a Subtitle “D” or “D+” approach, and the more novel idea of
regulating only when contamination in drinking water wells has
actually been detected and the refinery has failed to provide
either treatment or alternative water supply. Your letter goes
on to state that full implementation of Subtitle C dampens
-------
pollution prevention incentives by regulating all of the sludges
to the same degree of stringency regardless of their level of
toxicity.
Based on further analysis, we have found first that
petroleum refinery primary wastewater treatment sludges are
unlikely to qualify for a miniinis exemption from Subtitle C
regulation. Since 1980 the industry has been unable to lower
constituent levels to meet even the hazardous waste delisting
levels, so we do not consider a minimis approach to be viable.
Second, we do not have statutory authority to develop or enforce
Subtitle D regulations for this industry at this time, nor are we
aware of the legal authority under which your final regulatory
alternative could be implemented. We therefore did not pursue
analysis of these options in our RIA.
The Agency could consider pursuing a concentration-based
listing or tailoring existing Subtitle C requirements to this
particular industry in hopes of reducing the costs of compliance.
However, neither approach is likely to produce dramatic savings
in this industry. The toxicity and mobility of these sludges
would probably prevent the Agency from establishing
concentrations that would allow substantial volumes to escape
regulation. It would also be difficult to justify significant
deviation from established Subtitle C engineering standards.
Both approaches would require a new data collection and analysis
effort as well as a re-proposal of the rule. We do not think it
is appropriate to consider a fundamental change in our regulatory
approach for petroleum refining waste at this late stage in the
process, particularly when the standards for newly listed sludges
would vary in approach from standards that apply to virtually
identical sludges that have been listed since 1980. We do
believe, however, that both concentration-based listings and
tailored standards are worthy of consideration in the future for
those wastestreams where it is appropriate. There are policy,
legal, and resource issues to be evaluated before the Agency can
fully implement either approach. We would be happy to discuss
these issues with you at your convenience.
We do not agree with your statement that listing discourages
pollution prevention. Our experience has been that listing under
Subtitle C creates a strong incentive to reduce waste volume, to
improve the efficiency of wastewater treatment systems, and to
recycle and re-use waste materials. Based on this experience and
information provided to us by the refining industry, we would
expect the same incentives to exist for these petroleum sludge
listings.
5
-------
2) Upper—Bound Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk is Within
EPA’S Acceptable Risk Range
Your letter indicates that the excess cancer risks presented
by primary treatment sludge are within the lO to io’
“acceptable” range. Your letter fails to point out that 0MB used
gj upper-bound cancer risks to the exposed population to
document this statement as opposed to the cancer risks posed to
the maximallY exposed individuals (MEl’s) at individual
refineries. Historically, EPA has set standards to protect
against MEl cancer risk levels in the 1O to lO’ range.
3) Costs Exceed Benefits by at Least an Order of
Magnitude
EPA is aware that the projected costs of complying with the
petroleum refinery sludge listing exceed the benefits we have
been able to quantify. It is extremely difficult to quantify the
health and environmental benefits of prevention regulations and
we would welcome any advice 0MB may have on improving our
techniques for benefits estimation. We provided in the
attachments to our October 5 letter a discussion of the factors
that have caused us to under—estimate benefits. These include
exposure pathways not analyzed, constituents not included in the
analysis, and future populations not accounted for. We believe
that the incentives to reduce waste volumes and upgrade
wastewater treatment systems, the closing of a long-standing gap
in RCRA regulatory coverage, and the consistency with previous
listing decisions are all factors in addition to the cost/benefit
ratio that must be considered in this final regulatory decision.
In closing, I would like to say that EPA appreciates the
time and effort that you and your staff have devoted to the
review of this regulation. You have pointed out some issues
which required fuller discussion in the preamble and have raised
broad policy issues that clearly merit further consideration as
we look to the future of the hazardous waste program. However,
given the existence of a gap for 10 years in RCRA regulatory
coverage of primary separation sludges and the court order
requiring the Administrator to take final action on this rule by
October 22, the Agency finds there is a compelling need to
complete our work on the petroleum refinery sludge listing and
promulgate this final rule.
Sincerely,
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
cc: F. Henry Habicht, II
6
-------
9444.1991(01)
RCRA/SUPKRPUND HOTLINE MONThLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 199].
1. Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Treatment Sludge Classification
A petroleum refinery produces large volumes of process and oily cooling
wastewaters. Prior to discharge into the facility’s privately owned treatment works,
the wastewater undergoes treatment to meet applicable Clean Water Act discharge
limits. At various points throughout the wastewater treatment process, the facility
generates a sludge which is disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill. The
November 2, 1990 Federal Register (55 f 46354), promulgated two new petroleum
refinery wastewater treatment sludge listings, P037 and F038. After May 2, 1991, the
effective date of this rule, which of the facility’s treatment sludges will need to be
dassified according to the new designations and therefore become subject to RCRA
Subtitle C requirements?
In developing the new listings, EPA conduded that sludges resulting from
various petroleum refinery wastewater treatment sources contain similar
levels of 1i2,ardous constituents as those generated in Dissolved Air Flotation
(DAF) units and American Petroleum Institute (API) separators, which are
already designated as 1(048 and 1(051, respectively. Consequently, the
Agency promulgated the nonspecific source P037 and F038 waste listings to
ensure that regulatory coverage was extended to all petroleum floats and
sludge resulting from primary wastewater treatment that are not covered
under more unit-spedflc K designations. (55 E 46356)
To determine the applicability of the P037 and P038 listings, the facility must
ascertain the origin of the wastewater treatment sludges. Petroleum refinery
process and oily cooling wastewaters are generally treated in two phases:
primary treatment and secondary (biological) treatment Primary wastewater
treatment in the petroleum refining industry covers only the two initial stages
of treatment which are designed to use physical and chemical processes to
separate oil, water and solids from the wastewater stream.
Specifically 1 the P037 listing description is assigned to sludges resulting from
the first stage of primary treatment where gravitational oil/water/solids
separation is performed. The F038 designation pertains to floats and sludges
that arise from the second stage of primary treatment in which physical and
chemical processes are employed to separate emulsified oil/water/solids
from refinery wastewaters. (55 f 46363) PLEASE NOTE: sludges resulting
from secondary wastewater treatment, which are distinguished by the active
biological degradation phase that follows primary treatment, are not covered
by the new petroleum refinery sludge rule.
-------
A final consideration when determining the scope of the F037 and F038
listings are the exemptions for sludges generated from specific situations.
These include (1) sludges generated from storinwater units that do not
receive dry weather flow; (2) sludges (or floats) generated from aggressive
biological eatinent units; and (3) sludges resulting from specific wastewater
eatment units already designated as K048 and/or 1(051. (55 46358) The
exemptions ensure that only sludges and floats resulting from previously
unregulated activities or activities within the scope of the new listings (i.e.,
only primary treatment) are identified as hazardous under the F037 and F038
waste codes.
Source . John Austin, 05W (202) 382-4789
Research: Stephen Buchanan
-------
UNr. J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444.1991(02)
Gaynor Dawson
Vice President
ICF Kaiser Engineers
601 Wil].iains Blvd., 4th Floor
Richiand, WA
Dear Mr. Dawson:
I am writing to respond to your August 17, 1990 letter
requesting clarification of the circumstances under which lead
shielding for radioactive waste is a solid waste under RCRA.
In your letter, you refer to the June 26, 1987 correspondence
between the Director of the Office of Solid Waste, Marcia
Williams, and Terry Husseman, Chair of the Northwest Interstate
Compact Co nmittee, which states in part: “...lead whose primary
use is shielding in low-level waste disposal operations is not
subject to Federal hazardous waste regulations when placed on
the land as part of its normal commercial use. This policy is
unchanged.
Most recently, this policy was echoed in the October 4,
1989 Agency guidance to NRC licensees, “Guidance on the
Definition and Identification of Commercial Mixed Low-level
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste and Answers to Anticipated
Questions. In question 6, on page 4 of the guidance, the issue
is raised: •Are lead containers whose primary use is for
shielding in disposal operations, hazardous waste under RCRA?”
The first paragraph of the response follows:
No. While lead containers and lead container liners
may exhibit the hazardous characteristic for lead,
those containers whose primary use is for shielding in
low-level waste disposal operations are not
considered hazardous wastes and thus, are not subject
to the hazardous waste rules. These same containers
and liners if disposed of or discarded would be
considered wastes and if they exhibit the hazardous
characteristic, would be subject to the hazardous
waste rules.
In sununary, your statement that ... lead containers or
container liners (are] not solid wastes when the radioactive
waste (is] disposed because the lead shielding continue(s] to
fulfill this intended use as shielding” is a correct
interpretation of Agency policy. While the lead shielding i s
n a lid waite ‘-‘a -‘-‘ ‘ . .i -
to 1 dis sa1 1 .Ln r e ravene h ehteld t
-------
UNI. • .i STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiuM AGENCY
from leaching. When this is done, the environment will be
protected from radiation by the lead shielding, and from the
leaching of lead by the macroencapsulation of the entire waste
package. Please note that this macroencapsulation is not
required by the land disposal restrictions, but represents best
management practice. Of course, if the shielding is no longer
serving its intended use as a commercial product and is
discarded, and exhibits a characteristic, it is a solid waste
and must meet all Subtitle C requirements, including
macroencapsulation before being placed in or on the ground.
Your letter asks several questions regarding lead
shielding, some of which were discussed over the phone with Rod
Larang of your staff. The first question asks if lead shielding
for radioactive wastes is a solid waste when it is disposed
under certain conditions.
The first condition is when the shielding is part of an
object being disposed, and while necessary for radiation
protection during waste handling prior to its disposal in or on
the land, is not necessary for radiation protection after the
object has been placed in or on the land. Since the shielding
is not necessary for radiation protection once the object has
been disposed, it becomes a solid waste upon disposal, arid
therefore must meet all applicable treatment standards.
The second condition concerns lead shielding that is part
of a disposed waste package and is necessary for radiation
protection after the object has been buried. Here, the lead
shielding is fulfilling its intended use as a commercial
product, and is not considered a solid waste.
The third condition involves the introduction of shielding
during the packaging of radioactive waste in preparation for its
disposal. As the lead shielding is necessary only during waste
handling in this example, once the shielding is disposed, it
becomes a solid waste.
The fourth condition concerns the introduction of shielding
during the packaging of the radioactive waste for disposal; the
shielding being necessary for radiation protection after the
waste package has been buried. Here the shielding is not a
solid waste as long as it is fulfilling its intended use as a
commercial product.
tv &US. a ssl
wrien pi. ced tori disposa%, i T IbubJ c1 jcu 40 .j 2 8 w c
-------
UNITtD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
treatment standards (i.e., encapsulation for D008 waste lead
shielding), or are these standards inapplicable because the
shielding is not a solid waste until disposal is completed?”
As indicated above, if the lead shielding itself is discarded
and is no longer fulfilling its intended use as a commercial
product, it is a solid waste, and is subject to all applicable
treatment standards.
Question three describes a situation where a waste package
with nonencapsulated shielding disposed in the past is retrieved
in the future in order to treat the waste. In this case, as
long as the shielding is fulfilling its intended use, it is not
a solid waste. Once the shielding is discarded, however, the
shielding becomes a solid waste, as it would no longer be
serving the function for which it was intended. As the land
disposal restrictions apply prospectively, it is important to
know when the shielding was discarded. If it was discarded
before the applicable effective land disposal restrictions date
for the RCRA hazardous waste, the land disposal restrictions
would not apply until it was dug up.
Question four in your letter provides two more examples of
the use of lead shielding: radioactive materials passing through
a lead pipe, and nonradioactive materials being protected from
a radioactive environment by lead. To respond to the subparts
of question four, first, the abandonment of buried lead-lined
piping which transported radioactive materials and the
radioactively contaminated lead-shielded phone cable constitutes
disposal of a solid waste. See 40 CFR 261.2 for the definition
of solid waste. This lead would be subject to treatment
standards under the Land Disposal Restrictions program. Lead
contaminated with radioactivity must be macroencapsulated before
disposal (55 FR 22628). The piping and cables are wastes once
- abandoned; redisposing the waste elsewhere would not affect its
status as a solid waste. Again, because the land disposal
restrictions apply prospectively, if the material was abandoned
before tha land disposal restrictions effective date for the
hazardous waste(s), the land ban would not apply unless the
material was dug up. Liability for the improper disposal of
hazardous waste would occur immediately upon such disposal.
Violations of the land disposal prohibitions may result in the
issuance of an order assessing a civil penalty for any past or
current violation, requiring compliance immediately or within
a specified time period, or both. (RCRA section 3008 (a) (1)).
To reiterate, HSWA requires hazardous wastes to meet promulgated
treatment stanaaras prior d j&sdi u l. F ilw. L%., uI c t
these st ndards 4s a viol tion ot IHSWA.
-------
UNITtD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Question 5 of your letter asks if, under Section 6001 of
RCRA, federal agencies are immune from regulation by authorized
states. Section 6001 of RCRA spells out clearly that any part
of the Federal government engaging in waste disposal operations
is subject to all federal, state, interstate, and local
requirements. Moreover, Executive Order 12088 states that the
Federal government will comply with all environmental statutes
and regulations, including the environmental statutes and
regulations of authorized states. Thus, under Section 6001 of
RCRA, Federal agencies are not immune from regulation by
authorized states.
We hope that this letter answers your concerns regarding
the circumstances under which lead shielding for radioactive
wastes is or is not a solid waste under RCRA. If you have
further questions on this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Richard Kinch, Chief
Waste Treatment Branch
-------
9444.1991(03)
R RA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONThlY SUIOIARY
MAY 1991
1. Comparative Definitions of FOOl and F002
Tetrachioroethylene, thchloroethvlene, methylene chloride, and 1,1,1-
thchloroethylene are listed in the definitions of both FOOl and F002 in 40 CFR 261.31.
The listing for FOOl reads “the following spent halogenated solvents used in
degreasing...”, while the P002 listing begins with “the following spent halogenated
solvents.... Although FOOl applies specifically to solvents used in degreasing
according to the December 31, 1985 Federal Register . the F001-F005 listings cover
only those solvents used for their solvent properties. A solvent used in degreasing
is considered to be used for its solvent properties. (50 E 53316) Thus, a solvent,
which is listed in both FOOl and F002 (e.g., methylene chloride) and is used in
degreasing, could be both FOOl and F002 Would such a spent solvent be
appropriately classified as FOOL F002, or both?
It was not the intent of the Agency to apply both listings to a solvent
constituent which is listed in both FOOl and F002. The waste code that the
spent solvent receives depends on the type of degreasing involved. Page 6
of the “Listing of I-h7 rdous Waste (40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32); Identification
and Listing of Ha72rdous Waste Under RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3001” (also
known as the Background Listings Document) clarifies the intent of the FOOl
listing as opposed to other spent solvents. Specifically, the FOOl listing is
appropriate when tetrachioroethylene. trichioroethylene, methylene chloride,
and 1,1,1-trichioroethane are used in large-scale industrial degreasing
operations [ e.g., cold cleaning, vapor degreasing (open top and
conveyorized), and fabric scouring]. Alternatively, tetrachioroethylene,
trichloroethylene, inethylene chloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroetnane used in
equipment cleaning or in smaller scale degreasing operations involving repair
work (that do not employ industrial degreasing processes as described
above), such as industrial maintenance and repair, commercial service and
repair, and consumer-performed maintenance and repair, receive the F002
listing.
Source: Ron Josephson, OSW (202) 475-6715
Research: Peter LeTourrteau
-------
9444.1991(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PIJG 30 t99
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Residual Materials Contaminated wi th Trace Solvents
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
EPA Region VIII
This memorandum is in response to your requests for guidance
on trace solvent issues dated December 20, 1990 and February 11,
1991. In the particular case cited, a facility degreases metal
parts in an FOOl—listed solvent, air dries the parts, and then
blasts the parts. Some of the blasting grit has been found to
contain solvent constituents. According to your first memo, a
conflict between Region VIII and the Utah Department of Health
has arisen on interpreting the scope of the listing regulations.
The conflict appears to be centered on whether previous
Headquarters memoranda are valid and applicable to this
situation.
Upon review of the specific situation and your initial
response, research into previous Headquarters correspondence, and
discussions with your staff, we concur with the memorandum sent
y Terry Anderson to James Wickemeyer on October 29, 1990 (i.e.,
‘the blasting grit generated by the facility in question does not
meet the FOOl spent solvent listing description). This letter is
consistent with previous Headquarters interpretations as to the
scope of the spent solvent listings or the mixture rule, which
state traces of solvents left on equipment after cleaning are not
spent and therefore do not meet the listing description. Such
wastes may be hazardous because they exhibit one of the
characteristics of hazardous waste described in 40 CFR 261
Subpart c (particularly the toxicity characteristic of §261.24).
If solvents are used for cleaning in excess of amounts
needed for that purpose, however, the excess solvent residues
-------
could be spent, and therefore listed hazardous waste. No set
quantity has been established for excess amounts of solvents
which would cause the residual in question to be subject to
regulation. The nature of facility operations will dictate
whether the amount of solvent released, inadvertently or
deliberately, would cause the waste in question to meet the
listing description. The applicability of such an interpretation
would depend on the nature of the operation, the quantities of
solvents used and disposed in the operation, and the manner in
which they are used/disposed.
Please note that some state agencies have the authority to
interpret Federal regulations more strictly than EPA, if desired.
In this particular case, such an interpretation may ease the
regulatory flexibility of State agency personnel.
Thank you for your memorandum. If you have any additional
questions on this topic please do not hesitate to call me or have
your staff contact Ron Josephson at FTS 260—4770.
cc: (w/incoming) Ken Gigliello, OWPE (OS-520)
Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I — VII, IX, X
2
-------
9444.1991(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
November 26, 1991.
Mr. James C.R. Lee, P.E., Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer.
CEPOJ-ED,
APO San Francisco 96343-0061
Dear Mr. Lee:
Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1991. Please accept
my apology for the delay in answering your letter, which was
referred to our branch from the Kansas City regional office.
In response to your first question, discarded wastewater at
a corrosion control facility is considered a solid waste. (40 CFR
261.2). Whether a solid waste is also a hazardous waste depends
on whether the solid waste contains any listed hazardous waste or
exhibits any hazardous waste characteristics.
Methylene Chloride is listed in 40 CFR 261.31 as a hazardous
waste. Unfortunately, the information you provide about the way
in which the methylene chloride is used is not enough to allow me
to say, conclusively, whether the waste you describe is
hazardous. Methylene chloride is listed as both an FOOl and F002
hazardous waste. I refer you to the following paragraphs:
40 CFR 261.3 Hazardous wastes from non-stecific sources
EOOl...The following spent halogenated solvents used in
ds reaaing: Tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
t 1mno chloride, 1,1, 1-trichloroethane, carbon
• tetrachioride and chlorinated fluorocarbons; all spent
solvents mixtures/blends used in degreas jug containing,
before use, a total of ten percent or more (by volume)
of one or more of the above balogenated solvents or
those solvents listed in F002, F004, and F005; and
still bottoms from the recovery of these spent
solvent and spent solvent mixtures.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
—2—
We appreciate the input and cooperation of the Navy and
Department of Defense in resolving this issue and look forward to
your continued support in securing passage of the Administration
bill.
Sincerely,
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
cc: Jacqueline Schafer
Department of Navy
Robert Grady
0MB
-------
9444.1991(06)
RcRA/SUPER.FUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUIQIARY
NOVEMB 1991
1. MultisourCe Leachate (F039) Waste
Code as It Applies to Contamination
From Spills
The hazardous waste code F039, known as
mulzisozsrce leachoie, is defined in 40 CFR §261.31
as leacha:e resulting from the disposal of more
than one hazardous waste listed in 40 CFR Part
261, Subpart D, which is also a restricted waste
under the Land Disposal Restrictions program in
Pan 268. Rainwater has percolated through soils
contaminated with spills of several different listed
hazardous wastes. Could the resulting
contaminated water now receive the F039 waste
code?
OT Cave” (emphasis d d) . Spillage and
drippage are also forms of land disposal, albeit
improper and illegaL Since spills and drips of
hazardous waste which have collected in the soil
are normally land disposed wastes, waxer that has
percolated through soils cont2miflated with more
than one listed hazardous waste for which Part
268 eaunent standards are in effect is normally
F039.
The January 31. 1991. Federal Register (56 EB
3865) states that in order to determine whether a
waste meets the criteria of P039, ix is necessary to
first determine that the waste meets the definition
of leachate. This definition, found in 40 CPR
§260.10, is “any liquid, including any suspended
components in the liquid, that has percolated
through or drained from hazardous waste.” The
pr aznbIe of the January 31, 1991, notice also
clarifies that only liquids that have percolated
through land disposed wastes (“land disposal”
having the meaning of RCRA Secdon 3004(k)) are
considered to be leachate for the purposes of
making this determinadon. The definition of land
disposal in Section 3004(k) states that land
disposal “shall be deemed to include, but not
hinted to any placement of such hazardous waste
in a landlill, surface impoundments waste pile,
injection well, land ueatment facility, salt dome
formation, salt bed formation, or underground mine
-------
9444.1992(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MARCH
1992
2. CommerCial Chemical Product
Definition in §261.33
A manufacturer intends to discard an
unused for,nulation which contains two
chemicals that serve as active ingredietus.
Only one of the chemicals is listed in 40 CFR
§26133. A comment in §261.33(d) stoics that
“It) he phrase ‘conunercial chemical product
•or manufacturing chemical intermediate
having the generic name listed in...’ refers to a
chemical substance which is manufactured or
fornudared for commercial or manufacturing
use and which consists of the commercially
pure grade of the chemical, any technical
grades of the chemical that are produced or
marketed, gjd all formulations in which the
chemical is the sole active ingredient. ”
(Emphasis added.) Does the term “sole active
ingredient” refer only to chemicals which are
listed in § 261 33(e) and W? If a product
contains two active ingredients. only one of
which is listed, would the discarded product
be regulated as a P- or U-listed waste?
The discarded formulation would not be
regulated as P- or U-listed waste when
discarded. In order to be regulated as a P- or
U-listed waste, a waste must meet fl of the
listing criteria. The listings in §261.33 do not
include chemical mixtures where the listed
chemical is not the sole active ingredient, and
do not apply to chemicals that have been used
for their intended purpose (54 , 31335;
July 28, 1989). In the scenario described
above, while the discarded formulation meets
the criterion of being unused, it contains more
than one active ingredient. It is not ‘necessary
for a chemical to be listed in § 26l.33(e) or
(f) in order to meet the definition of an active
ingredient. An active ingredient is defined as i
a compound or mixture that performs the
function of the product. “Sole active
ingredient TM means the active ingredient is the
n1x chemically active component for the
function of the product. If a formulation has
more than one active ingredient, the
formulation, when discarded, would not be
within the scope of the listing in §261.33,
regardless of whether only one or both active
ingredients are listed.
Generators, however, must be sure to
correctly determine whether a particular
constituent performs the function of the
product, or only serves an ancillary function,
such as mobilizing or preserving the active
ingredient. For example, fillers, solvent
carriers, propellants, and other components
with no pesticidal role are functionally inert in
pesticide formulations and therefore are not
active ingredients. In cases where a hazardous
constituent from § 26l.33(e) or (f) is a
functionally inert component of a commercial
chemical product, e.g., a solvent carrier, its
presence does not prevent the formulation
containing another P- or U-listed constituent
as the sole active ingredient from being a P- or
U-list waste (internal Agency memorandum
dated May 3, 1989).
-------
Jaded P°P/’ Od uo POJUU
AdO 311d YU I dO __________
Ui.l11!D 3TATC . i • r • .1 i ’i
1 9444. 199202
__ ________ ____ • ____ ______
- !33N3 fl2 03
—- —-- ---- ——— .;• __ __
14 )3 2 4 I9
Kathryn D. Lynnes
Director of Environmental compliance
BHL Consultants, Ltd.
2 Fountain Place
Suite 350
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Dear Ms. Lynnes:
I am writing in response to your inquiry concerning the
regulation of the commercial chemical product cyclophoSPhaiflide as
Hazardous Waste No. U058.
CyclophOSPhamide is a hygrosCoPic substance and readily
hydrates to yc1ophoSPhamide monohydrate (CAS# 6055—19—2) on
exposure to moisture, Storage in air tight containers is
recommended. IARC cancer review indicates sufficient evidence of
human carciflogeflicitY for both forms of the chemical. The
carcinOgenicitY of cyclophosPhamide was the basis for hazardous
waste regulation.
As you are aware, 40 CFR 261.33(f) assigns hazardous waste
number U058 to cyclophOSPhamide (CAS# 50-18-0). CyclophoSPhamide
is also listed as a hazardous constituent in 40 CFR 261 APPENDIX
VIII. Chemical Abstract Numbers (CAS) were added “as an
identification aid” to the tables in §261.33 ( 51 fl 28296). The
hazardous waste codes of §261.33(e) and (f) apply to all commercial
chemical products or manufacturing chemical intermediates having
the generic name listed (s261.33(a)).
In the case of cyclophoSPhamide, separate CAS numbers are
assigned to anhydrous cyclophoSPhamide (CAS# 50-18-0) and
CYc1ophosPhaB ide inonohydrate (CAS# 6055-19-2) by the abstract
service. However, both the anhydrous cyclophOsPhamide and
cyclophoSPhamide monohydrate are generically referenced as simply
IlcyclophOSphaiflide” and are regulated as Hazardous Waste No. U058.
Sincerely,
Edwin F. Abrams, Chief
Y4r!4 .4, P. e.smtion
O5 —3)3 (M 4L3 O 33 n Brane)T
SURNAME i -. . €4 iaa/
DATE - ItfZ4 ’fl
______ OFFICIAL FILE COPY
.,. I
Form iiiO.1 (12-70)
ADN3 V Q G3iINfl
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1992(03)
o r2O
) IEMOR NDW (
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by McLaughlin
Gormley King (MGK) Company in Minnesota
PROM: David Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS—330)
TO: Joseph Boyle, Chief
RCRA Enforcement Branch (5HR-12)
EPA Region V
The purpose of this memorandum is to answer a part of a
memorandum sent by you on July 23, 1991 to Michael Petruska in
which you asked for determinations concerning the applicability
of spent solvent listings. Specifically, you wished to know if a
waste generated in the production of a pesticide by McLaughlin
Gormley King (MGK) Company in Chaska, Minnesota is regulated as a
listed hazardous waste.
As we understand the process, a solvent (toluene) is used to
carry the reactants into the reactor. Subsequent to the
formation of the product, the toluene is removed from the
product-bearing stream. After the removal of the toluene, the
product is distilled off and the residual is sent for disposal.
The waste in question is that residual.
The Agency agrees with the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MCPA) in not classifying this waste as an F005 spent
solvent waste. The toluene that is removed from the product—
bearing stream is not considered a spent material because it is
still in use as a reactant medium and is not “spent.” Thus, the
product-bearing stream remaining after the toluene is removed
would not be derived from a waste meeting the P005 listing
description. The residual remaining after a product distillation
would then be considered a solid waste, but not an F005 hazardous
waste or a waste derived from the treatment of an F005 waste.
If the waste in question exhibited any characteristic of
hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity characteristic), it still could be a
-
JRH
However,
ÂME )j
°? -z1-1Z.
rour memorandum in
‘?J 2, Jq 4 y20LJ
dto ’
. ..
9J /f
,t t ths
S
cr/ Th2
waste do not
ISSS S I I • •S ....••SS
,ô/rth4
......... ......
.SSS sSS •sS .SSS
EPA POnD 1320-1 (12.70) — .
I ,
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
State may decide to regulate this waste more stringently than the
Federal law requires.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any additional
questions on this interpretation, please contact Ron Josephson of
my staff at FTS 260-4770.
cc: Ken Gigliello (OS-520)
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I — IV, VI — X
2
-------
9444.1992(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/0UST HOTLINE
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
OCTOBER
1992
1. Perchloroethylene Used In Dry
Cleaning
A dry cleaner uses a 50 percent
perchioroethylene (tewachloroethylene)
mixture in her cleaning process. Since
tetrachioroethylene appears in the listing
descriptions for both FOOl and FOO2, would
the spent solvent mixture be classified as FOOl
or F0()2?
Spent tcbachloroethylene used in dry
cleaning is classified as F002 (40 CFR
§261.31). The background listing document
for F002 identifies certain industries that
generate spent halogenated solvents meeting
the R)02 listing ( Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste. 261.31 and 26132 - -
Listing of Hazardous Waste . page 41).
According to this document,
tetrachioroethylenc used in laundry and dry
cleaning operations is regulated as F002. Of
course, the spent solvent formulation must
meet the 10 percent (by volume) before-use
criterion in the F002 listing. Furthermore, the
FOOl listing is, by its terms, limited to spent
solvents “used in degreasing.”
-------
9444.1992(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOV 4 1992
Mr. James V. Noles
General Manager, Remedial/ Removal Operations Group
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.
3107 South Elm-Eugene Street
P.O. Box 16590
Greensboro, North Carolina 27416-0590
Dear Mr. Noles:
This is in response to your letter of August 1, 1992, in
which you asked several questions related to the classification
of F003 wastes (ignitable non-toxic spent solvents).
Specifically, you presented us with two scenarios: 1) the
spilling of containerized spent solvent onto soil, and 2) the
proper classification and applicable treatment standards for
paint cleaning wastes in which xylene and acetone were used as
solvents.
In the first situation described in your letter, xylene and
acetone (F003) spent solvent wastes were containerized in drums
for storage and ultimate incineration at a permitted treatment,
storage, and disposal (TSD) facility. During loading of the
drums for shipment, some of the spent solvent waste was spilled
onto soil. The affected soils were excavated, containerized,
sampled, and analyzed. You presented us with two questions
concerning this incident:
1) Would this spent solvent contaminated soil be regulated as a
hazardous waste?
ANSWER: Under Federal regulation, contaminated soils and other
environmental media, when they contain a listed hazardous waste,
must be handled as a hazardous waste until the medium no longer
contains the listed waste. The determination as to whether or
not the medium “contains” the listed waste or what treatment
would be sufficient to remove the waste is decided by the EPA
Region or authorized State agency. Please be aware that a
state’s laws and regulations may differ from the Federal program.
In this case you- should contact the State of North Carolina.
2) If yes, please explain why the waste mixture rule as defined
in 40 CFR 261.3(a) (2) (iii) would not apply. The rule
basically states that a solid waste (in this case, the
Th P LJjfh h 7 I 11C c1 tin th1 i c th _______
N _____ : .f E4 :i : ç :p 4 j.:::::::::::::
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
E P A Form 1320.1 0240)
(1
-------
it exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste as
identified in Subpart C, would no longer be a hazardous
waste should the mixture (the contaminated soil) not exhibit
a hazardous characteristic.
ANSWER: Environmental media (such as soil or ground water) are
not considered wastes, and, therefore, the “mixture rule”
(40 CFR 261.3(a) (2) (iii)) does not apply. However, under the
Agency’s “contained-in” policy, such media contaminated with
listed hazardous waste must itself be treated as listed hazardous
wastes until the listed waste has been removed. Please note that
with regard to your reference to §261.3(a) (2) (iii), the
procedures in that section have been updated in.accordance with
Land Disposal Restrictions rules (see answer to #4 below).
In the second situation, according to your letter, xylene
and acetone are used as solvents to clean excess paint and paint
sludges from tools and equip nent. The wastes generated, as
described in your letter (classified as F003) are subsequently
placed in a drum for disposal. An analysis of the waste reveals
that the waste contents from these drums do not exhibit any
characteristic of hazardous waste; however, the waste has
constituent levels above those specified in the Land Disposal
Restrictions treatment standards for xylene and acetone (0.15 ppm
and 0 • 59 ppm, respectively). You presented us with two questions
concerning this scenario:
3) Would this spent solvent paint waste be regulated as a
hazardous waste?
ANSWER: Yes. Given that this waste is a spent solvent waste
that meets the listing description, it is classified under
current regulations as a listed F003 waste. The listing
description applies to the containerized waste, which includes
both the spent solvents and the paint residual removed by the
solvents in the containers.
4) If this spent solvent paint waste sludge is a hazardous
waste, how would you apply the fact that this type of spent
solvent (F003) is listed in 40 CFR 261, Subpart D, due to
its ignitability, and this waste no longer exhibits the
ignitabil ity characteristic?
ANSWER: From your letter and discussions our staff has had with
you, we understand your question to concern the applicability of
the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards to this
waste and mixtures involving this waste. Thus, our response is
based on this understanding of your question. The LDR treatment
standards are applicable to wastes as generated. As described
above, the waste as generated in the situation you present, since
it has not been mixed with another solid waste, is a listed
hazardous waste because of the use of solvents identified in
2
-------
F003, and their disposal subsequent to their being spent. The
fact that the waste does not exhibit the characteristic of
ignitability after storage does not alter its status as a listed
waste when generated. As the Agency recently reiterated
(57 FR 37210, August 18, 1992), “... such wastes cannot be land
disposed until treated to meet the applicable treatment
standards, and cannot be diluted to meet those treatment
standards (56 FR 3871). This would also be true of mixtures
involving such listed wastes, since otherwise the prohibitions
would have no real meaning.” Thus, the waste you have described
above must be treated to meet the Land Disposal Restrictions
treatment standards for constituents such as xylene and acetone
if they contain levels of these constituents higher than those
prescribed in the regulations and are destined for land disposal.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any questions
concerning the solvent listings, please contact Mr. Ron Josephson
of my staff at (202)260—6715. For answers to policy questions
concerning the Land Disposal Restrictions, please contact
Ms. Rhonda Craig at (703)308—8434.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Ken Gigliello, OWPE
Rhonda Craig, WMD
Waste Management Division Directors, EPA Regions I — X
3
-------
9444.1992(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
NOVEMBER
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
1992
3. BeryllIum Dust (P015); ApplicabilIty
Beryllium Is listed in 40 CFR 526133(e)
as an acwe y hazardous waste (P015). Does
the P015 listing app’y w aliforms of unused
beryllium that are discarded?
The hazardous waste listing P015 applies
only to unused commercial chemical product
beryllium di t that is discarded (see
§261.33(d) for a definition of commercial
chemical product). On May 19, 1980,
bezyllium dust was listed in an interim final
rule as an acutely hazardous waste in 40 CFR
§261.33(e) because of its acute toxicity to
humans when inhaled (45 ER 33084). The
listing was finalized on November 25, 1980
(45 ER 78532). In the April 22, 1988, Federal
Register . which made technical corrections to
the list of commercial chemical products in
§ 261.33(e) and (f), the word “dust” was
inadvertently omitted from the listing (53 ER
13382). Despite this omission, the
applicability of the listing remains unchanged.
The April 22,1988, Federal Register was
intended only to amend certain typographical
errors in the hazardous waste lists. EPA never
proposed to change the listing from “beryllium
dust” to “beryllium” and does not intend the
listing to apply to beryllium. Therefore,
despite this typographical error in 40 CFR
§261.33(c), the scope of the listing remains
unchanged, and the hazardous waste code
P015 applies only to beryllium j.
-------
9444.1992(07)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
NOVEMBER
1992
2. Reclaimed Commercial Products:
Regulatory Status
The owner of afacility collects used
railroad ties that were treated with a wood
preservative co,uaining creosote. When the
owner has accumulated a s4Icient amount of
railroad ties he bakes them to draw out the
creosote. Once this process is complete, the
reclaimed creosote can be used as a wood
preservative without further processing. A
drum of this creosote leaked into the soil.
how is the resulting contaminated soil
regulated upon disposal?
The creosote-contaminated soil must be
managed as U051. The recovered creosote
formulation is classified as a product because
the creosote has been reclaimed from the
railroad ties and requires no additional
processing before it can be beneficially used
(40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)). Upon leaking into the
soil, the creosote is classified as a solid waste
pursuant to §261.2(b). The generator must
then determine whether this solid waste is a
hazardous waste. Sections 261.33(e) and (f)
designate certain commercial chemical
products as hazardous wastes when discarded.
Specifically, §261.33(d) defines commercial
chemical product in part as any commercial or
technical grade of a product, or any
formulation in which the listed chemical is the
sole active ingredient. Assuming the
reclaimed creosote is the only chemically
active component for the function of the wood
preservative (i.e., the sole active ingredient),
and the discarded material meets the definition
of a solid waste per §261.2(b), the discarded
creosote is classified as U051. Since the soil is
contaminated with U051, it is subject to
regulation as a hazardous waste in accordance
with EPA ’s “contained-inn policy, which
requires all media (i.e., debris, soil,
groundwater, sediment) that contain listed
hazardous wastes to be managed as listed
hazardous wastes. The soil, therefore, would
have to be handled as a hazardous waste
(U051) until it is decontaminated or until the
hazardous waste is deisted (see, for example,
56 EE, 24441,24456; May 30, 1991).
-------
9444.1992(08)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
t992
Mr. H. Michael Dorsey, Assistant Chief
Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement Section
Office of Waste Management
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, WV 25301-1401
Dear Mr. Dorsey:
This reply is in response to your letter of September 25,
1992 in which you requested clarification of EPA’S hazardous
waste listings pertaining to wood preserving operations.
You first ask for a definition of a “wood preserving
process”. The Agency considers a “wood preserving process” as
any process intended to preserve wood from structural attack.
The definition, therefore, is not based on the type of process
used, i.e. pressure treatment or non-pressure dip treatment, but
on the intent of the treatment, itself. Therefore, “dipping”
operations are not excluded from wood preserving if the intent of
the operation is to preserve wood. As the Agency stated in its
initial proposed wood preserving hazardous waste listing,
“Wood preservatives are used to delay deterioration and
decay of wood caused by organisms such as insects,
fungi, and marine borers. Surface discoloration
(sapstaining) during short term storage can be
adequately controlled by a superficial application of
preservative, but for long lasting effectiveness,
penetration of preservative to a uniform depth is
required. This deep penetration is usually
accomplished by forcing preservative into the wood
under pressure, so that ‘pressure treated’ is often
used as a synonym for ‘preserved’.” (53 FR 53282,
December 30, 1988)
Next, you ask if wastes generated by the use of sodium
pentachlorophenate would be considered hazardous wastes under the
F032 hazardous waste code (see 40 CFR S 261.33(f)). As mentioned
above, the intent of the process must be examined in making this
hazardous waste determination. Typically, sodium
pentachiorophenate is used for sapstain control on lumber
following cutting. Sapstain control is considered surface
-------
1988 proposed rulemaking (see 53 FR 53282, December 30, 1988).
The final rule listed only wastes front wood preserving
operations, deferring action on surface protection wastes to a
lat h ncy c a g these wastes a4
If a facility is thating wood with sodium
pentachiorophenate with the intent of preserving the wood, it
would be considered a wood preserving operation, and the wastes
generated would be chiorophenolic wastes from a wood preserving
facility designated as F032. We believe that it would be very
unlikely that a facility would use sodium pentachlorophenate to
preserve wood, since the preserving solution is aqueous and would
wash of f the treated wood and render the treatment ineffective.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please
contact Mr. Rick Brandes, Chief, Waste Identification Branch at
(202) 260-4770 or have your staff contact Mr. David J. Carver of
my staff on extension (202) 260-6775.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
iosr ff fr 7 9444.1992(09)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
DEC 2 4 1992 SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Jackie Noles
Operations Manager
Laidlaw Environmental Services (TS), Inc.
208 Watlington Industrial Drive
Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
Dear Ms. Noles:
This letter is a reply to your July 20, 1992 letter to the Agency in which you requested
clarification on what constitutes dioxin related materials. I understand my staff has been in
contact with y u about the lateness of our response, and I appreciate your patience.
Your first question addresses the regulation of dioxin- containing wastes. Specifically,
your question asks under which waste codes are dioxins regulated. Your letter asks if F020,
F021. F022, F023, F026, F027, F028, D017, D041, and D042 (as defined at 40 CFR §
261.31, 261.24) are the waste codes under which dioxin is regulated. You are correct.
These waste codes apply, but are not the only waste codes which may apply to dioxin-
containing wastes. For example, F032 wastes (wastes generated at wood preserving
processes which use chlorophenolic formulations) contain dioxin. Wastes which have Land
Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards for certain dioxins and furans include F039
(multi-source leachate), K043 (26-dichiorophenol waste from the production of 2,4-D), and
K099 (untreated wastewater from the production of 2,4-D).
Your second question relates to proper characterization of dioxin-containing wastes
based on known process information. Specifically, your question states that if any
constituents exist in a material for which it was listed, but no identifiable process exists which
would generate one of the above listed wastes, would the waste be regulated, provided that
no other EPA codes apply? The F” waste codes (hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources) would not apply if a waste contains dioxin but does not meet the listing descriptions
for the dioxin listings in 40 CFR 261.31. The NDU codes (codes which correspond to the toxic
contaminant causing a solid waste to meet the characteristic of toxicity) would only apply if
the levels of the respective constituents are above the regulatory level. The D” codes listed
above may contain impurities of dioxin.
The third question asks if the processes do apply, but the constituents listed in
Appendix VII are not present in the waste, would the F020-F023 and F026-F028 waste codes
apply? The waste codes would apply if the waste did not meet a specific exemption as
specified in 40 CFR 261.4. This is true even if no Appendix VIII constituents are present.
Please note, however, that any person may, pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22, petition the Agency
to exclude the wastes at a particular facility from regulation as a listed hazardous waste.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
The fourth question asks what wastes generated from products which are derivatives
of pentachloroPheflol would be classified as F021? Any substance which is related
structurally and can be made from pentachlorophenol in one or more steps is a derivative of
pentachlorophenol. Examples include, but are not limited to, sodium pentachlorophenate
octachlorodiber%zodiOXifl, octachlorodiphenyl ether, and potassium pentachlorophenate.
The fifth question asks what wastes generated from products which are derivatives
of tn- and tetrachlorophenolS would be classified as F021? Derivatives of tn- and
tetrachlorophenols include tn- and tetra-chlorophenoxy derivatives of carboxylic acids which
include the most common tn- and tetra-chiorophenoxy acetic acids and their salts as well as
the tn-and tetra-chlorophenOxY derivatives of other acids such as propionic acid. butyric acid,
etc. Ester and ether derivatives include methyl ethyl, propyl, butyl esters and ethers as well
as phenolic esters and ethers. Amine salts and other sa!ts include all denivatves of tn- and
tetra-chlorophenoxy acids reacted with various bases.
Your sixth question asks whether 0017, 0041, and/or 0042 wastes can be landfilled
in a Subtitle C landfill. It is important to emphasize that no matter what the hazardous waste
is, the landfill must first be permitted to accept that specific hazardous waste. 0017 is a
restricted waste and must be treated to reduce the concentration of silvex to 7.9 mg/kg or
less, prior to landfilling. Although LDR standards for dioxin containing wastes are based on
concentration levels, the dioxin listing rule (50 FR 1978) requires special management
standards for certain types of units which manage F020-23 and F026-28: (1) Incineration in
accordance with 40 CFR 264.343 and 40 CFR 265.352; (2) Thermal treatment to 99.9999
percent Destruction and Removal Efficiency (ORE) in accordance with 40 CFR 265.383.
0041 and D042 wastes can be landfilled if the landfill is permitted to accept the waste.
With regard to your last question, you ask if samples identify the presence of
constituents listed in Appendix VII, but the original process generating the material and any
previously applicable wastecodes are unknown, would the samples be excluded from RCRA
regulation at the time of disposal, unless it is found that characteristic codes 0017, 0041,
and/or 0042 or other characteristic codes apply? If the waste in question cannot be traced
back to an original process that would generate a waste meeting any listing description, then
it is exempt from regulation providing that it does not fail a hazardous waste characteristic
test. Please be advised that State regulations may be more stringent than federal regulations,
and that TCDD (2,3,7 ,8 -tetrachlorodibeflZO-P-diOXifl) is a hazardous substance under CERCLA,
regardless of its source.
If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Rick Brandes. Chief, Waste
Identification Branch at (202)260-4770.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Judy Sophianopolis, Region IV
-------
9444.1993(01)
T4p,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 F I L E CO P Y
OFFICE OF
SO&.ID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FEB 23 1993
Mr. N.G. Kaul, P.E.
Director
Division of Hazardous Substances
Regulation
Ne York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Dear Mr. Kaul,
Thank you for your letter dated November 9, 1992, concerning the definition of
solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In your letter,
you raised two specific issues involving certain secondary materials: 1) clarification of the
definition of commercial chemical products that are not found on the U- or P-lists in 40
CFR 261.33, and 2) the status of these non-listed commercial chemical products when
recycled. I hope that this response will help clarify the federal regulations regarding
these issues.
In addition, you may already be aware that the Director of the Office of Solid
Waste (OSW) has recently formed a Definition of Solid Waste Task Force to re-evaluate
the definition of solid waste. The Task Force is soliciting input from ASTSWMO,
individual states, industry, and others on implementation issues such as the one raised in
your letter. Overall, the Task Force is looking at ways to reduce the complexity of our
current definition of solid waste, reduce disincentives for safe recycling and innovative
technology development, and address concerns regarding the use of recycled hazardous
waste in products. I understand that some of your staff have already met with the Task
Force (prior to your letter being sent). Again, this response to your questions is based
on the current federal regulations.
Definition of Non-Listed Commercial Chemical Products
Presently, the Agency interprets “non-listed commercial chemical products” under
RCRA to include all types of unused commercial products that exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste, whether or not these products would commonly be considered
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
2
chemicals (e.g., unused circuit boards, batteries, etc.). Of course, these determinations
are not always straightforward regarding certain types of commercial products, such as
machinery, electronics, and other items containing various components, only some of
which cause the overall item to exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic. We would
expect these determinations to be site-specific.
Recycling Non-Usted Commercial Chemical Products
You stated that you were uncertain as to what types of urecycling would qualify a
non-listed commercial chemical product for the solid waste exemption in §261.2(c)(3),
which is further clarified in the April 11, 1985 Federal Register (50 ER 14219). As you
know, EPA defines M recyding as including use/reuse, and reclamation (see 40 CFR
261.2(c)(4),(5), and (7)). Reclamation is further defined to be either regeneration, or the
recovery of a usable product. With regard to the use/reuse provisions, any type of
secondary material recycled in this manner would not be a solid waste, provided that the
applicable conditions listed in §261.2(e) are met, and that the recycling is legitimate (see
§261.2(f)).
With regard to the reclamation of non-listed commercial chemical products, their
status is the same as that for listed commercial chemical products, as we stated in the
April 11, 1985 Federal Register . This has been the Agency’s position since publication
of that clarification, and has remained unchanged. However, we do recognize that the
universe of non-listed commercial chemical products could present some recycling
activities which require careful analysis to verify that the recycling is legitimate; the
burden of proof, however, remains with the person claiming that a material is not a solid
waste ( 261.2(f)).
You provided an example of off-specification paint, produced by a manufacturer
and never used; we would define this material as a non-listed commercial chemical
product. You then described this paint as being reclaimed to recover the solvent,
resulting in a stillbottom containing the pigments and associated metals. We would view
the off-specification paint, to be reclaimed, as excluded from the definition of solid
waste. Although the reclamation process is recovering a usable product from the paint
(i.e., solvent), and is not regenerating the paint to make new paint, this activity is
nevertheless reclamation and therefore the off-specification paint is not a solid waste.
Of course, the residual stillbottoms generated during reclamation, if characteristically
hazardous, would be subject to Subtitle C requirements at the point of generation (i.e.,
when removed from the distillation unit), assuming they are to be discarded.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that if a person is claiming that a material is
excluded or otherwise exempt because it is going to be recycled, the burden of proof
rests with that person to show that the recycling activity is legitimate. For example, if a
reclamation process recovers only a minimal amount of material, of questionable value,
while the remaining residue is discarded, this would appear to be more like regulated
-------
3
waste treatment than recycling. If non-listed commercial chemical products, exhibiting a
hazardous waste characteristic, are being processed in order to treat them (and not to
recover a usable product or to regenerate them), then the material is not excluded from
the definition of solid waste under §261.2(c)(3).
If you have any other comments or questions, please call me, or you or your staff
could talk with Ross Elliott of my staff at (202) 260-8551. Thank you veiy much.
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444.1993(02)
APR 2 0 1993
Mr. David P. NovellO
Freedman, Levy, Kroll, and Simonds
Washington Square
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036—5366
Dear Mr. NovellO
This letter is in response to your November 12, 1992 inquiry
to the Agency concerning the regulatory status of a “centrifuge
underf low” waste generated by your client, AristeCh Chemical
Corporation. sp rtftt allY, you wanted to know if the waste met
any of the listing descriptions of hazardous waste recently
promulgated for coke by-product wastes published August 18, 1992
(57 FR 37284 — 37306).
As we understand the process, crude coal tar (received from
a neighboring coke producer) is dewatered and sent to a tank,
where quinolifle insolub].es (QI) content is determined. The QI
content, if too high, may adversely affect the quality of the
products (such as creosote or pitch) made from the coal tar that
your client sells. If the QI content is found to be too high, a
centrifuge is used to remove some of it before the tar is
distilled. This removed QI material is the “centrifuge
underf low” in question.
After reviewing the written material you sent and discussed
with my staff on 3anuary 27, 1993, we have concluded that the
centrifuge underf low, consisting mainly of quinoline insolubles,
does not meet any of the listing descriptions as promulgated in
the August 18, 1992 coke by-products rule. specificallY. the
Agency doe n0 believe that your client’s material fits the 1 (148
descriptiC ecause it is not a distillation residue; i.e.,
centrifug , keS place prior to distillation. In addition, the
underf1OV aflfl0t be characterized as 1(147, because the
centrifuges are process units, not storage tanks.
However, please be aware that the material may exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste (ignitabilitY, corrosivitY,
reactivity, or toxicity characteristic) as defined in 40 CFR 261
subpart C. In addition, your State may regulate wastes more
stringently than the Federal government, so you should check with
th a o1icable authorities.
—
S. OS- 5 I I os3 I
J • I• . .S..S .SflO%*fl n. e. .A..et. .....s.S..Sfl flS ...0 ItISflI ..s..fl.SCSeSS•
SJRNAME W’
“ j:i, : j f 7 i I’ i i””r 1;1ic i ;’ •- ....e............
A P.’ 1 1 OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any additional
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at
(202) 260—4770.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Ron Josephson
Davn Messier, OGC (LE-l32S)
Ken Gigliello, OWPE (OS-520)
David Friedman, EPA Region III (3HW53)
2
-------
0 3T4
TI
j t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9444.1993(03)
OFFICE OF
— SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMOR NDW (
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of D G G er ted Along Natural Gas
FROM:
TO William E Muno, Act g Director
Waste Management Division (H-7J)
US EPA Region V
This memorandum responds to your June 9, 1993 request for
assistance in a regulatory determination regarding drip gas
generated along natural gas transmission pipelines. Specifically,
you ask whether drip gas that is poured down the well for use as a
solvent to remove paraffin buildup is a legitimate use or the
disposal of a hazardous waste. Your staff has previously discussed
this issue with Mitch Kidwell of my staff.
As Mr. Kidwell discussed with your staff, if the drip gas is
considered a by-product, pouring the material down the well as a
solvent would be considered a use constituting disposal, meaning
that the drip gas would be a solid/hazardous waste. However, if
the drip gas is considered a product, the use would not be
regulated under RCRA. The issue then hinges on whether the drip
gas is considered a by-product or a product.
Based on earlier discussions, the drip gas does not entirely
fit our understanding of a commercial product (e.g., it is not
intentionally produced, there are no product specifications that
ensure its quality for a given use, and it is not marketed to tha
general public). However, since there is no specific definition
for “product” in RCRA or our regulations, Regions and authorized
States have discretion to look at a number of factors that bear on
whether a material is a waste. Considerations that may be
considered in making a determination include: whether it is as
effective in its identified use as an alternative product, whether
there are hazardous constituents in the drip gas that would not
otherwise be found in an alternative solvent, and whether it is
managed in a manner commensurate with a product having market
value.
Pnn?d onR c! Paoer
-------
2
Therefore, if the generating company can demonstrate that the
drip gas is more product-like than waste-like (explained below), a
Region or authorized State could consider the use of the drip gas
to be a product used in its normal manner of use. We would expect
the generator to demonstrate that the drip gas:
1) is as effective as the alternative solvent that would
otherwise be used (e.g., that the drip gas actually displaces
the solvent in roughly similar amounts, such that the
analogous solvent is not also used),
2) contains no more hazardous constituents than would otherwise
be found in the analogous product (i.e., that there are no
hazardous constituents present at significantly higher levels
than are found in the analogous solvent), and
3) is managed in a manner that is commensurate with the
management of a valuable commodity (e.g., sufficient records
of inventory and use are kept, no more of the drip gas is used
than is necessary, and the drip gas is stored and maintained
in a manner consistent with the solvent that would otherwise
be purchased).
I hope this has helped to clarify whether the drip gas is
subject to regulation as a hazardous waste. While there is no
straightforward answer, I believe that meeting the criteria listed
above should ensure that the use of the drip gas as a solvent in
the wells does not constitute sham recycling, but rather is
considered to be an environmentally sound use.
-------
Ios74%
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I J WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
I
9444.1993(04)
OFFICE Of
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Honorable Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear SenatorS McConnell:
Thank you for your letter of July 15, 1993, regarding the
concerns of Charles Hotchkiss about the possibility of lead
contamination in the Ohio River, resulting from skeet shooting at
the Ohio County (Indiana) Sportsman’s Club.
Due to concerns about the potential for adverse impacts of
lead ammunition on the environment, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) would encourage a pollution prevention approach for
anununition use. Specifically, in those instances where
substitute materials other than lead can be used for ammunition,
we would encourage their development and use. We understand that
Mr. Hotchkiss has been informed by sporting goods dealers that
steel shot is an unsuitable substitute for lead shot in skeet
shooting. However, from the limited research my staff has
conducted, it is possible that shot composed of substances other
than lead, in at least some circumstances, may be appropriate as
a substitute for lead shot. Steel shot is widely available, and
there has been at least one recent report ( Field and Stream ,
March 1993) that a shotshell with bismuth shot pellets is now on
the market.
With respect to legal options for addressing such sites,
there have been recent developments in case law concerning lead
ammunition used at a skeet shooting range in Connecticut.
On March 29, 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit decided a case concerning a Connecticut skeet shooting
range’s use of lead ammunition, which landed in Long Island Sound
( Connecticut Coastal Fishermen’s Association v. Remington Arms
Co.. Inc. , 989 F.2d 1305 (2d Cir. 1993). Among other things, the
court’s decision addressed the applicability of certain
provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PCRA)
to lead ammunition used at the skeet shooting facility. The
court affirmed the district court’s decision that the lead
ammunition deposited into Long Island Sound is “solid waste”
under RCRA’s statutory definition of solid waste, and that it is
Recycled/Recyclable
Punted with Soy/Cinols Ink on p IF Inst
contiuns 1 lUst 50% recyCled fiber
-------
also “hazardous solid waste” under the statute. Accordingly,
under the Second Circuit opinion, where such materials pose an
“imminent and substantial endangerment” to health or the
environment, a citizen may bring a lawsuit under RCRA section
7002 (a)(l)(B) (42 U.S.C. 6972 (a)(l)(B)3.
With respect to the “clay pigeons” Mr. Hotchkiss mentioned
in his letter, the district court addressed these targets, for
skeet and trap shooters. While the district court did not
determine whether the targets at the Long Island Sound site were
hazardous wastes, the appeals court did find that they are “solid
wastes” under RCRA, and subject to suits by citizens if they are
found to present an imminent and substantial endangerment.
I hope this information is helpful. If you would
like further information, specifically concerning the
Ohio County Sportsman’s Club in Indiana, please contact
Norman R. Neidergang, Associate Division Director for RCRA in
U.S. EPA Region 5, at (312) 886—7435, or David Wersan, Assistant
Commissioner for the Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management,
at (317) 232—3210. We appreciate your interest in the
environment.
Sincerely yours,
Jef D. Denit, Acting Director
() Off i e of Solid Waste
-------
9444. 1993(05)
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
September 1993
RCRA
I. Nitroglycerine Pills as Commercial
Chemical Products
A phannaceutical company maiu(actures
pills thai conwin a low percenwge of
nuroglycerine, with inert ingredieras making
up the remainder of the content. The
maiu(acturer must throw away a batch of pills
that has exceeded its shelf ire. When
discarded, are the pills a hazardous waste? If
so, what waste code would apply?
The pills discarded by the manufacturer are
a hazardous waste with the waste code P081.
Several hundred commercial chemical
products axe listed in 40 CFR fl261.33(e) and
(f). Niu oglycerine is listed in §261.33(f) with
the waste code P081. The Comment in
§261.33(d) defines the term “commercial
chemical product” as unused chemicals that
are either (1) pure or technical grades, or (2)
formulations that contain the listed chemical as
the only active ingredient. The P- and U-
listings apply to such unused fonnulanons of
commercial chemical products regardless of
the concenuitãen of the sole active ingxedienl
except for the listings for warfarin and salts
(POOl and U24S) and zrnc phosphide (P122
and U249), there is no triucal percentage or
cut-off concenu ation of the sole active
ingredient that will cause a waste to fall
within, or be excluded from, the listing. In this
example, the pills constitute a formulation
containing niroglycerine as the sole active
ingredient. Since the pills have not been used
for their intended purpose (simply incorporating
the nitroglycerine into the formulation does not
constitute use), and nitioglycerine is the only
component serving the function of the product
(i.e., as medicine), the discarded pills are
appropriately classified as hazardous waste
P081.
-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9444.1994(01)
JAN I 2 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Sharon L. Crawford
Project Manager
Pro-Act
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Pollution Prevention Division
8106 Chennault Rd., Bldg. 1161
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5318
Dear Ms. Crawford
This letter responds to your request for information on the
proper disposal methods for hydraulic fluid filters used in
aircrafts.
You ask whether hydraulic fluid filters are regulated in the
same manner as used oil filters destined for disposal. Non—terne
plated used oil filters from light duty vehicles and destined for
disposal, are exempt from identification as a hazardous waste
under regulations promulgated on May 20, 1992 (40 CFR
261.4(b)(l5)). Light duty vehicles include automobiles,
passenger vans, and light duty trucks (e.g., small pickup
trucks). EPA decided to categorically exempt non-terne plated
used oil filters destined for disposal from being identified as a
hazardous waste based upon available toxicity characteristic
data. However, EPA did not receive hydraulic fluid filter data
to make a determination on hydraulic fluid filters in aircrafts.
Therefore, hydraulic fluid filters are not included in the used
oil filter exemption at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(15). However, a
hazardous waste determination can be made for the hydraulic fluid
filters (40 CFR 262.11). If the hydraulic fluid filters are
determined not to be hazardous and cannot be recycled under Part
279, the hydraulic fluid filters must be disposed in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258. See section
279.81(b).
As stated in your letter, hydraulic fluid is regulated as
used oil. Materials containing or otherwise contaminated with
used oil (e.g., hydraulic fluid filters), from which the used oil
has been properly drained or removed to the extent possible are
not considered used oil under the Part 279 used oil management
standards. There is one exception to this provision; hydraulic
fluid filters from which used oil has been removed continue to be
regulated as used oil if they are to be burned for energy
recovery, regardless of the degree of removal (see page 26425 of
Pnnted on PFr c
-------
the May 3, 1993 Final rule). Otherwise, once the used oil has
been removed, the hydraulic fluid filters are no longer subject
to the used oil regulations, but may be regulated as hazardous
waste if they are listed or exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste. Used oil that has been removed from the hydraulic fluid
filters continues to be regulated as used oil and must be managed
according to the Part 279 used oil management standards.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please contact Bryan Groce of my staff at (202) 260—9550.
Sincerely,
Cf Cr -
1 H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444. 1994(02)
I ! -
..JR,, .. I 94
Donald D. Lain
Department of the Navy
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Indianapolis, Indiana 46219-2189
Dear Mr. Lain,
This letter is in response to your November 15, 1993, letter requesting EPA to
review the Navy’s proposed procedure to decommission aluminum chaff roving
bundles.
The reactivity characteristic includes solid waste which “forms potentially
explosive mixtures with water”, see 40 CFR 261 .23(a)(3). Aluminum chaff roving
bundles can release hydrogen gas when exposed to moisture. Hydrogen gas is
flammable and therefore aluminum chaff roving bundles could carry the D003
wastecode, see §261.23(b). EPA has promulgated Land Disposal Restriction (LDR)
rules requiring hazardous waste to be “treated” prior to land disposal. For the D003
wastecode, the treatment standard is a technology-based standard requiring
“deactivation”, see 40 CFR 268.42. Deactivation is the removal of the characteristic.
Your Materials Lab Report (No. 24-92) indicates that an acidic solution accelerates the
chemical reaction. Therefore, you should consider using an acidic solution to soak the
chaffs in the demilitarization procedure. Using an acidic solution would provide a
greater level of assurance that the reaction has gone to completion, as well as shorten
the amount of time necessary for the reaction to go to completion.
Although, the Navy’s proposed method of deactivation appears reasonable, the
generators responsibility lies in “fully removing the hazardous characteristic” of D003
waste prior to land disposal. Even if the Navy chooses to incorporate EPA’s
comments, compliance with the regulations at §268.42 will be determined based on
full and complete deactivation of any and all D003 waste, and not on following a
specified method of deactivation.
-------
We believe it is likely that other Divisions in the Department of Defense use
aluminum chaff roving bundles. Our comments would be applicable to anyone
disposing of this type of waste, and we hope that your Division shares this information
with other Offices within the Department of Defense. If my office can be of any
further assistance in this matter please contact William Morrow of my staff at 202-
260-3657.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
2
-------
.s ’°
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
‘¼ tc’
Lp o1 9444.1994(03)
MAR31
OFFICE OF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Response to Request For Interpretation on Regulatory Status of Mercury
Relays and Switches When Reclaimed
From: Michael Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch (5304)
Office of Solid Waste
To: Karen Schwinn, Chief
Waste Compliance Branch (H-4)
Region IX
In response to your October 29, 1993 request for guidance on the regulation of
mercury wetted relays and switches that are recycled, the Office of. Solid Waste has
recently completed a memorandum (see attached March 24, 1994 memorandum from
Michael Shapiro to Regional Division Directors) clarii ’ing the definition of spent material.
The March 24 memorandum clarifies that used mercury switches sent for recl mation are
classified as spent materials (see page 4 of the March 24 memorandum). Therefore, these
materials are solid wastes and also hazardous wastes.
I hope that this responds to your request for guidance. If you have any additional
questions, please contact Paul Borsi of my staff at (202) 260-6713.
Attachment
/‘• Recycled/Recyclable
7... . PrInted with Sey’Canola Ink en paper inst
contains • 1 east SO•.. recycled floe.
-------
iEO Sr 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 L pqo
JUN —3 1994 9444.1994(04)
OFFICE OF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORAND
________________ RESPONSE
TO: Robert L. Duprey
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region viii /,, ) /7
FROM: David Bussard
Director, Characterization and Assessment Division
SUBJECT: Definition of RCRA Waste 1(050
This responds to your memorandum dated November 12, 1993
requesting an interpretation regarding the applicability of the
1(050 waste code to sludges from double pipe (referred to as
single pipe in the State of Utah letter) heat exchange units.
A double-piped unit consists of a concentric pipe
configuration with the inner pipe having either a bare tube or a
tube with longitudinal fins on the Outside for improved heat
transfer. As you know, the description of the 1(050 waste code
(at 40 CFR 261.32) is “heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from
the petro1e refining industry.” This description is Supported
by the “Listing Background Document: Petroleum Refining,”
prepared as part of the May 19, 1980, final rule.
Our interpretations on the applicability of RCRA waste codes
are based on the consideration of 1) the descriptive regulatory
language and 2) the regulatory intent of the original listing,
and 3) facts specific to the waste stream at issue.
The inclusion of the word “bundle” in the K050 description
suggests that the waste code is specifically applicable to
cleaning sludge from shell and tube heat exchanger units. These
units consist of a “bundle” of tubes which are bound together and
inserted into a “shell” which makes up the outer part of the
unit. Since the applicability of a RCRA waste code is determined
in the first instance by the descriptive regulatory language, it
may be difficult to interpret the 1(050 waste code to apply to -
double-pipe units. The key consideration regarding this
interpretation is whether the inside tube of a double-pipe unit
is considered a “bundle” or not. In our opinion, it is flQ a
“bundle” based on the dictionary definition of the word “bundle”
Q Y Recycled/Recyclable
<9 Prtnt.d with SOyICanol. Ink on paper ma,
Contains at leaSt 50% recycled fiber
-------
(a group of things bundled together for convenient handling]; the
double-pipe unit consists of a single tube inside an outer
concentric tube and is not consistent with the definition.
This interpretation is also consistent with the intent
behind the original listing of the 1(050 waste code. The toxicity
concerns on which the 1(050 listing were predicated do not appear
to be present for the sludges from double-pipe units.
As described in the listing background document, 1(050 was
listed because of concerns posed by its chromium content; 40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix VIII lists hexavalent chromium as the sole
hazardous constituent for which 1(050 was listed. Based on Agency
experience, most of the chromium present in heat exchanger sludge
is derived from the chromate-based corrosion inhibitors utilized
in cooling water. It is our position that the concern behind the
1(050 listing was to regulate chromium-bearing sludges derived
from units in cooling water service.
Because double—pipe units are typically used in non-cooling
water service where chromium-based corrosion inhibitors are not
present, the relative chromium toxicity of the sludges derived
from double-pipe units is expected to be significantly less than
that from those derived from shell and tube units in cooling
water service. Typically, a shell and tube “bundle” unit is used
for low-pressure, high efficiency (more tubes for maximum surface
area) applications such as coolers and condensers which use
cooling water. A double-pipe unit is typically used for high-
pressure, high—temperature, low-efficiency non-cooling water
applications such as in lube oil wax extraction service.
In conclusion, based on both the descriptive regulatory
language of the listing description and our position that the
listing is intended to regulate chromium-bearing sludges from
heat exchangers in cooling water service, our interpretation is
that the 1(050 waste code does not apply to the double-pipe units
described in your letter. This interpretation should have
minimal impact on refinery hazardous waste management because of
the smaller number of applications for the double-piped units in
petroleum refining and the fact that these units will typically
be managed the same as shell and tube units at most refineries.
Furthermore, the sludges at issue are likely to be TC hazardous
(benzene and other heavy organics), and therefore subject to RCRA
Subtitle C standards even if they are not 1(050 listed hazardous
wastes.
If you have any questions or further concerns, please
contact Max Diaz at (202) 260—4786.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
______ 999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
NOV I 2 igg3
Ref: 8HWM-HW
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Bussard, Director
Characterization arid Assessment Division (OS-330)
PROM: Robert L. Duprey, Directo . <
Hazardous Waste Managem 9 z 1viói (8H V
SUBJECT: Definition of RCRA Waste K050 /
We have recently received a request from the State of Utah
f or a determination regarding the applicability of the waste code
1 (050 (heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum
refining industry).
Specifically, during a recent inspection of a Salt Lake City
petroleum refinery, the State inspector observed finned heat
exchanger pipe(s), removed from a double pipe heat exchanger, on
a heat exchanger bundle cleaning pad. For enforcement purposes,
the State has questioned whether the sludge present on the finned
heat exchanger pipe(s) meets the definition of 1(050 (heat
exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining
industry.) A copy of Utah’s letter is attached. As background
information, it appears that this refinery does not use
hexavalent chromium compounds as a corrosion inhibitor in the
cooling water (review of the RcRA Background Document indicates
that these chromium compounds are the constituents for which this
waste was listed.) The State has not conducted hazardous waste
characterization testing of the sludge on these pipe(s) to date.
From our recent discussions with Max Diaz of the Waste
Identification Branch, it appears that a formal policy does not
exist on this issue. We believe that double pipe heat exchangers
are capable of producing sludge similar to that produced by shell
and tube heat exchangers, so that the sludge in question would be
considered a X050 waste. We would appreciate a formal written
interpretation on this issue as soon as possible, to allow the
State of Utah to proceed with the appropriate enforcement action.
Please contact Mindy Mohr at (303) 293-1840 for further
information on our request.
cc: Max Diaz (OS-333)
Dennis wn, UDEQ
Attachment
Printed on Recycled Pepee
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
•_4 .—
‘— . L . L
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT 1 U QUALITY
DIVISION OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
Michael 0. Lcaviit 288 Noith 1460 We ,t
P.O. Box 144880
Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D. Sait Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
Ez cunv. Duic (801) 538-6170
Dcnnii R. Down, (801) 538-6715 Fax
DWI (801) 536-4414T D.D.
October 26, 1993
Larry Wapensky, Chief
Utah/North Dakota Section
U.S. EPA Region VIII
8HWM-HW
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver CO 80202-2405
Dear Mr. Wapensky:
Representatives of the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste conducted a
compliance evaluation inspection of the Big West Oil Company Flying J Refinery, 333
W. Center St., North Salt Lake, Utah, on September 24, 1993. During the inspection,
fin heat exchangers were observed at the bundle cleaning pad at the refinery. The
unit is composed of a single pipe, but serves the same function as a heat exchanger
bundle. The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste would like to know if sludge
present on the fin heat exchangers meets the definition of K050 (heat exchanger
bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry).
Please address any questions to John Waidrip at (801) 538-6170.
Dennis Downs Director
Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
DRD/JTW/jtw
- ‘s— - - —
U I Li
28
Si,
Pnnteø or, recyde paoer
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
June 1994
RCRA
1. TechnIcal Grade Solvent
Formulations and the F003 Listing
The F003 listing in 40 CFR 26l.3l
includes “all spent solvent mixtures/blends
coistaining, before use, only (certain spec4fiedJ
spent non-halogenared solvents.” This
language implies that, to meet the hazardous
waste listing, she solvent mixture must be pure
before use (i.e., contain 1(X)% F(X)3-lisred
solvents). In the process of maiu(acruring
some of these solvents however, small amounts
of chemical impurities or contaminants may be
generated, and remain wish the product when
distributed for use. For example, incomplete
chemical reactions which take place during
xylene manufacturing commonly generate
minute qua uüies of benzene and tolisene;
rather than being 100% pure, the distributed
solvent product may therefore contain 99.98%
xylene and 0.02% benzene and toluerse, or
other similar concentrations of impurities.
Would a solveiufornudarion consisting of
99.98% zylene and 0.02% benzene and toluene
meet the F003 listing when used for its solvent
properties and discarded?
A solvent formulation consisting of
99.98% xylene and 0.02% benzcne and toluene
meets the F003 listing when used for its
solvent properties and discarded. The R)03
listing covers pure solvent mixtures, as well as
technical grade solvent formulations, which
are used for their solvent properties. The term
“technical grade” refers to all grades of a
chemical which are marketed or recognized for
general usage by the chemical industry.
Solvent formulations containing de ntininus
percentages of manufactuxlng contaminants or
imnpuziries are considered technical grade
products, provided that they are available for
purchase and use in this form. Therefore,
when determining if a given spent solvent
mixture contains “only” the solvents specified
in the F003 listing, generators should include
in their evaluation each solvent constituent
present in a mixture before use, provided that
a particular solvent constituent is not a
contaminant or present in de minimis
concentrations (50 53317; December 31,
1985). In other words, a technical grade
solvent could contain small concentrations of
contaminants or manufacturing impurities and
still meet the F003 listing after being used for
its solvent properties.
I n the example presented above, the
commercially available solvent that contains
99.98% xylene and 0.02% benzene and
toluene (as impurities from the marnifacturing
process) qualifies as a technical grade
formulation. The technical grade solvent
formulation, once spent, meets the F003
listing despite containing, before use, less than
100% of the non-halogenated solvents
specified in the listing description.
The purity of a technical grade
formulation will vary from compound to
compound and may range from highly
purified to very impure. EPA has not
established specific percentages or other
criteria for use in determining when
contamination is considered de mi,wnis; such
a decision must be made on a case-by-case
basis by the appropriate regulatory agency.
9444.1994(05)
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
August 994
RCRA
1. Unused Formulations Containing
Sodium Pentachiorophenate are
F027
The F027 hazardous wa.sre listing includes
discarded, unused formulations containing
sri-, tetra-, orpenrachlorophe, , 4 .,1 as well as
compounds derived from these chiorophenols
(40 CFR §261.3!). Does an unused chemical
fonnidanon that contains sodium
pentachlorophe, te meet the F027 listing
wizen discarded?
Unused formulations containing sodium
pentachiorophenate meet the F027 listing
when discarded. Sodium pentach lorophenate,
a wood surface protectant used to prevent
sapscaining in freshly cut lumber, is a
compound derived from pentachloropheno l by
dissolving pentachlorophenol in sodium
hydroxide (58 FR 25706, 25708; April 27,
1993).
Chlorophenolic compounds and their
chiorophenoxy derivatives, such as sodium
pentachlorophenate have serious adverse
health effects (48 FR 14514, 14516; April 4,
1983). Formulations containing these
compounds also contain chlorinated dioxins
and dibenzofurans For these reasons, wastes
meeting the F027 listing are designated as
acutely hazardous (50 ER 1978, 1979-1982;
January 14, 1985).
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
9444. 1994(06)
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
Sr 4 ,
i i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
01 c.
9444.1994(07)
SEP I 9 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Gerald A. Dumas, Vice President
Environmental Services
RSR Corporation
1111 West Mockingbird Lane
Dallas, Texas 75247
Dear Mr. Dumas:
Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1994, in which you
requested clarification about the scope of EPA’s administrative
stay for a portion of the K069 hazardous waste listing.
Specifically, you wanted a written confirmation that the
administrative stay can be applied to calcium sulfate sludge
generated by an acid gas scrubber system that is not the primary
pollution control device.
As stated in the Federal Register notice containing the
administrative stay (56 19951; May 1, 1991), the listing is
stayed for sludges generated by secondary acid scrubbers.
Therefore, the listing does not apply at this time to the
secondary scrubber waste generated by Exide or to any other
similar waste. Assuming, as stated by your letter, that the
sludge at issue is generated by a system that is virtually
identical to the Exide system, this sludge would fall within the
scope of the administrative stay.
Unfortunately, because of the limited resources and other
priorities within the office of Solid Waste for implementing a
variety of mandated waste programs, we have not yet modified the
language of the 1 (069 listing to clarify the scope of this
listing. In any case, the administrative stay will remain in
effect until 30 days after completion of rulemaking dealinq with
the scope of the 1(069 listing.
I hope this letter has provided the clarification you were
seeking concerning the scope of EPA’s administrative stay for the
1(069 listing. If you have further questions on this matter,
please feel free to have your staff contact Narendra Chaudhari at
(202) 260—4787.
Shapiro, Director
of Solid Waste
Sincerely yours,
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
CORPORATION
August 8, 1994
Mr. Michael H. Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
Room 2101, Mail Code 5301
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Scope of the K069 Administrative Stay
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I write to request clarification of the May 1, 1991, Federal Register notice in which the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an administrative stay of a portion of the
hazardous waste listing for emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting (EPA
hazardous waste No. K069).!’ I seek written confirmation that the administrative stay now
applicable to sludge generated from secondary acid scrubber systems applies to calcium sulfate
sludge generated at any secondary lead smelter, provided the sludge is generated by an acid gas
scrubber system that is not the primary pollution control device.
RSR Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates three secondary lead smelters located in the
City of Industry, California; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Middletown, New York. RSR facilities
reclaim approximately one-third of all lead-acid batteries reclaimed in the United States.
EPA stated in the May 1, 1991, Federal Register notice that the K069 listing is not intended to
cover acid gas scrubber sludge if it is: (i) generated by an air emission control device used
chiefly to control lead emissions and other particulates; (ii) not amenable to recovery in the
secondary lead process; (iii) not a dust; (iv) generated in lower volumes than the typical K069
waste; and (v) comprised of significantly lower concentrations of lead and other toxic metals
than are typically found in K069 waste. EPA has also issued an interpretive memorandum that
supports the conclusion that calcium sulfate sludge does not meet the K069 listing. EPA states
56 Fed. Reg. 19951. (May 1, 1991).
Corporate Offices 1111 West Mockingbur Lane/Dallas Texas 75247
Telephone (214) 631.5070 Telex 213-760 Fax (214) 631-6146
-------
Mr. Michael H. Shapiro
August 4, 1994
Page2
in this memorandum that the K069 listing does not apply to secondary lead smelting residues that
are generated when K069 dusts are recycled in the smelting process as feedstocks.Z’
Assume for purposes of responding to this request that the sludge at issue is generated by a
system that is virtually identical to the Exide Corporation system described in the May 1, 1991,
Federal Register notice and on which the administrative stay is based. The system is equipped
with a pollution control device that captures particulate matter and a secondary device (i.e., a
scrubber) that controls emissions of acid gas. The particulate matter (i.e., emissions control
dust) generated from the pollution control device is returned by an enclosed screw conveyor to
the smelter for lead recovery. The scrubber system generates a calcium sulfate sludge.
RSR believes that acid gas scrubber sludge as described above would fail within the scope of the
administrative stay. EPA verbally confirmed this interpretation during telephone conversations
between Mr. Tom Ovenden, The Technical Group, Inc., one of RSR’s consultants, and Steven
Silverman, of EPA’s Office of General Counsel, and Nerendra Chaudhari, of EPA’s Office of
Solid Waste. According to Messrs. Silverman and Chaudhari, the administrative stay applies
to sludge generated at any secondary lead smelter, provided the sludge is generated by an acid
gas scrubber system that is not the primary pollution control device.
RSR requests EPA’s written confirmation of the foregoing. RSR also asks when EPA plans to
amend the language of the K069 listing, as discussed May 1, 1991, Federal Register notice. ’.
We look forward to your response. If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at
(214) 631-6070 or RSR’s consultant, Chris Bryant of The Technical Group, at (202) 962-8531.
r ly,
Gerald A. mas
Vice Presi&nt
Environmental Services
RSR Corporation
See Memorandum from S. Lowrance to Waste Management Division Directors regarding
Regulatory Status of Residues From Secondary Lead Smelters That Recycle K069 Waste
(Aug. 5, 1991).
56 Fed. Reg. 1991 (col. 3) (“EPA intends in the near future to prepare to amend the
language of the K069 listing to clarify the scope of the listing to excluded [ sic] sludges
generated by air pollution devices that are not a plant’s chief means of controlling lead
emissions.”)
-------
Sr 4 .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
S
&
ppoit
9444.1994(08)
SEP 21 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Peter F. Downing, C.H.M.M.
Manager
Environmental, Health and Safety
Fidelity Chemical Products Corporation
470 Frelinghuysen Avenue
Newark, N.J. 07114
Reference: Applicability of F006 Hazardous Waste Code to
Nickel Reclamation Process for Electroless Nickel
Plating Spent Solutions
Dear Mr. Downing:
This responds to your letter dated November 5, 1993,
requesting an interpretation of the potential applicability of
the hazardous waste listings to your proposed process for
reclaiming the nickel in spent electroless nickel plating
solutions. Because your proposed process concerns a specific
site, we have consulted with Mr. Jeffrey A. Sterling of the New
Jersey Metro Bureau of Water and Hazardous Waste Enforcement and
Mr. John Wi].k of the Hazardous Waste Management Division of
Region II in preparing this response.
The application of the hazardous waste regulations discussed
in this letter is based on the information provided in your
letter, which we summarize here for convenience.
You propose to recycle the nickel in solution by reducing
the nickel ions with sodium hypophosphite through a controlled
chemical plate-out process, allowing gradual deposition of nickel
on steel wool. The nickel-plated steel wool will then be sent to
a smelter for further reclamation in a smelting operation. The
batch process will consist of 1) adjusting the pH and
concentration of the sodium hypophosphite reducing agent, 2)
heating the Solution to the optimum reaction temperature, and 3)
allowing the nickel to plate out to a concentration of less than
10 ppm. The wastewater will then be polished through activated
carbon and sub-micron filters followed by ion exchange and pH
adjustment prior to discharge to the local POTW. Spent solutions
not amenable to the plate-out process will be precipitated to the
metal hydroxide, followed by processing through the identical
Polishing process described above.
‘ Recycled/Recyclable
Q 9 Prlnledwfth SoylCancla Ink on Daper that
COnIaIn s at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
Your letter requested verification of the following aspects
of your process with respect to the RCRA current regulations:
‘1. E].ectroless nickel solution is not a hazardous waste if it
does not contain any listed waste (K,P,U,F) or wastes
exhibiting the characteristics of hazardous waste (D
wastes)
2. Any treatment to reclaim or recycle the nickel from spent
electroless nickel solutions is not hazardous waste
treatment subject to the requirements of a hazardous waste
treatment permit.
3. Regeneration of either the ion exchange resin or the
activated carbon does not require a hazardous waste
treatment permit.
4. The sludge generated from the precipitation of the nickel as
a metal hydroxide is not a hazardous waste if it does not
exceed the TCLP parameters or exhibit any of the
characteristics delineated at 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C,
Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes.
5. The metal deposited on the steel wool is not a hazardous
waste, is a solid waste and is defined as scrap metal at 40
CFR 261.2(c) (6) .“
Our interpretation of the above based on current RCRA
regulations is as follows:
o The spent electroless nickel solutions received from your
customers for the purpose of nickel metal reclamation are
not hazardous unless they have been mixed with or derived
from any listed waste(s) or exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics under 40 CFR 261.20 through 261.24.
This determination is based on the fact that electroless
plating is specifically exempted from the scope of the F006
listing as defined by the Agency in the Interpretative Rule
which was published in the Federal Register on December 2,
1986 (51 FR 43350)
o Unless the spent electroless nickel solutions are determined
to be characteristically hazardous, the proposed reclamation
process would not involve the treatment of hazardous waste.
This also applies to regeneration of either the ion exchange
resin or the activated carbon, because the wastewater is not
generated in an electroplating process and also does not
meet any other listing description. Also, for the same
reason, the sludge generated from the precipitation of the
nickel as a metal hydroxide is a hazardous waste if it
does not exhibit any of the characteristics identified in 40
CFR Part 261, Subpart C. (Although your letter does not
indicate how this sludge is to be managed, you should be
aware that a characteristic sludge that is destined for
-------
reclamation is excluded from the definition of a solid
waste. See 40 CFR 261.2(c) (3) . Note: The State of New
Jersey does not have a similar exemption at this time.)
o Assuming the steel wool (on which the nickel has been
plated) does not exhibit the characteristic of a hazardous
waste or is not otherwise a hazardous waste because of the
mixture-derived from rule, the steel wool would not be a
hazardous waste. If the nickel-plated steel wool exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste, you raised the issue of
whether it met the definition of scrap metal’ (40 CFR
261.1(c) (6) and would be exempt when reclaimed (40 CFR
261.6(a) (3)(iii)); because the definition of scrap metal is
based on a physical description of the material, the Agency
is unable to make a definitive determination. Such
determinations are case-specific and are typically made by
the relevant State unless the State is not authorized for
RCRA in which case the determination would be made by the
relevant EPA Regional office. Please contact the
appropriate State officials if you need additional
assistance on this issue.
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.
The Agency reserves the right to change this interpretation
if it finds new information which refutes either the facts or
assumptions on which this interpretation is based.
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: Waste Management Division
Directors, Regions I-X
John Wilk, Region II
Jeffrey A. Sterling, NJ DEQ
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
FIDELITY
CHEMICAL
PRODUCTS
CORPORATION
A DIVISION OF AURIC CORPORATION
47OFRELINGHUYSEN AVENUE/NEWARK. NJ 071 14/TEL 201-242.4110/FAX 201-242-5796
November 5, 1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (OS—330)
Washington, DC 20460
Attn: Rick Brandes, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Dear Mr. Brandes:
On Tuesday, October 26, 1993, I met with Dave Carver of your
staff regarding my letter dated August 4, 1993. This letter is a
follow—up to our meeting. As stated in my previous letter, we
are establishing a recycling program for our customers using
electroless nickel (EN) plating technology.
We propose to recycle the nickel in solution by reducing the
nickel ions with sodium hypophosphite through a controlled
plate-out procedure. This allows gradual deposition of nickel on
steel wool through chemical means. The nickel-plated steel wool
will then be sent to a smelter for use as a raw material in a
smelting operation.
We anticipate the need tO conduct an extensive auditing and
quality control program to ensure compliance with all applicable
RCRA standards. We will require a facility audit of our
participating customers to identify any potential problem areas
which could lead to the shipment to us of non—conforming
electroless nickel solution. This audit will include a tour of
the plating areas, waste management program, management
procedures to prevent cross-contamination, and sample
collection. Samples will be submitted to us by the customers foi
every drum to be returned. The samples will be analyzed at our
facility for heavy metals and plating characteristics, and a
composite will be sent to a NJ DEPE certified laboratory for
complete TCLP analyses with RCRA characteristics. The customer
has to complete a recyclable material profile which delineates
the characteristics of their spent EN solutions as well as
certifying that the samples submitted are representative of the
material to be shipped annually.
Once the material has been tested and determined to be
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR USE ARE BASED ON OUR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE THE USE OF ANY PRODUCT OF OUR MANUFACTURE BEING BEYOND OUR CONTROL.
HOWEVER NO GUARANTEE E PRESSEO OR IM L?ED is MADE
-------
EPA-Brandes
November 5, 1993
Page 2
acceptable, the customer will ship the material to our facility,
where we will analyze the material and accept it only if it
matches the pre-shipment samples and meets all applicable TCLP
parameters. It is then pumped into our batch process, where the
pH and concentration of reducing agent are adjusted prior to
recycling. The solution is• heated to the optimum working
temperature and allowed to plate until the concentration of
nickel in solution is less than 10 ppm. It is. then transferred
to a process tank prior to polishing through a carbon filter and
sub-micron filtration, and finally ion exchange for the removal
of the remaining nickel from solution. After final quality
control and pH adjustment, the water is suitable for discharge
to our local POTW.
In the event that the spent EN solution meets RCRA
characteristics and TCLP parameters but does not perform
adequately in the plate-out process, we will precipitate the
nickel as a metal hydroxide. Once precipitation is completed, it
will be polished as above to remove any residual nickel from
solution.
Although many aspects of the process have been discussed with
Dave, I feel that it is necessary to verify some of the more
critical points:
1. Electroless nickel solution is not a hazardous waste if
it does not contain any listed waste (K,P,U,F) or wastes
exhibiting the characteristics of hazardous waste (D
wastes).
2. Any treatment to reclaim or recycle the nickel from spent
electroless nickel solutions is not hazardous waste
treatment subject to the requirements of a hazardous waste
treatment permit.
3. Regeneration of either the ion exchange resin or the
carbon does not require a hazardous waste treatment permit.
4. The sludge generated from the precipitation of the nickel
as a metal hydroxide is not a hazardous waste if it does not
exceed the TCLP parameters or exhibit any of the
characteristics delineated at 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C,
Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes.
5. The metal deposited on the steel wool is not a hazardous
waste, is a solid waste and is defined as scrap metal at
40CFR261.2(c)(6).
Please review my understanding of the key components of my
meeting with Dave Carver, as indicated in this letter, in
writing at your earliest convenience. Enclosed is a process
-------
EPA-Brandes
November 5, 1993
Page 3
schematic which may assist you in reviewing the information
contained in this letter.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
call me at 201-242—4110.
Very truly yours,
FIDELITY CHEMICAL PRODUCTS CORP.
-Th
PE1 ER F. DOWNING 1
Manager
Environmental, Health and Safety
PFD/pd
cc : MB, PD
enclosures
-------
‘- )
1- T r 1’*.
> -
I )(4 (_
T
j
-------
FIDELITY
CHEMICAL
PRODUCTS
CORPORATION
A DIVISION OF AURIC CORPORATION
470 FRELINGHUYSEN AVENUE/NEWARK, N J. 07114/TEL. 201-24241 10/FAX #201-242-5796
August 4, 1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (OS-330)
Washington, DC 20460
Attn: Rick Brandes, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Dear Mr. Brandes:
On Thursday, July 29, 1993 1 spoke to Mr. Dave Carver of your office. This letter is to
confirm my conversation with Dave regarding classification of spent electroless nickel plating
solutions.
We are a manufacturer of solutions for the metal finishing industry. One of our primary
product lines is electroless nickel (EN), a technology which allows deposition of nickel on
variety of substrates without the need for an electrical current. As a service to our
customers, Fidelity Chemical Products has begun establishing a recycling program for the
nickel. Initial determinations have been made and confirmed by Dave Carver that both the
spent EN solutions and the recycled nickel would not be considered a hazardous waste by the
US EPA.
The electroless nickel solution does not contain any listed hazardous wastes. It passes for
TCLP and RCRA characteristics. The solution contains roughly 6 grams nickel per liter of
solution, present as nickel sulfate. The reducing agent in solution is sodium hypophosphite,
at a concentration of <5%.
Our process takes the EN solution, and continues plating the nickel on steel wool, as our
customers would. Rather then replenish the nickel to the solution, however, we continue
plating until the concentration of nickel left in solution is below 10 ppm. We then pass the
solution through ion exchange to reduce the nickel concentration to below our pre-treatment
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
EPA-Brandes
August 4, 1993
Page 2
standards for discharge to our local POTW. Prior to discharge, we titter any solids and
carbon treat the material, as we do with all of our effluent.
If we find that the nickel is not removable from solution by reduction, we precipitate it as a
metal hydroxide. This metal hydroxide also meets TCLP requirements, and we would
consider it to be a non-hazardous waste material per RCRA standards.
In either event, the recycled material would be sent off site to be smelted and recycled into
various steel products. In this manner, we feel that we can offer our customers a viable
alternative to conventional treatment and landfihling, while helping to protect the
environment.
Please respond to me in writing to confirm that the spent electroless nickel solution, the
plated nickel metal, and the nickel hydroxide are not hazardous wastes, and the process
which I have described herein would not be considered a “hazardous waste treatment”
method. I am very eager to get this recycling program rolling, and would appreciate your
response as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please call me at 201-242-4110.
Very truly yours,
PETER F. DOWNING, C.H.M.M.
Manager
Environmental, Health and Safety
Pus document has been retyped from the origtnal
-------
FIDELITY
CHEMICAL
PROD UCTS
CORPORATION
A DIVISION OF AURJC CORPORATION
470 FRELINGHUYSEN AVENUE/NEWARK, NJ. 07114/TEL. 201-242-4110/FAX #201-242-5796
FAX MESSAGE
TO: Max Diaz - U.S EPA
FROM. Peter F Downing, C H.M M
DATE. Seytember 1. 1994
Total pages including cover sheet. 2
MESSAGE: Max -
Per our discussion on 8/31194, attached are the letters to NJ DEP and their response regarding the
spent EN recycling Please call me if you have any questions.
Thanks
Pete
Please contact the sender at 201-242-4110 if any pages are missing or unclear.
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
This docwnent has been retyped front the original
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
State of New Jersey
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Lance R. Miller, Acting Director
CN 028
Trenton, N J. 08625-0028
(609) 633-1408
Fax 11(609) 633-1454
July 19, 1990
Mr. Maurice Bick, President
Fidelity Chemical Products Corporation
470 Frelinghuysen Avenue
Newark, New Jersey 07114
Re Recycling of Eleciroless Nickel
Dear Mr. Bick:
This letter is in response to your July 5. 1990 letter to Kurt Whitford discussing hazardous waste issues
concerning the receipt of spent electroless nickel plating solutions by your company. As you stated iii your
letter, spent electroless nickel plating solutions are not listed hazardous wastes in New Jersey (or Federally). As
such, these solutions could be hazardous in one or more of three scenarios: 1) if mixed with wastes listed in
N.J.AC. 7:26-8.13, 8.14, or 8.20; 2) if displaying one or more of the RCRA characteristics found in N.J.A.C.
7 26-8.9-8. 12; or 3) designated as a hazardous waste by the Department due to the presence of hazardous
constituents listed in N.J.A.C. 7:26-8. 16.
Prior to accepting spent electroless nickel solutions from a company, Fidelity Corporation should determine that
rio listed hazardous wastes have been mixed with the solution. In addition to the auditing and testing proposed,
a total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) analysis may be enlightening. Anytime TPH varies significantly from
previous batches, further investigatton should be considered.
Although spent eiectroless nickel plating solution should not fail any of the hazardous waste characteristics,
routine evaluation of batches should be performed, as outlined in your July 5, 1990 letter. Anytime a batch of
solution fails the criteria found in N.J.A.C. 7:26-8.9-8.12 the waste is hazardous arid cannot be accepted by
your company without first obtaining a hazardous waste facility permit.
Your letter states that spent solutions to be received by your company will contain 4000-5000 ppm of nickel.
At those concentrations, the Department, when considering the factors listed in N.J A.C. 726-8.6, would not
consider the waste to be hazardous due to the presence of nickel as a hazardous constituent.
New Jerse’y is an Equal Opportunity Employer
This document has been retyped from the originat
-------
If the speru nickel solutions are not hazardous waste, a RCRA Parr B permit and manifesting would not be
required
If you have any further questions, please contact Kurt Whirford at (609) 292-8341.
Very truly yours,
Shirlee Schiffman, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous Waste
Regulation and Classification
This document has been retyped from the originat
-------
FIDELITY
CHEMICAL
PRODUCTS
CORPORATION
A DIVISION OF AURIC CORPORATION
470 FRELINGHUYSEN AVENUE/NEWARK, N.J. 071 14/TEL. 201-242-4110/FAX #201-242-5796
July 5, 1990
N. J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
BHWR&C
CN 028
401 E. State Street, 5th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625
Aim: Kurt W. Whitford
Bureau of Hazardous Waste
Planning and Classification
Re: Recycling of Electroless Nickel
Dear Mr. Whitford:
This letter is in follow-tip to my and Al Ruffini’s conversations with you concerning the Federal and
New Jersey state regulations governing the recycling of electroless nickel wastes. As we indicated,
our firm is evaluating whether to offer such a recycling service to customers who purchase electroless
nickel from us. We would be recycling the liquid nickel at our Newark, NJ facility. Some
precipitated nickel from our process would be manifested to WRC Processing Resources or Inmetco.
Some would be used internally.
The electroless nickel products to be reclaimed include 4855A, 4855BM, 4855CD, 4865A, 4865B,
4865C and similar formulations. Customers will return spent materials to Fidelity where we will then
reclaim nickel from the solutions. The reclamation process involves precipitating the nickel in tanks
and filtration in a filter press. The nickel sludge is then used internally or sold to a reclamation
facility which will recover the nickel. The received nickel solutions are reduced from 4000-5000 pm
to about S ppm by us through precipitation. The remaining liquid is then put through an ion
exchange unit which will further reduce the nickel content of the Liquid to less than 0.1 ppm. The
liquid is discharged to the sewer in conformance with our Passaic Valley permit.
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
Page #2
N.J Dept. of
Environmental Protection
July 5, 1990
As we stated, our primary concern is whether such an activity would require us to obtain a hazardous
waste facility permit (commonly known as a RCRA Part B Permit). We are also concerned as to
whether our customers must manifest the electroless nickel solutions to be recycled that they are
sending us.
You indicated there is a classification of material termed ‘spent materials” which are considered to be
solid wastes if they are reclaimed. “A spent material is any material that has been used and as a
result of contamination can no longer serve the purpose for which it was produced without
processing You felt that waste electroless nickel falls into this category.
Having concluded that the waste is a solid waste, the next question is whether or not the solid waste
is a hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes fall into two categories - listed and characteristic. Spent
material from electroless nickel plating is not listed as either a non-specific waste source or a waste
stream from a specific source. The only specific nickel compounds which are listed hazardous wastes
as commercial or off specification products, are nickel carbonyl and nickel cyanide. Based upon our
description of our material, you felt that electroless nickel is not a listed hazardous waste.
You also explained that if spent electroless nickel is not a listed waste, it may still be a hazardous
waste if it is a characteristically hazardous waste. A waste is characteristically hazardous if it is
ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or it exhibits the characteristic of toxicity. These criteria are listed as
follows:
Ignitable
A waste is ignitable if it meets one of the following criteria:
1) Flash point less than 140 degrees F.
2) Flammable solid.
3) Ignitable compressed gas.
4) Is an oxidizer as defined in 49 C.F.R. 173.151. That section defines an oxidizer as a
substance that readily yields 02, to stimulate combustion of organic matter, such as
chiorates, perma.nganates and inorganic peroxides.
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUiD METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
This document has been retyped from the onginat
-------
Page #3
N.J. Dept. of
Environmental Protection
July 5, 1990
Corrosive
A waste is corrosive if it is:
1) aqueous with a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5.
2) a liquid and corrodes steel at a rate greater than 0.25 inches per year.
Reactive
A waste is reactive if it
1) is normally unstable.
2) reacts violently with water.
3) forms explosive mixtures with water.
4) generates toxic gases when mixed with water.
5) is a sulfide or cyanide bearing waste which can generate toxic gases when exposed to
pH conditions between 2 and 12.5.
6) is explosive or can be detonated.
Toxicity
A waste exhibits the characteristic of toxicity (“TC”) if an extract from a representative sample of the
waste contains one or more of listed contaminant at higher than listed levels. Currently, the test
procedure for toxicity is the Extraction Procedure (“EP”) which looks at 14 contaminants. In
September of 1990 the EP toxicity test will be replaced by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (“TCLP”) and the list of contaminants of concern will be expanded to 40.
Based upon our tests and knowledge of the electroless nickel, we do not feel it exhibits the
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity.
Al Ruffini and I also described our actual procedure for selecting and monitoring customers to be
included in this program. They were as follows:
1) Customers would be selected one at a time and the customer base for whom we would
recycle electroless nickel would be built up slowly.
2) A customer would be audited at their plant by us in order to qualify for sending their
nickel to us. We would look for strong management, good environmental procedures and a well run,
orderly plant.
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
Page / /4
N.J. Dept. of
Environmental Protection
July 5, 1990
3) We would require a sample of their electroless nickel to be sent to us before we
accepted their first electrotess nickel. This sample would be sent to a State approved lot for EP
Toxicity Test. This would be for the first shipment only. We would, on receipt of the first
shipment, also send it to a NJ certified lab for EP Toxicity Test.
4) On all future shipments from that customer, we would require a certification that their
shipment is in conformity with sample previously submitted. We would test these future shipments
for EP Toxicity in our plant. If there is any questions regarding a particular shipment, we would
submit to a State certified laboratory for their analysis.
5) Whenever and wherever TCLP toxicity testing becomes a requirement, we will test
under TCLP Toxicity rather than under EP Toxicity.
Based upon the above analysis and information which we gave to you, you felt that electroless nickel
was not a hazardous waste by either Federal or State of NJ standards and that we would not require a
RCRA Part B Permit. You also felt that our customers would not have to manifest the electroless
nickel they were sending to us unless their home state required it.
We feel that the above electroless nickel recycling project which we have proposed would be good for
Fidelity and good for the environment
We would appreciate a letter from you indicating receipt of this letter and that it basically describes
our conversations with you of June 27, 1990.
Very truly yours,
FIDELITY CHEMICAL PRODUCTS CORP.
MAURICE BICK
President
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
This document has been retyped from the onginol
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9444. 1994(09)
DEC I9f99i
Occ(CE OF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Paul R. DiBella
Metals Recycling Technologies Corp
3350 Cumberland Circle
Suite 970
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Dear Mr. DiBella:
in your letter of October 11, 1994 to Michael Shapiro, you request two regulatory
determinations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on the status of zinc
oxide produced by Metals Recycling Technologies Corp. (MRT) at Nucor Corporation’s electric arc
steel furnace in Darlington, South Carolina. You ask: 1) whether the use of MRT Zinc Oxide as a
nutritional supplement in the animal feed industry is use constituting disposal?, and 2) whether MRT
Zinc Oxide that is sold to primary electrolytic zinc refineries is a product? This response can only
answer these questions in general terms from the perspective of the Federal RCRA program. Any
case-specific regulatory determinations on the status of these materials should be made by the
appropriate regulatory authority, usually the authorized State or EPA Regional office.
Regarding the first issue of zinc oxide used for animal feed, MRT produces a zinc oxide
material reclaimed from K061, emission control dust from electric arc furnaces, a listed hazardous
waste. In your letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you stipulate that this zinc
oxide is completely reclaimed prior to sale for use as a nutritional supplement in animal feed. You
indicate that no further reclamation or processing of MRT zinc oxide is necessary. If the reclamation
process is complete, MRT zinc oxide would not be considered to be a hazardous waste and therefore
not subject to RCRA regulation unless it is burned for energy recovery or used in a manner
constituting disposal. 40 CFR Section 261 .3(c)(2)(i).
In general, EPA does not believe that using hazardous wastes that are recycled (hereafter
referred to as recyclable materials) as nutritional supplements in animals feed preparations is
considered to be use constituting disposal. In contrast to crop fertilization, many animal preparations
are not applied to the ground directly (although there may be some exceptions to this which would
need to be determined on a case-by-case basis). Again, for case-specific determinations, you are
encouraged to consult with the appropriate authorized State or EPA Region regarding the regulatory
status of MRT zinc oxide sold as a nutritional supplement for animal feed.
Regarding the second issue of whether MRT zinc oxide sold to primary electrolytic zinc
refineries is a waste or a product, this determination depends upon whether the zinc oxide has distinct
components being recovered to produce a separate end product or the zinc oxide is being refined to
concentrate the material as a whole arid remove impurities prior to being introduced into commerce.
£J Y Recycled/Recyclable
Q 9 P r td with Says ar o Il k on paoer nial
ecnta na ii ue.ai 50% re vc e
-------
2
Recyclable materials remain hazardous wastes until the reclamation process is complete.
Whereas, recyclable materials that have been completely reclaimed that had been hazardous wastes
are no longer considered to be wastes. Thus, metal-bearing recyclable materials that are fully
reclaimed for direct use or only need to be refined to be usable are products rather than wastes. 50
FR 614, 634 (January 4, 1985).
EPA’s understanding of primary electrolytic zinc refining processes is that after zinc
concentrates have been roasted to remove sulfur and other impurities that the zinc-bearing material
(usually a zinc oxide) is leached into solution and treated to remove remaining metal impurities.
Following the removal of the zinc leach residues, the zinc solution is electrowinned to produce zinc
cathode metal which is then sent on for melting and casting. Thus, the zinc refining process can be
said to chemically change the zinc oxide (normally an impure oxide) to zinc metal.
In contrast to other metal refining processes where the feedstock is already in the form of a
metal, zinc refining results in the recovery of zinc metal as a distinct component and separate end
product from a zinc compound (either a zinc oxide or zinc salt). Because zinc metal, a distinct
component of zinc oxide, is being recovered as a separate end product, EPA views this type of
process as further reclamation and therefore would view the secondary zinc oxide feedstock inserted
into the process as a partially-reclaimed material rather than a fully-reclaimed material. Because the
K061-derjved zinc oxide would be partially-reclaimed, it would continue to be a hazardous waste
rather than a product. Please note, however, that if the zinc oxide is sold as zinc oxide that is not
used in a manner constituting disposal, burned for energy recovery, or sent on for subsequent
reclamation and meets all product specifications for zinc oxide, that EPA would view this as a fully
reclaimed material (as a zinc oxide) and therefore a product rather than a waste. Even though EPA
views processing MRT zinc oxide in a primary electrolytic zinc refining process as a partially-
reclaimed material, the zinc oxide would no longer be considered to be a solid or hazardous waste if a
variance for partially-reclaimed materials (40 CFR Section 260.30(c)) is granted by the appropriate
regulatory authority (either the State Director or EPA Regional Administrator).
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 ai d
Assessment Division
-------
MeLalo Qecychn Technolo ie s Corp
3350 CUMBERLAND CIRCLE
SUITE 970
ATLANTS GEORGL 30339
TELEPHONE (404) 951-1542
FACSIMILE (404) 955-7610
PAUL R DlBE .L
October 11, 1994
VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Development Branch
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Metals Recycling Technologies Corp. (“MRT”) is writing to request
regulatory determinations as to the status of certain fully reclaimed zinc oxide
(“Zinc Oxide”) produced with the MRT Process and used as described herein.
Specifically, MRT requests determinations on the following:
1. Whether the use of fully reclaimed MRT Zinc Oxide as a
nutritional supplement in the animal feed industry is a use
constituting disposal?
2. Whether fully reclaimed MRT Zinc Oxide that is sold to primary
electrolytic zinc refineries is a product?
EPA has repeatedly recognized that its regulatory jurisdiction under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) over “wastes” and “partially
reclaimed” materials does not extend to (i) fully reclaimed materials that are used
beneficially and not burned for energy recovery or used in a manner constituting
disposal [ See 40 CFR Section 261.3 (c)2(i)], or (ii) fully reclaimed materials that
only have to be refined to be usable [ See 50 Fed Reg. 614, 634 (Jan. 4, 1985)
and 56 Fed Reg. 41164,41173 (Aug. 19, 1991)].
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
October 11, 1994
Page 2
Background
MRT owns and operates the MRT Process, a patented hydrometallurgical
process that recycles electric-arc furnace dust. The first commercial MRT
Process facility is operating at Nucor Corporation’s Darlington, South Carolina
steelmaking plant. Information on the MRT Process was previously supplied to
EPA in MRT’s letter to EPA of July 26, 1994, wherein MRT requested a
regulatory determination on the status of a certain leadlcopper metal produced
with the MRT Process.
One of the products of the MRT Process is zinc oxide. Zinc oxide is a
specialty chemical used in a number of industries. Among its uses, zinc oxide
is used as an ingredient in the making of tires, rubber, pharmaceuticals, ceramics,
paint and nutritional supplements. World consumption of zinc oxide is
approximately 800,000 metric tons annually.
The MRT Process produces commercial grade zinc oxide. The zinc oxide
content of MRT Zinc Oxide ranges from 95% to over 99%. At either end of the
zinc oxide content range, the heavy metal content of the MRT Zinc Oxide
remains very low. Lead levels in the MRT Zinc Oxide are expected to average
under 100 parts per million, and cadmium levels are expectcd to average under
40 parts per million.
MRT Zinc Oxide as a Nutritional Supplement in the Animal Feed
lndustiy
The animal feed industry currently uses zinc oxide as a nutritional
supplement. The zinc oxide as a nutritional supplement provides livestock with
a source of zinc, a necessary dietary nutrient.
MRT is considering selling a portion of fully reclaimed MRT Process Zinc
Oxide to the animal feed industry as a nutritional supplement. Used in this
manner, the MRT Zinc Oxide will be mixed directly with other nutritional
supplements and fed to livestock such as cows, pigs and other animals. No
further reclamation or processing of the MRT Zinc Oxide is necessary. MRT
believes that when used as a nutritional supplement in the animal feed industry,
the MRT Zinc Oxide is not used in a manner constituting disposal, and,
therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261.3 (c)(2)(i), is not subject to RCRA
jurisdiction.
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
October 11, 1994
Page 3
MRT Zinc Oxide Sold to Primary Electrolytic Zinc Refineries
From time to time, MRT may sell a portion of its fully reclaimed Zinc
Oxide to primary zinc refineries, where the zinc oxide will be refined into zinc
through electrolytic refining processes. There is no thermal metal recovery
involved in electrolytic zinc refining. Moreover, the reclamation process on the
MRT Zinc Oxide is already complete when it reaches the electrolytic zinc
refineries. While the MRT Zinc Oxide used in this manner is suitable for a
number of direct uses, market and/or economic conditions may provide
justification for selling the Zinc Oxide to such primary zinc refineries.
As stated earlier, EPA has consistently taken the position that fully
reclaimed materials suitable for direct use or that only have to be refined to be
usable are “products”, not “wastes” subject to RCRA jurisdiction. [ See 50 Fed
Reg. 614, 634 (Jan. 4, 1985) and 56 Fed Reg. 41164, 41173 (Aug. 19, 1991)].
Accordingly, MRT believes that fully reclaimed MRT Zinc Oxide sold to primary
zinc refineries for use in electrolytic zinc refining processes is a “product”, not
a “waste”, and, therefore, not subject to jurisdiction under RCRA.
Based on the foregoing, MRT respectfully requests regulatory
determinations on the MRT Zinc Oxide used in the manners described above.
Sincerely,
METALS REC CLI14’G TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
PRD/bc
Enclosures
cc: Paul A. Borst, U.S. EPA
John E. Johnston, U.S. EPA Region IV
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
December1994 9444.1994(10)
3. Ep(nephrln. Residue In A Syringe Is
Not P042
A hçspitoi administers the drug
epinephr” to patients by injection with a
syringe. After the proper dose is injected,
excess epinephrine and epinephrine residue
remain in the syringe. Epinephrine appears
on the P-list of hazardous wastes oi4O CFR
§ 2 6133(e) as P042. Is the epinephrine
remaining in the syringe a P-listed hazardous
waste when the syringe is discarded?
The epinephrine in the discarded syringe
would not be classified as a listed hazardous
waste. The P-list of hazardous wastes applies
to unused discarded commercial chemical
products. Commercial chemical products are
defined as commercially pure grades and
technical grades of the listed chemicals or
chemical formulations in which the listed
chemical is the sole active ingredient, which
have not been used for their intended purpose
(54 FR 31335, 31336; July 28, 1989). Drug
residues often remain inj dis cnsing
instrument after the instrument is used to
administer medication. EPA considers such
residues remaining in a dispensing instrument
to have been used for their intended purpose.
The epinephrine remaining in the syringe,
therefore, is r oc a commercial chemical
product and not a P042 hazardous waste. The
cpinephrine could be a RCRA hazardous
waste, however, i it exhibits a characteristic
of hazardous waste.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENFIL
WASHINGTON, DC. 20460
FEB 1 7 IS 9444.1995(01)
occiceoc
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: P and U Listed Wastes and the C tamed-in Policy’
FROM: ..Devereaux
/J Permits and State Programs Division, OSW
TO: Norm Niedergang, Director
Office of RCRA, Region V
Recently your staff contacted us in regard to the Agency’s
current RCRA contained-in policy as it applies to environmental
media that contain P and U listed hazardous wastes. Since this
question has been posed several times by other Regions, we would
like to take this opportunity to articulate the Agency’s position
on this matter.
The RCRA contained-in policy applies to P and U listed
wastes in the same manner as for other listed wastes. Although
§261.33(d) specifies that contaminated soil and water generated
from the cleanup of releases of P and U listed wastes must be
managed as hazardous waste, such soil or water would not be
considered “contaminated” in this particular context if the
implementing agency determined that the media did not contain
such a listed waste.
As you may know, the Office of Solid Waste is currently
developing a new rulemaking- -the HWIR Contaminated Media Rule- -
that will likely codify the contained-in concept in some detail.
That rulemaking should hopefully resolve a number of the
questions that are often asked regarding the current contained-in
policy. Several of your staff are members of the } WIR-Media
workgroup, and we will keep them apprised of any further
developments regarding this concept.
If you have any questions, please contact Dave Fagan or
Carolyn Hoskinson of my staff, at (703) 308-8620 and
(703) 308-8626 respectively.
CC: . Boyle
K. Pierard
B. Pace
T. Kaneen
cr R.Cyc5.d1R.Cyc $bIS
p,tn o with Sovi wIs l p.p uwi
St 1St 50% tscyu.d fthe
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
September 1995
9444.1995 (02)
RCRA
1. Isomers of P. and U-Usted Wastes
The P and U lists as 40 CFR ff261 33(e)
and (f) iden4fy chemicaLs which 1 when
discarded as unused commercial chemical
products, are listed hazardous wastes. If a
particular P. or U-listed chemical has many
isomers, are those isomers listed hazardous
wastes as well?
Many chemicals on the P and U lists have
multiple isomers. Isomers are compounds
made up of the same atoms in the same
proportions, but which have different
chemical structures and potentially different
chemical properties. These different forms of
a chemical can be idcntified precisely and
given unique Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) numbers. For example, toluenediarnine
(C7HI3N7.) may have many isomers, including
toluene-2 -4-diamine (CAS# 95-80-7) and
r.oluene-2-6-diamine (CAS# 823-40-5), that
differ stnicniral]y. Chemicals also may be
identified as “mixed isomers.” Mixed isomers
include all mixtures of individual isomers of a
compound. For instance, the genenc mixed
isomer designation of roluenedianiine (CAS#
25376-45-8) includes mixtures of the isomers
toluene-2-4-diamine and toluerie-2-6-diamine.
EPA may choose to include all isomers of
a chemical on the P orU lisrby listing the
mixed isomer or generic name of the
compound. If the generic mixed isomer name
and CAS number of a compound appear on
the P or U list, then any individual isomers of
that compound and all mixtures of isomers of
that compound meet the listing description.
Thus, when discarded in its commercial
chemical product form, the isomer toluene-2-
4-diamine (CAS# 95-80-7) is a listed
hazardous waste, because the generic mixed
isomer toluenediarninc (CAS# 25376-45-8) is
listedasU22l.
EPA may also choose to designate only
specific isomers of a chemical as P. or U-
listed hazardous wastes. When a particular
isomer is desigri d. then only that isomer is
• covered by that particular listing. For
• example, 11140 covers isobutyl alcohol (CAS#
78-83-I), an isomer of butanoL Since the
U140 listing includes only isobutyl alcohol,
other isomers of butanol are nor U140
(although they may be listed elsewhere).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
— 1
I -u .”
duo s 7 II p -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
a ,’— -
9444.1996(01)
30 1996
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Kelly V. Camp
Senior Project Manager,
Environmental Science Services
532 Atwells Avenue - -
Providence, Rhbde Island 02909
Dear Ms. Camp:
This is in response -to your letter of August 6, 1996 -
addressed to’Michael Shapiro, Director of the Office of Solid
Waste. Your letter requests on behalf of a client that the
Agency determine whether a certain “aluminum powder preparation
process” is considered chemical conversion of aluminum, and
whether the wastewater treatment sludge from this process is
considered Hazardous Waste No. P019. You stated that this sludge.
is currently managed as P019.
In the letter you indicated .that your client’s “aluminum,
powder preparation process” (encompassing two different surface
treatment/preparation operations using different chemicals on
aluminum) does not involve chromating, metal coloring, immersion
plating, or phosphating as defined in the EQiS listing background
document. You also indicated that chrom cyanide Cthe
constituents that were the basis for the P019 listing) are not
used in this process and, therefore, the wastewater treatment
sludge from the process should not be classified as an F0l9
waste. In support of the latter argument, 1 you submitted the
results of a recent analysis of one sludge sample showing that no
TCLP metals were detected.
We first note that the P013 listing fi tiO . covers all. -
wastewater treatment sludges -from the chemi 1 conversion coating
of aluminum, excett from zirj jum hosphatin in alumiuun ca -
washing when such phosphatin sa ec . c&i” sersion caatii ’
process. As discussed in the 55 S340 CFebrtxary 14, 1990) rtzle
that amended the definition of FCL9 to excLude wastewater -
treatment sludges from zirconium phosphatir of aluminum, cans, we
acknc wIedge there may be. ot r- dustrL hat do- not ..
- contain-particular ha zardàue doóèt it t Z C 1rOlflLUta ,
cyanide and do not exhibit .
Hø evr? suck other wastès . Tr the Febrary —,
we di ’ n dta to review.
Thus.. other wastewater treatment sludges chemical
conversion coating of aluminuim regard1ess of t ir compos1tLo --
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
and constituent concentrations, - continue to be captured by the
broad F0l9 listing definition unless and until delisted under 40
CFR 260.20 and 260.22.
Furthermore, we do not believe that your interpretation of
the scope of the F019 listing given in the background document
for electroplating and metal finishing operations (F006 and F019)
is correct. Although the “aluminum powder preparation process”
does not utilize any chromate compounds,’ it does involve
phosphating (but not zirconium phosphating) to deposit a layer of
phosphate for surface preparation. This meets the general
description in the F019 listing background document that
“phosphate conversion coatings produce a mildly protective• layer
of insoluble crystalline phosphate on the surface of a metal.”
Moreover, based on the limited information you provided, it is
unclear if any other manufacturing or metal finishing operations
precede or combine with the “aluminum powder preparation
process”, -or if’ any of.those operations may. fall into the
category of chemical, conversion coating; and if chromium or
cyanide from any other sources enters, the process at issue.
I suggest that you contact the -State regulating authorities
to confirm whether or not the sludge generated by your client is
considered F019. In addition, if your client believes its sludge
is nonhazardous, the hazardous waste’delisting process is
available to ease ‘the regulatory burdens. A delisting petition
would be filed with either the State or the EPA Regional Office
depending on the location of,the facility in question. -
I f you have further questions concerning this matter, please
feel free to contact Chichang Chen of the Waste Identification
Branch at (703) 3O8-0441.
cc: William Brandes
chichang Chen
Sincerely,
Bussard,
Hazardous Waste
Division
-------
9444.1997(01)
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
May1997
a petroleum refinery (i.e., used to store
product/crude prior to shipment off-site) and
1. Applicability of K052 Waste Code to which generate leaded bottoms are covered by
Pipeline Terminals the K052 listing.
The hazardous waste listing K052 applies
to tank bottoms (leaded) from the perrolewn
refining industry (40 CFR §261.32). A
pipeline company generates leaded tank
bottoms at bulk terminals and distribution
points which are not part of a refinery. Are
these leaded tank bottoms considered K052
waste?
No. The K052. listing is limited too y
those leaded rank bottoms which are uvr ated
at or as part of a petroleum refinery. I
tank bottoms generated at pipeline terminals
that are not directly part of a petroleum
refinery are not currently listed, and will be
deemed hazardous only if they exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste ( t prwr ,
Lindsey to Keough June 6. 1981). This
interpretation is made clear by the
Background Document, which defines the
scope of the listing. That document describes
a petroleum refinery as a complex
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 products
( Background Document: 26l.3l and 26I.32
- Listing of Hazardous Wastes . November 14,
1980. p. 685). The distinction betweeiT
petroleum r?finlng and .pipeline operations
depends on the type of activity being
conducted. Only ranks thai are directly part of
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
June 1997
9444.1997(02)
2. Use as Ingredient Not within
Solvent Usting
The spent solvent listings (FOO1-F005) apply
to only those solvents that are used for their
“solvent” properties, such as to mobilize or
dissolve other constituents, and not those used
as an ingredient in the formulation of a
commercial chemical product (50 53315;
December 31, 1985). If the owner 2 r operator
ofa facility thins a paint product with roluene
of greater than ten percent concentration
before applying the paint to the facility, would
any unused paint be considered F005 f it is
disposed of?
The paint mixture would not be considered a
listed F005 waste when disposed. Although
toluene, when a spent solvent, meets the F005
listing description, use of a solvent as an
ingredient is not covered by the spent solvent
listings. Thus, when unused solvent is added
to a product (e.g., paint, ink) as an ingredient,
any unused product being disposed of would
not carry an F listing. However, if the solvent
served as the sole active ingredient for the
function of the product (i.e., a solvent), then
the disposed unused product may be a P- or U-
listed hazardous waste ( 261.33).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
Appendices
-------
9445.1984(01)
APR 231984
II CMORANDU:4
St1 !Ct Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Acttvjtj s
Tfl
The response to i’ y previous RCRA Methods and OA Activities
merto was very gretifying. We very much appreciate the c mønts
and sut estions that you sent us. In this memo I will address
sons of the topics you suggested in your conmonts. The topics
to be djscu sod ar.
• Delisting Spot—Check Progra i
• Performance Audit Program for Volatile POHC
• Method 3030 — Acid Digestion of Otis, Greases and Waxes
• EP Toxic 3 ity — pH MJust ent
• Meth d 3550 — Sonicatton extraction
• pH of Oil/Grease
Delistin Spot—Chock Program
OSW has a program, which is approximately a year old
now, in which unannounced visits are made to facilittog that
have submitted delisting petitions. Included in these visits
are both on—site waste management facilities and commercial,
eU—site, multiple vasto treat .ne facilities.
The purpos. of the spot—check program is to collect
representativ, samples of the material being nan lged in
order to verify data submitted in the facility’, delisting
petition, and, if appropriate, to tnepeet the treatr ent
process and ensure that exclusion conttrtgonctee are being
observed.
A total of eleven visits have been made (on. to R.gton
I, two to Region II and four each to Regions III and V). As
a result of the inspections, recommendations were made to deny
-------
e petitions submitted by three of the facilities. In some
cases. recommendations to the Regions for enforc .nt action
resulted from these checks.
rhe spot—check pro. ram will continue with trips planned
‘o Regions IV,V, and VII by late spring. moth the Regional
ffjce and the appropriate Stats office are notified and
invited to accompany the OSW team on these visits.
S
Porfor,iance Audit Proçram for Volatilo PO,Ic
E?1SL.—R has standa: cyli ers of organic
substances in nitrocjen in support of the OAQPS and RC “ionitorj j
programs. Each cylinder contains the following fivo organic
compounds: carbon tetrachjorj e, chlorofori , Porchloroethyiene,
vinyl chloride and benzene. Some Cylinders hays compound
concentrations in the range of 7 to 90 ppb suitable for
auditing the VOST and others are in the range of 90 to 430
ppb and suitable for auditing a bag sampler.
While it is presently not required, OSW is considering the
implementation of a performance audit program that would require
source test measurements during all, hazardous waste trial
burns. Since EMSL—RTP is already in a position to conduct
audits of YOST and bag sampling operations, we recommend
that Regional permit and CSD personnel immediately begin to
require use of the RTP audit cylinders during all source
measurement program.. - -
Please direct all requests for audits to Florence Richardson
f my staff. She will record the requests and forward them
.0 £PtSL—RTP for scheduling, Thi. will permit us to determine
the future resource implications of such a requirement. We
would also appreciate any suggestions that you may have for
imple’itenting the program.
Method 3030 — Acid Digestion of Oils, Creases and Waxes
Region V hae initiated analyses of waste oils to determine
their hazardous characteristics, nd th. determination of
metals is one of the principal waste oil analyses of interest.
The lead and barium contents of waste oil are important
becaus. of their use as gasoline addittyce.
Prior to the metals’ analyses, recovery data for oils
spiked with organometallic stanMrcts were coll4ct,d, The
spike recoveries were tefinttely unacceptable for barium,
lead, mercury and selenium.
-------
We appreciate Region V bringing this problem to our
attention, £MSL—Ciflfl is currently evaluating all of the SW—84
digestion methods. In response to comments such as these,
we are considering modifications or adjustt ants to the current
methods and also methods from other sources in the evaluation
program. ‘rho report on the evaluation of this 5ethod is
scheduled tO be prepared and available for review by July.l984.
Method 1310 EP Toxicity
One question frequently asked is What is the procedure to
use if the muimum amount of 0.5N acetic acid has been
added to the extractor and pH 5.0 + 0.2 has not been reached?
• In such a case the 4 meq/gm maximum amount of acid specified
is controlling and no additional acid should be added to the
system. Under such conditions the extraction is conducted
at the pH reached after the maximum amount of acid is added.
Also, when the EP toxicity test is perforrned on oily or
greasy samples that cannot be filtered; is it permissible
to heat these at low temp.raturs to remove organics and then
determine the metals present.’
• Natertals that do not pass the 0.45 um filter are considered
as solids, irrespective of their Liquid properties. arid
thus must be extracted with the acetic acid solution. They
are not considered to be an extract as would an oil that
passes through the filter.
2! of Oil and Grease
Another question that is often raised deals with how to
-measure th. pa of oily materials.
• Zt is impossible to deter ine the pH of non—aqueous
materials. In cases where the material is multiphaste,
containing bøth an oil and a water layer, the water
• layer calt measured. -
Clarification of MethOd 3550
A laboratory inquired about method 3550 and wanted to
know if the results were to be reported in dry weight.
Thia methods states ‘a weighed sample of solid waste is
ground, etc., etc.’ The sample referred to is the ‘as
received material’ not a dried portion.
-------
4
Unless specifically stated in a method, rosulte are to
be reported •as roceived and the sample is not dried
befOre analysis.
NOTE
ORO provides vital QA support to the RC:1A o.ram trr u
a number of laboratories. From ti . to time I thought it iight
be worthwhile to highlight these laboratories and describe so’ie
of the support they provt’±e. t i t 1 ’ — :
Oualtty Asaurartc at EtiSt.—Cinn, EMSL—LV and 4SL—RTP.
The EMSL-Cinn 0kB staff is headed up by John A. Winter with
Harold Clementa and Ed Berg as section chiefs. They are
responsible for preparing and distributing certain types of
laboratory performance evaluation samples , quality control
samples and reference materials. They also maintain and operate
the EPA repository of toxic and hazarlous materials end thus
are responsibl. for distributing analytical standards to
laboratories performing RCRA testing. The repository of
calibration standards have been verified by multipl. laboratory
analyses as to percent purity of the neat compounds and
concentration of solutions in th. sealed ampules.
Responsibility for, developing and distributing non—aqueous
tandard reference materials, maintaining the Quality Assurance
atertaale Rank, evaluation of biological testing methods and
development of leaching procedures is with EMSL-t.V. Compounds
in the bank ar. not calibration standards but are of various
levels of purity and may or aay not have been fully verified
Careth Pearson is the Branch Chief. Liew bullies Is the
Pre sct Leader for the Ames mutag.nictty and daphriia magi a
bioassay pro .cts and for development of the second
generation Extraction Procedure. These activities will be
discussed in a futuri memo.
EMSL—RTP provides Ok materials and conducts audits of
laboratories dealing with airborne or geseous sampling and
analysis. As previously stated in this memo EMSL—RTP provide.
cylinders of standard gas.s for ensuring the measurement of
organic compounds in trial burns and/or landfills. Darryl von
Leheden heads up this O k effort.
Once again I.e me thank you for your interest and
please keep sending us your comments end ideas for future
memos.
David Friedman
Manager
May 1984 Nethods Prograis
-------
9445. 1984(02)
4 APR8 4
RCs WCBFRO I36
MEMORAHOUM
SUBJCCTi tbte$ on RCRAMetho( lOgy and QA Activities
PROKi David Friedman
Manager
Methods Program (WH .565B)
TOs dr.ss.es
This m. randu is an attempt to assist regional, stats
and other interested persons in ..pLnq abreast of Agency
RCRA mothocbLogy and•Quality Assurance activities. I plan to
send out thes. brief mesoran’Is periodically. Thsy will
ntain information on new test methods and guidance ctmsents
being developed, method evaluations in progress, updates on
the accuracy and precision of the current T&CRA methods.
results of quality assurance audits (without m.ntionthg
names), as well, as any other topics that you feel i.ould be
useful. The following topics will be addret sed in this
me s
EP bzicity Test
Adjustment of pH
Digestion of extracts
Testing manufactured articles
Test method evaluations in progress
Now test methods under dovolopoent
Wasts Analysis Plans Guidance Manual..
Reference Sta 1ards
Bef7re getting into these topics I just want to asic that you
reflect on this ma.’iorandum end send me your ents and
questions regarding the infornation in this mes and include
suggestions for futur. topics.
-------
i xicity Test
Ad3ustT!lent of pM
Recently, differences in the results of lead analyses
between t isooratories resulted in the discovery of a
problem in execution of the EP i xicLty Test. upon exaz ination,
by the Ouality Assurance Officer for Region Vt, it was determined
that pH adjust!Ieflt was beir% perfot’nsd using pH paper and
not with a PH meter. Tt’te C? test is especially sensitive to
P t 4 adjustment and for that reason the method requires that p14
measurements be made only with a pR meter. The pH strips
are not accurate enoUgh and Must not be used. Zn addition,
fre.juent calibration of the pH meter is important. (See
SW 46 To st Methods for ZvaluatlOn Solid Wast., Method
1310, step7.13.1.)
Extract Digestion
please remeriDe that all extracts must be dig.st.d
prior to analysis unless It has been de ’cnstrated, on similar
samples, that diLQestion is not necossary. All metal test
methods in SW-446 expliciti! require this (see, for example,
Method 7040, Step 1.0).
Testing Manufactured Articles
The C? toxicity test procedur, requires that a representative
sa! p1e of th. material be prepared for extraction by crushing,
cutting or grinding into pieces which can pass through a 9.5
mm sieve.
The difficulty arises with manufactured articles when
the material inside is an .nvironmental problem but is encased
in a leak resistant container designed to be structurally
resistant to crushing, cutting or grinding. Zn rar. cases where
such products are an appropriate size, they may be tested
vithout being cut up pursuant to the Structural Integrity
Procedure.
Although sone batteri tend to dogra3e rapidly when
placed in a landfill, cert Un batteries are manufactur.d in
such a manner as to prevent disintegration after disposal.
However, at this time the Ajency has not developed standardized,
EP toxicity test procedures for structurally strong articles
sucri as batteries. EPA is considering proposing amend*eflt s
to the C? 1bxicity test whtc t would allow a paciiag• designed
to be structurally resistant to crushing, cutting, or grinding
to be evaluated in the EP TP,xieity test without being cut-up.
one possibility wu)d be to test the corrosion resistance of
structurally resistant artiLes by submerging the article in
-------
a in salt (NaCI) water solution at an el.vated temperature
(60—80) for a period of on. sont i. If no leaks occur th.
product can be considered corrosion resistant.
I uld appreciate hearing about any other suggestions you
say have with respect to this issue. We tope to b abl• to develop
a progosed amendment package in the near future.
Methods Evaluation
The Aqoney has initiated an extensive rssearcti program
to determine the accuracy and precision of methods currently
in SW—846. At th. present tt ., the following methods are
being evaluated.
• 1110 rros1vtty 1 ward Steel
O 1120 Polarization Resistance Method
• 3030 Acid Digestion of Oils, Greases, or Waxes
$ 3040 Diaa lution Procedure for Oils, Creases, or Waxes
• 3050 Acid Digestion of Sludges
• 3010• Acid Digestion Procedur. for Flame Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy
• 3020 Acid Digestion for Furnace Atomic Absorption
Sp.ctro eco py
• 7190 Chromium: Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration
• 7191 Chromium: Atomic Absorption, Furnace liethod
$ 7195 Rexavalent Chromium: precipitatbn
0 7196 Hexaval.nt Chroriium: 1oria.trjc
• 7197 szavs1ant Chromiwu Chelation Extraction
• 7198 He ava1ent Chromium: Differential Pulse
Polarojjrsphy Method
• XXXX I. ava1.nt Chromium: Ion Chromatography
Method Developrtent
Our efforts continue with r.op.ct to th. development of
additional mettod3 for identifying hazardous waste.. Protocols
are being doveloped or existing aet)’o 1ogy is being sodified
to address the folloving areas:
Ignitable Solids
The obj.ctLv.i is to develop methods for
uss in the definitioftof ignitable solids.
Protocols have been developed and sub ject.d
to single 1t!vretory evaluation using actual
waste saapl.s. Test have b
-------
-.4 -
Hazards P sod by Liquids with Flash Points b low 60C
The ob jectiv. is to. develop a simpl. test
for identifying those liquids that should
not be considered as hazardous even though
thoj will flash at a traperature below 60•C.
Many such materials will not sustain coebustion
nor release sufficient a unts of .ner y to
surroundiri j materials to spread the fire.
The evaluation report of this method is also
scheduled to be prepared and available for
rejional revi v and comment by the end of
1984.
Reactive Gases — Cyanide and Sulfide
The oD ectiv is to develop a method for
determining when a waste is a reactive waste
(40 CFR 261.33) by reason of potential 112$ or
KCN re)eas.. A method has been .valuated
using standards and actual vast. samples.
T e test method is expected to be available for
Regional review and comment by June of
‘brk is also progressing on establishing
reactive waste definition thresholds using
the method. Whil, it loolis ilk, it orks
acceptably w’.’lL for sulfide-bearing wastes,
further methoil refining will be necessary
Dofore it can be adopted for cyanide..
Waste Analysis Plans Cuidanco Manual
Under Section 3004 of RCI A, EPA promulgated standards
applicabl, to owners and operators of hazardous waste manag.oent
facilities. These •tandardn pvern th. issuance of permits
for facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste. OSW is curr.ntly developing Permit Guidance Manuals
to describe the permit application process and to provide
guidance to applicants and permit writ.rs in addressing the
information requirements.
A l part of the permit application, owners/operators are
required to submit a waste Malysis Plan. The reqvirement
for a Waite Analysis Plan Is to insure that owners or operators
possess sutficient inforntatt n on the prop.rti.s of wastes
so that they will be able to treat, store, or dispos. of the
waste in a manner which will r t pose a threat to h an
health or the •nvtron ient.
To assist permit applicants and Stat. and EPA staff
members who review applications and draw up permits, the
Office of Solid Waste is in the process of preparing a Wa5t
Analysis Plan Guidance Manual. This Manual will provide
specific guidance on how to comply with the general waits
-------
analysis requirer ents of 40 CFR 264.13. Th• Manual will
include a discussion of the Waste Analysis Plan requirements,
‘ del Waste Analysis Plans for each of the principal, waste
disposal management situations, anda checklist for reviewer,
tb use in evaluating permit applications. We anticipate
that a draft of this manual. will be available for Regional
r.view early in Spring 1984.
Reference Standards
Since 1980, fPA’s Office of Research and Development
has maintained and continues to expand an inventory of standard
compounds for us. in analytical •fforts.
Organic standards consist of either single—component
solutions (for instrument celibration) or mu ltt —component
solutions, containing several chemicals. Analytical reference
standards can be utilized in several. ways to enhance sample
analysis and quaLity contr’l. Reference standards can bet
• added to media before analysis t., check recoveries
and thus be us.d as a matrix spike;
• added to a sample which has been prepared for
instrumental analysts, and thus be used as an int.rnal
standard;.
• used as a surrogat ’ for a particular compound alloying
for botPi sample an ilysts and recovery verification to
be done in th• last. run, e.g., deuterated or fli.crtnated
standards can thus be used as surrogates for compounds
found in hazardous west ..
• used for instrument calibration.
A singl. source of standard chemicals of known purity
and referenc. materials is necessary to assure that data of
known quality are produced. The Quality Msurance Materials
Bank provides reference standards to analytical laboratories
to support the Agency’s pro rams for sonitoring hazardous
vast. (RCRA/ CERCT.IA) • Pure (nea t) compounds ar purchased
and analyzed and low purity compounds ar. purifi.d. Once
verified, high purity organic and inorganic standards are
prepared (standard solutions) and distributed for use by
laboratories in calibration of instruments and for quality
control in sample analyois. The purity, concentration,
stability and applicability of each standard is evaluated by
the QA Materials Bank. br information regarding the availability•
of specific standard, contact 8d Kantor at gMSL,-LV (702—798—2690;
FTS545—2690), Ed Berg at E’ SL. —Cinn (513—684—7325; FTS-684—7325),
or Florence Richardson at the Office of Solid Wast. (202 -382 —480l
?TS-382 — ’4801). -.
-------
9445.1984(03)
2 r: ’ 19.S4
Clarification of Guidance on Petroleum
Refinery Waste Analyses
John H. Skinner, flirector
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous waste Branch Chiefs
Regiona I X
fln April 3, 1984, I forwarded to you a memo entitled,
‘Guidance on Petroleum Refinery Waite Analyses for Land
Treatment Permit Applications’ (see copy attached). My
April 3 memo provided guidance on evaluating petroleum
refinery waste analyses subi”itted in land treatment permit
applications. It included a list of hazardous constituents
suspected to be present in petroleum refinery wastes and
described the analytical methods for these wastes. This
memo provides additional guidance clarifying the analytical
methods that should be used for these wastes.
Attached Is a copy of a draft document entitled,
‘Handbook for the Analysis of Petroleum Pefinery Residues
and Waste. This document describes the analytical plan
that will be employed in OSW’s petroleum refinery waste
study. The analytical plan includes sample preparation
techniques, inorganic and organic analytical methods, and
analytical quality control procedures. Although developed
for the 0 5W petroleum refinery waste atudy, th. information
provided in the attached document will be useful In any
situation In which petroleum refinery waste analyses are
necessary, including RCPA permitting.
The draft analytical method for organic. provided in my
April 3 memo was derived from en earlier draft of the attached
document. ‘j’P,f a revised document now Includes a more complete
description of this method, and thus should be consulted by
permit writers and applicants aa EPA’s most recent guidance.
Specifically, SectIon 3.2 of the document includes the
analytical methods for organic parameters. The hazardous
organic constituents identified In my April 3 memo should he
evaluated in waste analyses for land treatment permit
applications.
In using the attached document, two points should be noted.
First, the Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity test data, as
described in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, need not be submitted
in the land treatment permit application. Rather, total
metal concentrations should be reported in the application.
Second, certain of the analytical quality control procedures
described in this document, Including frequency of procedural
-------
2
blanks, duplicates, and instrumentation checks, may not be
sufficient for RCW permit waste analyais pliinit. The
analytical OA/OC procedures described were developed for
laboratories that are under close EPA supervision and are
participating in the SW perfor,,iance audit program, Also
oA/r)c procedures for sampling are not addressed in the
attached document. Comprehensive quality assurance/quality
control procedures for waste sampling and analysii.i should be
specified in the permit application. General guidance on
OA/OC procedures can he found in Test Mptjtads for Evaluating
solid wastes (Sw—Rfl) and in Permit
Manual for the C,eneral Facility Standards of 40 r p 264
(SW-968).
If you have any questions on the analytical procedures
descrihed In the attached document please contact en Smith
(rrs—3R2—4791) of the Waste Identifjcatjon Branch. Any questions
regarding the use of this guidance In permitting land treatment
units should he directed to Mike Flynn (FTs—3R2-44R9) of the Land
Disposal Branch.
Attachments
CC I Tack Lej man
Fred Lindsey
Ken Fbuster
Eileen Claussen
Matt Straus
Bruce Weddlp
Peter Guerrero
-------
445 . 19 B 4 (05)
CF _20 -
MEMORAHDUM — N n ber 4
SUBJECTU Notis on RCRA M.thods and Oh Activities
FROM: David Pzidman, Manager
- Method. Program, WH —5528
TO: Addressees
we appr.ciat. your coimnenti and suggestions in r..pon.. to
my previous RCRA Methods and Oh Activities memos. This memo
will address several of th. topics suggested in recent
corr.epondencss
RCRA Laboratory Evaluation Program
• Standard Methods for Ground Water Testing
• Method 3030 Acid Digestion of Oils, Gr.a .ea, and Waxes
• Waste Analysis Plane Guidance Manual
Reactivity Evaluations for Solid Waste
RCRA Laboratory Evaluation Program
The Office of Solid Waste (0 5W) appreciates the cooperation
of those Regional Laboratories that participated in the pilot
Laboratory Evaluation Program (LEP) that OSW conducted during
this past spring and s mer. Now that the mechanics of the
program have been worked Out, the RCRA LEP is being officially
implemented and expanded to include all EPA Regional Laboratories
and OSW contractors.
Since the Superfund program has also established a LEP as
part of the CERCL.A Oh program, 0 5W and the Off c. of ergency
and Remedial Response (OERR) will consolidate samples to minimize
the impact on participating laboratories wherever possible. The
differLrig needs of the two programs, however, will sometimes
prevent such a consolidation.
-------
During FT 85, •ach laboratory will receive four sets of
check saz ple., Each set will consist of two samples to be
analyzed by different methods 1 -
Standard Methods Proposed Por Testing Mazardouq Waste P cjljtje,’
Ground Wate
OSW recently proposed adopting a set of mandatory standard
test methods to Improve the quality of ground—wat. monitoring
at licensed hazardous waste facilities. it is •xpeetei that
such standardization would also help speed up the permit process
by making the application evaluation process easier.
The rulemaking of which this proposal is a part has five
objectives, 1) make the analysis and saa pling method, in EPA
Publication •Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste’ (Sw—846)
mandatory for all testing and monitoring activities required
under Subtitle C of RCRA 2) consolidate in SW—846 all methods
necessary for Subtitle C testings 3) eliminate certain requirements
for groundwater testing in those limited cLrct sta, .. where
the constituent being tested for Liediately converts to another
substance upon contact with water, or where no testing method
has been developed to detect the constituent in qu.stion 4) allow
the limited use of SW-846 methods for compliance monitoring
screening purposes and 5) introduce the concept of hierarchical
testing that in certain cases may reduc, the flimiber of tests
required to determine whether classes of Appendt V! compounds
are present.
As it stands now, hazardous waste facilities must sometimes
develop their own test methods to identify particular hazardous
constituents because EPA has not formally specified which of a
n n ber of methods it considers acceptable. Federal and State
environmental off icials muse then approve these methods as
part of the facility permitting process. Since in the absence
of mandatory testing requirements Federal or State environ..
mental offices may develop differing requirements for acceptable
test methods, monitoring roquiremen s and results may vary
from Region to Region (and State to State),
This proposed rule will allow permitting officials to
quickly evaluate permit requests since all necessary methods
will be contained in a single manual. More important, by
consolidating test methods, it will be easier for the regulated
community to apply for and be granted hazardous vast. permits.
For smaller facilities in particular, this proposal will help
assist them in meeting RCRA’ permit requirements, in addition
to easing the permitting process, using standard methods for all
monitoring viii better enable the Agency to determine the quality
of the data and to follow environmental quality trends.
Although EPA has prepared a series of draft guidance
doctinents which give some general information on monitoring
-------
3
methods, no one document has hitherto listed all the sampling
and analysis methods that are specifically acceptable to ncw,
The proposed regulation proposes a number of new testing methods
and consolidates them into its existing test method, manual.
As noted above, the new standards also would save time and
costs, while maintaining environmental standards, by eliminating
groundwater testing for those chemical, that ii mIediate1y decompose
in ground water. The proposed te u1at tons would also reduce
unnecessary testing by allowing facilities monitoring their ground
water to test for th. absence of certain classes of chemical wastes,
instead of testing for each [ ndivjdual chemical within a class.
?ot example, if a facility tests its ground water for halogens
and it finds none, then it would not have to test for each variety
of halogen listed in the regulations.
The propos.d regulation appeared iii the Federal Register
Oct. 1, 1984, at 49 PR 38786.
Analytical Report on Method 3030 Acid Digestion of Oils, Creases
and Waxes
In response to Region V ’s ecmrlents (May 1984). we initiated
a task to examine EPA Method 3030 for its applicability to the
analysis of barium, lead, mercury, and seleniur in waste oils
and to formulat, any modifications necessary to produce satisfac...
tory analyses. -
The digestion of four waste oil samples by EPA Method 3030
gave very low recoveries for barium, lead, and mercury. Selenium
could not be detetmined in the digest due to severe interference
by sulfuric acid with th. graphite furnace technique. The
initial heating step of Method 3030 produces a large quantity
of charred material which La not digested by the latter steps.
Barium is precipitated as barium sulfate. This accounts for
the absence of barium in the samples and lack of recovery. The
Method 3030 digestion procedur, was judged to be unsuitable for
the determination of any of thes. metals. We reconmend that
Method 3050 be used for the digestion of barium, lead, mercury,
and selenium.
waste Analysis Plans Guidance Manual
Waste Analysis Plans Guidance Manual is intended to assist
both permit applicants and reviewers/writers in the preparation
and evaluation of waste analysis plans. The manual explains
the RCM regulations that require a waste analysis plan and
provides a reconmended approach, including checklists to ensure
coopletion of the plans. It presents sample waste analysis
plans for various hazardous waste management scenarios.
-------
4
Although a waste analysi, plan should de onatrate to e P A or
state—permitting officials that the facility operator knows what
information is needed tQ operat, the facility properly and has
in place a program to gather the necessary information, there is
no specific r.quir.d format for the plan. However, the manual
suggests that the plan be organised around th. following four
question.,
What are th. specific wastes or types of wastes
that will be managed within •ach process? -
• What an, the specific waste parameters that have
to be quantified in order to satisfy the data needs?
• What are th. waste-associated properties that are
of conc.rn in •nsuntng safe and •ffsctive management
(e.g., Stu content, S water)?
• How will the necessary data be obtained, including
a description of the sanpltng and analyst, procedures
and attendant quality control/quality assurance
procedures to b• carried out by the permitt..7.
Zn addition to providing checklists to assure the c pi.t.n.ss
of the plan (and sample plan. covering a variety of hazardous
waste mana . ent scenarios) th. manual puts forth such concepts
as boundary condition’ and tol.ranee limita.’ ‘Boundary conditions’
gives the maximum and minimum values of waste properties which,
if exceeded, would alert th. operator that th. waste does not
meet ita typical properties and requires further attention before
acceptance. Tolerance limits’ are those charact.n isttcs of a
waste or waste mixture that a waste managernent process can handle
whil, maintaining permit compliance. The manual also discusses
the selection of waste parameters, the need of periodic vecharac—
t.nizatton of hazardous wastes, the performanc. of shipment
scre.ning by of fsit. facility operators, and procedure. for
waste sa.apling, analysis, and quality assurance/quality control.
The manual, can be ordered f non the Government Printing Office
as document 053 -000-00244 -4, at a coat of S5,50. The address Is
a. follows,
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Govetrrtent Printing Office
Waehington, D.C. 20402
(202) 783-3230
-------
-s
Reactivity evaluations for Solid Waite
In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation
and the United Nations Group of Experts on Explosives, the
Bureau of Minos has been conducting research on the development
of tests designed to determine whether a substance has explosive
propertios. These tests are currently under consideration for
international standardization and are cal].d the U.S. Gap Test
and the U.S. Internal Ignition Test. The Bureau of Mines has
proposed that these tests ar. suitable to determine the properties
described in 40 C?R 261.23 (a)(6) and (7) which defines a solid
waste as having the characteristics of reactivity it it has,
among others, any of the followtn.2 properties,
(a)(6) Capable of detonation or explosive reaction if
subjected to a strong initiation source or if
heated under confinement,
(a)(7) Readily capable of detonation, explosive decomposi-
tion, or reaction at standard temperature and
pressure.
The .etP pdi were the subject of a single laboratory at the
Bureau of Mines Laboratory in Pittsburgh, PA, using waste
samples from processing waste treatment facilities. In addition,
a series of standard explosives ware obtained and evaluated
for use in calibrating the tests,
A report s .u imari:Lng the single laboratory evaluation should
be available for review early in 1985.
A symposiwn on RCRA test methods and Quality Assurance is
being planned for July 24—26, 1985 in Washington, D.C.. Topics
to be included ares Organic and Inorganic Analytical Methods,
Razardous Waste Identification Characteristics, Quality Assurance,
and Sampling. More information will be included in our next issue.
-------
9445.1984(06)
RCRA/SUPERPUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 84
A. RCRA
1. When does one make the determination that a waste is
liquid or solid prior to disposal in a landfill? The
waste in question is normally solid but liquifies at
temperatures reached in the vehicle transporting it to
the site (>140°F) and occasionally at ambient desert
surface temperatures (120°F in the summer). The
material will solidify over a short period of time.
The phase of the waste should be determined just
prior to disposal. In this case, the waste is
liquified during transportation but will solidify
over a short period of time. Therefore, it is
proper to allow the shipment of containers to
stabilize or solidify before performing the free
liquid test. It is permissible to use best
engineering judgment.
Source: Paul Cassidy
Research: Ken Jennings
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9445. 198 5 (01)
AP. 51985
Dr. Paul Jo, aire
icology and Enviro .nt, Inc.
1,5 Bugg Road
P.O. Box D
Buffalo, New York 14225
Dear Dr. Jot..aires
In respons. to your r.cent r.quest for infotiiatien
r.gsrding the basis for inclusion on App.ndiz VIII of saveral
substances, enclosed please find copiss of re3.vant listing
background docisnts.
In nsvsr to your other qusstton, soil contasinated with
tolu.n• is not autcoatically considered to be a hazardous vast.
solely b.causs tolu.n. is listed in Appsadix VIII. Only if a
spill containing on. of ths wastes listed in 4261.31, .32,
or .33 v.r. ths cause of such contanthatien would such a
situation arise. If such a spill were indeed r..ponsible for
the contasinstion, forsal delisting is required befor. th.
r.sidu. can b. considered not to b. hazardous. Supposing that
the spill did not account for the contaaination, the soil would
only bs regarded as a hazardous waste if it exhibits on. of the
hazardous waste charact.ristics. Th. inclusion of to3uen. on
Appendix VIII is not considered to be gersane.
sooing this answers your questions.
Sinc.rely,
David Priedsan
ManaQSV
Mathods Prograz
ftnclosutes s
5261.33 Background Doc snt
Listing Rackqround Doc entss
Chlorob.nsenes
Tel uene
Cyanide
-------
9445.1985(02)
April 23, 1985
MEMORANDUM #6
DATE: April 1985
SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities
FROM: David Friedman, Manager
Methods Program (WH-562B)
TO: Addressees
Thank you again for your response to my previous RCRA
Methods and QA Activities memos. In this memo we will inform you
about the following recent initiatives in the Agency:
o Public Meetings on Delisting
o Intra-agency Work Group on Update to SW—846
o Development of New Testing Methods and Reevaluation of
Existing Methods.
We appreciate your comments and suggestions.
Public Meetings on Delisting
Approximately 200 persons attended public meetings in
Washington, D.C. and Dallas, Texas, organized by the Delisting
Program. The meetings were conducted to describe in detail how
future delisting petitions will be affected by the Hazardous
Waste Amendments of 1984 and to provide instruction to
petitioners on the preparation of supplemental material that
should be included in future delisting petitions. Presentations
were made on the reauthorization of RCRA, the general petition
review process, information resources and special procedures that
will apply to petitions concerning wastes from petroleum
refineries and multiple waste treatment facilities. A discussion
session followed the presentations in which attendees were given
the opportunity to question the delisting staff about their
particular concerns.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
Intra-agency Work Group on Update to SW-846
As part of the process of finalizing the October 1, 1984
proposal to update SW-846, “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste,” an intra—agency work group is in the process of
considering the comments received by the Agency in response to
the proposed changes and is rewriting some of the methods to
reflect these comments and suggestions. OSW expects to complete
this process by the end of this summer, with Federal Register
publication anticipated in the Spring of 1986.
Development of New Testing Methods and Reevaluation of Existing
Methods
As part of its efforts to develop new testing methods and to
determine the accuracy, precision and sensitivity of the existing
methods, the EPA Office of Research and Development has completed
a number of test methods studies including:
o Method 9022 and Interim Method 450.1 -— Determining
total organic halide (TOX) in ground water and waste
oil
o Method 8030 -— Determining acrolein, acrylonitrile and
acetonitrile in ground water, solids and organic liquid
matrices
o Method 8090 -- Procedure for analysis of nitroaromatics
and cyclic ketones in ground water, liquid waste and
solid sample matrices
o Method 8280 -- Procedure for analysis of hazardous
wastes containing tetra—, penta— and hexa—chiorinated
djbenzodioxjns and -furans
o Application of a gas chromatography/Fourier transform
infrared protocol to the determination of semivolatile
organic compounds in waste water, soils, sediments and
solid wastes
o Analytical methods for compounds that do not gas
chromatograph.
The following sections describe these recent research
developments.
Method 9022 and Interim Method 450.1
Various methods for determining total organic halide (TOX)
in samples of ground water and waste oil were evaluated by EMSL-
CIN (Thomas Pressley, 513-684-7494). Of three inorganic halide
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—3—
species generation approaches and three, inorganic halide
determinative techniques evaluated for ground water analyses, one
combined approach using Schoeniger flask oxidation with
colorimetric chloride determination was chosen for laboratory
validation and method detection limit studies. Ground water
samples were also analyzed for TOX using neutron activation
analysis (Method 9022).
The results of this evaluation indicate that Method 9022 is
an appropriate technique for TOX analysis and offers the
additional advantage of providing individual chlorine and bromine
values for the samples at levels equal to TOX detection limits
achievable with the microcoulemetric determinative technique
which has a reliable limit of sensitivity at 5 ug/L (Interim
Method 450.1). The Schoeniger flask/colorimetric chloride and
neutron activation analysis methods were found to give TOX
results for spiked ground waters that were comparable to those
obtained using the microcoulometric method. However, the
Schoeniger flask/colorimetric halide method was useful only for
halide levels above 0.2 mg/L due to the high halide background
levels encountered in the reagents.
A method for analysis of oil samples that uses the sodium
biphenyl reagent and a colorimetric chloride method was found to
be unsatisfactory for the analysis of various oils spiked with
PCBs due to interferences in the colorimetric determinative step
that resulted in recoveries greater than 100 percent. Further
evaluation of the sodium biphenyl reagent using alternative
determinative techniques, such as microcoulometric detection or
an additional clean-up step for the extract prior to the
colorimetric determinative step, will have to be performed to
establish the usefulness of the technique at halide levels in the
range of 20 to 350 ug/g.
Method 8030
Method 8030 was modified using revised chromatographic
conditions for determining acrolein, acrylonitrile and
acetonitrile in ground water, solids and organic liquid matrices.
In order to evaluate these modifications, method validation
studies were conducted on each of the four sample preparation
techniques included in Method 8030, namely: (1) heated purge-and-
trap; (2) polyethylene glycol (PEG) extraction followed by heated
purge-and-trap; (3) direct liquid injection; and (4) manual
heated headspace. Each method validation involved the
determination of the method detection limit (MDL) and seven
replicate analyses of one or two matrices unspiked and spiked at
two different levels. Ground water was analyzed by the heated
purge—and—trap method; a solid waste was analyzed by the
PEG/heated purge-and-trap method; and a liquid organic waste was
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—4—
analyzed by direct liquid injection and by the heated headspace
method.
The heated purge—and-trap method gave excellent recoveries
(85 to 96 percent) and precision for the three analytes in ground
water. The PEG/heated purge-and-trap method gave good recoveries
(76 to 96 percent) for acetonitrile and acrylonitrile in the
solid waste but poor recoveries for acrolein (10 percent).
Problems resulting from residual amounts of PEG indicated that
additional modifications of this method are needed. The direct
liquid injection technique gave excellent results for the
determination of all three analytes (86 and 111 percent
recoveries) in the liquid organic waste; however, late eluting
material may present serious problems in some cases. The manual
heated headspace method gave distinctly less accurate and less
precise results than the PEG/purge-and-trap method for the
determination of acetonitrile and acrylonitrile in the solid
waste sample. Acrolein was not recovered at all by the method
due, apparently, to decomposition during the one—hour
equilibration at 90°C. The headspace method gave extremely
erratic results for the analysis of the organic liquid waste and
was, therefore, considered completely unsatisfactory for such
samples.
This study was conducted by the EMSL-CIN laboratory (James
Longbottom, 513-684-7308).
Method 8090
Another study recently completed by the EMSL-CIN laboratory
(James Longbottoin, 513-684-7308) was a single laboratory
evaluation of Method 8090, which is a procedure for the analysis
of nitroaromatics and cyclic ketones in ground water, liquid
waste and solid sample matrices. The method spike recoveries in
authentic matrices at two challenge concentrations were
determined. Authentic matrices were obtained from industrial
sources with manufacturing processes that might require the use
of this method for monitoring, and as such these authentic
samples provided the analytical conditions and background
interferents that might be expected in actual implementation of
this method.
The method detection limit (MDL) in reagent water for all
the analytes ranged from 1.2 ug/L to a low of 0.26 ug/L. The
experimental method detection limits were lower than the
published method detections in Method 8090 for 2,4-
dinitrotoluene, 2,6—dinitrotoluene, nitrobenzene and isophorone.
The recoveries for all the analytes in reagent water were greater
than 75 percent.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—5—
The recoveries for the majority of the analytes in the three
matrices (ground water, nonaqueous liquid waste, and solid waste)
were generally good. All the analytes gave good recoveries
(greater than 70 percent) and good precision (relative standard
deviation less than 12 percent) in the ground water matrix.
2, 4—Dinitrotoluene, 2, 6-dinitrotoluene, 1, 3—dinitrobenzene and
1,4—naphthoquinone gave good recoveries (greater than 70 percent)
in the nonaqueous liquid waste. Poor recoveries were observed
for nitrobenzene and isophorone in the nonaqueous liquid waste.
For the solid waste matrix, l,4-naphthoquinone gave the worst
recovery (50 percent) of the six analytes, while the remaining
analytes gave recoveries ranging from 60 to 70 percent at the
high concentration level and greater than 80 percent at the low
concentration level.
Method 8280
In 1983, EPA proposed a ruling affecting disposal of
hazardous wastes containing tetra-, penta-, and hexa—chiorinated
dibenzodioxins and -furans. As a result, the EMSL-LV laboratory
initiated a validation study of the method proposed to detect
these substances.
The RCRA Method 8280 consists of four major sections: (1)
extraction of the analytes from the environmental sample; (2)
“open” chromatographic clean-up with alumina using methylene
chioride/hexane eluent; (3) MPLC clean-up; and (4) analysis by
capillary column gas chromatography/low resolution mass
spectrometry (HRGC/LRNS). In order to test Method 8280
efficiently and to develop appropriate modifications with minimal
effort, each section of the methodology was tested separately.
Initial tests were performed on a simple (pottery clay soil)
sample matrix and upon standard solutions. Necessarily, the
first step evaluated was the measurement technique. Both GC/MS
and GC/EC (electron capture detection) were tested using
guidelines from the published RCRA method. Because the analytes
could not be measured at the published mass—to—charge ratio (m/z)
values by GC/MS, these values were corrected prior to further
work.
In summary, the following revisions were made to the
published method: (1) correct m/z values were substituted for
those in the published method so that the mass spectrometer could
detect analytes and standards introduced via the interface gas
chromatograph; (2) the extract clean—up with an alumina column
was revised so that all desired analytes eluted in a single
fraction, with the bulk of the analytical interferences removed;
(3) the method was revised so that wet samples could be
accommodated; and (4) NPLC procedures that could be performed
effectively and be reproduced consistently were developed. The
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—6—
extraction revision allows accommodation of wet samples and
improves recovery of spiked analytes in dry soil samples.
The RCRA method with revisions discussed above was subjected
to performance tests that included: (1) analysis of reference
materials containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD and interferences; and (2)
precision and accuracy determinations on samples having known
composition through spiking the sample matrix at this laboratory.
Two independent teams of analysts investigated the
performance of the revised method using precision and accuracy
determinations (standard deviation of results) and by recovery of
spiked analytes and isotopically labeled standards. Effects of
experimental parameters, such as QC column type (coating) and
alumina activation level were also determined.
After incorporating necessary revisions, satisfactory method
performance has been demonstrated on soil—type samples. Much
precision and accuracy data obtained to date were based on GC/EC
determinations. Comparisons to the precision and accuracy
attainable by NPLC/LRMS is underway. Performance of the method
on relatively complex matrices, such as sludges, still bottoms
and fly ash was determined.
Although the method was found suitable for soils, fly ash
and other relatively clean matrices, serious interferences were
obtained during the analysis of still bottoms. Additional clean-
up steps are now being studied. A copy of the revised method
will be attached to the July memo (Ron Mitchum, 702—798-2103).
Gas Chromatography/Fourier Transform Infrared
The application of gas chromatography/Fourier transform
infrared (GC/FT-IR) data to regulatory decisions requires the
availability of validated analytical protocols. A GC/FT-IR
protocol was developed by EMSL-LV (Donald Gurka, 702-798-2113)
that is applicable to the determination of semivolatile organic
compounds in waste water, soils, sediments and solid wastes. The
protocol is designed for automated analysis of multicomponent
environmental and hazardous waste extracts. Waste water analysis
for semivolatile organic compounds is based upon extracting 1 L
of sample with methylene chloride and concentrating the sample
extract to 1.0 mL. The analysis of the semivolatile fraction
derived from solid waste analysis is based upon extracting 50
grams of sample and concentrating the sample extract to 1.0 inL.
A gel permeation option is included to further purify those
extracts which cannot be concentrated to the specified final
volume.
Using capillary GC/FT-IR techniques, waste water
identification limits of 150 to 400 ppb can be achieved with this
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—7—
method while the corresponding identification limits for solid
samples are 3 to 8 ppm. Automated packed column GC/FT-IR
identification limits are approximately a factor of five higher
than the corresponding capillary GC/FT—IR values. The most
frequent obstacle to achieving these identification limits is
expected to be the presence of large quantities of interfering
high boiling coextractants. These coextractants would raise the
identification limits by preventing the concentration of extracts
to the desired final volume, thereby necessitating gel permeation
clean-up, and/or by decreasing the spectral signal-to-noise GC-
volatile analytes by raising the spectral background intensity.
Triple Ouadru ole Mass Spectrosco y
In order to develop analytical methods for compounds that do
not gas chromatograph, EMSL-LV (Steve Billete, 702-798-2232) has
been studying the use of alternative analytical methods. A
number of dye compounds and dye wastes were characterized by
MS/MS using thermospray ionization and triple-quadrupole mass
spectrometry. The polymethine, cominarin, xanthene, arylmethane
and non-sulfonated azo compounds are classes of dyes that, in
general, give collision mass spectra when introduced into the
spectrometer via the thermospray interface without
chromatography. Other classes of dyes, such as phthalocyanines,
stilbence and benzidine dyes, have not been detected by this
method.
Many synthetic intermediates and other dyes were detected in
standards of individual dyes. The precursor compounds are
generally not completely removed from the commercial product.
The dyestuffs are formulations based on color index standards.
Dye wastes (mother liquors from various dye processes) were
analyzed without pretreatment before injection into the
spectrometer. High percentages of the starting materials used in
the synthesis of specified dyes were often detected. Other types
of dyes spiked into these wastes could be identified by their
collision spectra. The quantification of these dyes proved
difficult because of the impurity of the dye standards.
Detection limit studies indicate that at least 100 ing to
250 mg of injected material are needed for the dye to be
identified. However, specific detection limits are dependent
upon the class of dye and its actual chemical structure.
The use of triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry proves very
effective in identifying those dyes that undergo thermospray
ionization. The production of a useful spectrum from the single
ion per compound generated from therinospray ionization makes the
triple—quadrupole mass spectrometer useful in both structure and
mixture analysis.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—8—
Test Methods Discussed at AOAC Meeting in Dallas
In addition to the above studies for which reports have
recently been completed, two other methods under development, a
new Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and a
Sorbent Pressure Test Method, were discussed at a session of the
AOAC meeting on April 11, 1985 in Dallas, Texas. A discussion of
these new methods is presented in the following sections.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
The 1984 amendments to the RCRA call for EPA to make the
Extraction Procedure (EP) more accurate and to expand the
hazardous waste characteristics. In response, the Agency is
expanding the list of compounds that can be detected using the
Extraction Procedure and is developing a second generation
mobility procedure. The new TCLP is being designed to be
suitable for determining the leaching behavior of volatile
compounds as well as to be less costly and more precise than the
current EP. Furthermore, the features of this new procedure are
expected to approximate the leaching action of a sanitary
landfill. The draft TCLP that was discussed at the AOAC meeting
in Dallas makes the use of a zero—headspace extraction vessel,
the tumbler type agitator currently employed in the EP, and an
acetic acid/sodium acetate buffer as the extraction medium. A
report is in preparation summarizing the results of the lysimeter
and laboratory experiments that led to the draft procedure. A
copy of the draft method is attached. For further information,
contact Todd Kiminell 202—382—4795).
Sorbent Pressure Test Method
Compression of materials occurs during routine landfill
operations, and the 1984 amendments to RCRA directed EPA to
prohibit the landfill disposal of liquids absorbed in materials
(sorbents) which can release these liquids when compressed.
In order to determine whether certain sorbents could release
liquids under simulated landfill pressure, the Agency has
initiated a program to develop a new test method, entitled the
Sorbent Pressure Test. As discussed at the AOAC meeting,
centrifugation and consolidation are currently being investigated
as a means of simulating landfill pressure. The test will be
designed to be easily applied in the field and to yield both
qualitative and quantitative results.
Attachment
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9445 198 5 (03)
•3t
Mr. Willian L. Ranus
Water Managsm•nt, Inc.
2480 Broadway Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115
D.ar Mr. Ramuss
This .tt.r is in r.spon.. to your ay 17, 1955 l.tt.r to
Mr. Matthew Straus of the Waste Identification Dranch.
Specifically, you requestod a clarificatica of the fl2
listing and Its applicability to wast .vatr tx’sMsont sledges
from sulfuric acid anodizing of alsiut,.
The P006 listing of wastewater treatosot sludges from
.l.ctroplating operation, was published Interim Final Co Nay
19, 1980 (45 PR 33123). Cc.nts v.r.takso oaths proposed
listing, vhicWprompted s.v.ral .odifiaatjoss., ft...
modifications ware incorporated into the f foal 1istt q om
November 12,1980 (45 FR 748U-74U7).- First, uut ,*te.
treatment sludges frcmT.v.ral specific proa.as.s’vsre s*i1edSd
from the listing. The .. processes includ• svltvrià acid
anodizing of al irna. Also, vastswat•r treatment sludges
from ahomical conversion coating of alomiawa ware listed
separately, as P019, becaus, the.. sludqs were not .zp.st.d
to contain significant concentrations of cadei and nicksi.
Thus, the P019 listing is, in effect, a svbcat.gcry of the
P006 listing. - -
Binc. vast ,watsr treatment sludge. from sulfuric acid
anodizing of almeinem are .p.cifiaally .zcluded frem th. V00I
listing, the sludges are not included under P019. At present,
this exclusion also Includes the coloring step and, thus, th.
process you describe results io am excluded waste unless the
sludge is hazardous by characteristic (igaitahility, corrasivity.
reactivity, or IP toxicity).
WH-562B/DTOPPING/rpj/382-.4690/5—31-85/DISX DT 01
-------
It is important to note that this waste is excluded from
the listings because it meets the description in the P006
exclusion and not because the chemical conversion baths
contain no chromium. Apart from the P006 exclusions, wastewater
treatment sludges from all chemical conversion coating
processes are listed hazardous wastes (P019 for aluminum,
£006 other metals),
However, the Agency is currently re—evaluating the
electroplating and metal finishing listings to determine
whether phosphating and some other processes Should continue
to be included.
Should you have any questions related to this clarification
or other aspects of the electroplating and metal finishing listings,
please feel free to contact me at (202) 382—4690.
Sincerely,
David A. Topping, Jr.
Environmental Scientist
Waste Identification Branch (WR—5628)
cc: Sally Swanson, EPA Region V
-------
9445. 1985(04)
MEMORANDUM #7
DATE: June 1985
SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities
FROM: David Friedman, Manager
Methods Program (WH-562B)
TO: Addressees
Today’s memo will cover the following subjects:
o Metal Determination in Ground Water
o Dioxin Method 8280
o Performance Audits on Gas Samplers
o Validation of Method 3540
o Reactivity Test Methods
o Symposium on Solid Waste Testing and Quality Assurance
Thank you for past comments and suggestions.
Metal Determination in Groundwater
The forthcoming publications, “Ground Water Technical
Enforcement Document” (OWPE) and the Third Edition of SW-846,
will provide greater detail on how metals are to be determined in
ground water. The following policy will be implemented in both
documents.
o All ground water samples are to be analyzed for total
recoverable metals (unfiltered, mild digestion) and
dissolved metals (filtered, mild digestion) as defined
in the EPA publication “Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Waste” (EPA—600/4—79—020), Section 200
Metals , paragraphs 3.7 and 3.4. Total recoverable
metals and dissolved metals are to be determined by the
methods given in the same publication in Section 200
Metals , paragraphs 4.1.4 and 4.1.1. (The digestion
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
given in Note 3 of 4.1.1 is always to be used for
ground water samples.)
o Organic determinations are to be made only on ground
water samples that have not been filtered.
o An on-site filtration method will be developed and
evaluated before inclusion in SW—846.
Dioxin Method 8280
The single laboratory evaluation of Method 8280 for analysis
of halogenated dibenzo—p—dioxins and dibenzofurans has been
completed. The method consists of extraction, base and acid
washes, alumina column chromatography, reverse phase HPLC, carbon
column chromatography and quantitation by high resolution gas
chromatography low resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/LRNS) (see
Table I). Analyses, concentrations and performance data are
given in Table II. Detection limits derived from the single lab
study are given in Table III. These may be higher than lowest
possible detection limits because calculations are based on high
natural and spiked dioxin concentrations. The EMSL-Las Vegas
laboratory is currently investigating method modifications aimed
at lowering the detection limits and is preparing for a multi-
laboratory evaluation of the current method.
Availability of PPB Hazardous Organic Cylinder Gases for
Performance Audits
In order to minimize the chance of poor data being collected
when performing trial burns and other combustion process
monitoring, the EMSL-RTP laboratory has prepared several audit
cylinders for use in performing performance audits of SW-846
sampling methods 1.2.1.8 (VOST) and 1.2.1.13 (MM5). These
multicoinponent organic cylinder gases have been successfully used
in audits during RCRA hazardous waste trial burns.
As a result of the success with these cylinders, OSW
believes it is prudent for all persons performing such sampling
to use a cylinder audit during each sampling episode. If such a
level of Quality Assurance cannot be performed, then cylinder
audits should be performed during all trial burns. The cylinder
gas audit can be used for all volatile organic sampling that uses
either the VOST or bag techniques. The audit adds an important
ingredient now missing from such trial burns——assessment of
sampling accuracy. Currently, EPA and State personnel who
require trial burns for POHC have little means of knowing the
accuracy of POHC measurements. Requiring permit applicants to
conduct cylinder audits during the trial burn adds an important
weapon to the QA arsenal. OSW strongly recommends instituting
this requirement.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
TABLI I. VL SHUTFOR 8THOO 8280 DIOXIN ANALYSIS
I lOg spl.
4OHsPet. 8t? .rsM 2 o (lt4u ) used
• trsct 100 1 for Ash; ‘rolu.n. used for Act t at.’i
Carbon; P OHsR 2 0 (7s3 used for i o U.
• I
Mu. ous
Discsrd
Organic
Wash vith
20% OW
Aqu.ous Orgsntc
Wash vtth
Discard conc. 53504
1 I
Aqueous Organic
I Alumina Colui (3q)
Discard Cl•an up
Fraction 1 (5.Cl 2 iSuanS) Fraction 2 (5.Cl sIs aa•)
(20.80) (SOsSO)
Discard PLC Cl.sisip
ClI-’RavsrIs Phase
(Iocrats”MIOH)
Fraction 2 Fraction 1
Discard
SsLls S ludg.
?&V Ash Tar.
(1/LMS) still ottoms
Carbon Coluici
Carbon Px-21 (Amoco Res
rraction 1 and 2 FractiOn 3(ToLusne)
Discard 1i GC/LP.MS
—3—
-------
TA BLE-I l. PRECISION TA FOR REVISE) METHOD 8280
Analyte
Level
Mean
Native
+
Percent
Percent
Compound Matrix Spike(ng
/g) N
Recovezy
RSD
l,2,3,4,7— P eCDD clay 5.0 4 58.4 3.36
soil 25.0 4 62.2 8.92
sludge 125 4 79.2 6.93
fly ash 13.9 4 102.4 10.3
still bottom 2500 2 81.8 —
l,2,3,7,8-P.CDD clay 5.0 4 61.7 23.2
soil 25.0 4 68.4 10.8
sludge 125 4 81.5 5.28
fly ash 46 2 104.9 —
still bott 2500 2 84.0
l,2,3,4,7,8-ExCDD clay 5.0 4 46.8 28.9
soil 25.0 4 65.0 12.9
sludge 125 4 . 81.9 9.0
fly ash 46 2 125.4 ——
still bottoR 2500 2 89.1
‘2,3,4,6,7,8i IpCDD clay 5.0 4 ND — —
soil 25 0 4 MD —
sludge 1X10 4 8 — —
fly ash — — — —
still botto. — —
2,3,7,8—TCDD (C—l3) clay 5.0 4 64.9 7.58
soil 25.0 4 78.8 9.14
sludge 125 6 78.6 3.42
fly ash 5.0 4 88.6 6.74
still botto. 2500 3 69.7 7.47
l,2,7,8—TCDP clay 5.0 4 65.4 6.91
soil 25.0 4 71.1 8.40
sludge 125 4 80.4 3.08
fly ash 3.7 4 90.4 11.1
still botto. 2500 2 104.5 —
1,2,3,7,8—P.C r clay 5.0 4 57.4 5.18
soil 25.0 4 64.4 6.77
sludge 125 4 84.8 9.74
fly ash 46 2 105.8 —
still botto. 178,000 2
l,2,3,4,7,8-8zC clay — — 54.2 —
soil 25.0 4 68.5 10.0
sludge 133 4 82.2 5.29
fly ash 17.6 4 91.0 8.71
still bottom 2500 2 92.9 _______
I
‘ -4—
-------
TABLE III. T!CTION LIMITS (ppb) FOR RCRA ETROD 8280
Analyt.
‘
Class
Clay
Soil
Fly Ash
Still Bottom
Sludge
TCDD
1.0
5.0
1.0
500
25
TDCF
0.5
2.5
0.5
250
12
PCDD
1.5
7.5
1.5
750
38
PCDF
1.0
5.0
1.0
500
25
HxCDD
2.0
10
2.0
1000
50
HxCDP
1.5
7.5
1.5
750
38
—5—
-------
—3—
weapon to the QA arsenal. OSW strongly recommends instituting
this requirement.
These cylinders are available, at no cost, from the EMSL-RTP
laboratory. Each audit cylinder contains 5 to 9 hazardous
organics. Audit cylinders are available in two concentration
ranges. The concentration of each hazardous organic in the low
audit cylinders is between 7 and 90 ppb. The concentration of
each hazardous organic in the high audit cylinders is between 90
and 430 ppb. Groups I and II cylinders are currently available
for audits. Group III cylinders will be available in the Fall,
1985. Groups I, II and III cylinders contain the following
hazardous organ ics:
Group I Cylinders Group II Cylinders Group III Cylinders
Carbon tetrachloride Trichloroethylene Pyridine
Chloroform l,2-Dichloroethane Vi.nylidene chloride
Perchioroethylene 1, 2-Dibromoethane 1, 1, 2-TrLchloro-
1,2,2—
trifluoroethane
Vtnyl chloride Acetonitrile (Freon—113)
Benzene Trichiorofluoromethane 1, 2—Dichloro—
(Freon—il) 1,1,2,2—
tetrafluoroethane
(Freon— 114)
Dichiorodif luoromethane
(Freon-].2) Acetone
Bromoethane 1, 4-Dioxane
Methyl ethyl ketone Toluene
1, ]., i-Trichloroethane Chlorobenzene
All audit cylinders are periodically analyzed to assure
cylinder concentrations have remained stable. Also, all
stability analyses in Appendix A include quality control analyses
of ppb hazardous organic gas standards prepared by the National
Bureau of Standards for EMSL—RTP/QAD.
Audit cylinders may be obtained by contacting:
Robert L. Lampe
USEPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Quality Assurance Division (MD—77B)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Telephone: Commercial (919) 541—4531 or FTS 629—4531
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—4—
Validation of Method 3540
The development and evaluation of fortification/
homogenization procedures for preparing uniform distributions of
analytes in diatomaceous earth showed no appreciable differences
between fortification solvents, between mechanisms of
homogenization, or between duration of homogenization.
Uniformity of distribution of analytes in the diatomaceous earth
was essentially independent of these parameters. Consequently,
the most facile approach (i.e., fortifying using methylene
chloride followed by tumbling for 30 mm) was applied to
subsequent experiments.
The evaluation of the Soxhiet Extraction Procedure (Method
3540, SW-846) using reagent diatomaceous earth demonstrated that
this procedure provides accurate and precise measurements on
nonvolatile components. Recoveries of such species from
fortified diatomaceous earth was approximately 85 percent, with
relative standard deviations of less than 11 percent. Recoveries
of the three volatile analytes, toluene, p—xylene, and o—xylene
were considerably lower (—40%). Loss of these volatile compounds
during evaporation of gross solvent in the fortification step was
considered the most probable cause of this poor performance.
Extraction and K—D evaporation were also minor contributors. No
effect of using diatomaceous earth from different sources on
recovery of target analytes was noted.
Precision of determination of unknown components of
diatomaceous earth fortified with actual pesticide industry waste
was somewhat lower (approximately 27% RSD). This observation was
attributed to the difficulty of homogenizing a mixture of two
solid materials.
Reactivity Test Methods
Development of reactivity test methods for those waste
materials which are capable of detonation is underway. In an
interagency agreement with the Bureau of Mines Laboratory (BOM)
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, OSW sponsored a study that
evaluated the U.S. Card Gap Test and the U.S. Internal Ignition
Test as tools for determining if a given waste is an explosive
that could undergo detonation under reasonable mismanagement
conditions. Samples of sludge from several explosives processing
waste treatment facilities were collected and analyzed as well as
a series of standard explosives for calibration use. Because of
the inconclusive nature of the results of the BOM work, further
evaluation is needed before any decision is reached as to the
applicability of these tests to RCRA wastes.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—5—
In the interim, OSW has supported the use of a battery of
tests to determine reactivity due to explosive properties. This
battery is outlined in a test plan submitted by the U.S. Army.
Please contact Florence Richardson (FTS 382—4770) for
additional information on this aspect of reactivity.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9445.1985(05)
J 2 18 ‘I
Mr. Don B. Howard
C—K Associates, Inc
11848 South Rarrell’s F.rzy Reed
Suite A
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
Dear Mr. Rewards
This letter is ira response to your November 6, 1984, re-
quest for an analytical method to determin, the presence of
creosote. Alan Carson referred your letter to me, because I have
been working with creosote regulations. Ira order to properly
reply to your letter, I feel that some clarification is n.ceasaw.
KOOl refer, to wastes from wood preserving processes that
use creosote arid/or pentscraloroppa.no l, which I presume is the
case that you described. U05l refers to cr.osote as a cainuercial
chsoical product which is only core ider.d as a h ardcue waste if
discarded or intended to be discarded. In other words, you will
not have 4051 unless r cr.osote is discarded.
As you may know, creosote is an extremely complex miTtare of
many compounds. The concentration distribution of these co’ pounds
varies depending both era reaction conditions and on the •ot ce of
coal used. Unfortunately, wa are are of no single analytical
method with which to determine cr•osot• presence. Recent ira-
for ’aation indicates that following the procedure outlined in the
footnote associated with cr•osote on Appendix III, is not a
reliable indicator of the presence of creosote. PA is presently
workira j on a proposed rule to amend the hazardous waste regulationis
concerning creosote.
However, wa are not concerned with creosote per se bit
rather, the toxic caapounde that are present in creosote. I
therefore, recommend you analyse for the toxic compounds identi —
fled as being present in EflOl on Appendix VII. If any of these
are present at the facilities you are concerned with, a potential
hazard still exists. Analytical methode for these canpounde are
provided on Appendix I I I of 40 CFR part 261. Refer to Test Method
for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW—846), Second Editiony Test Methods
8100, 8250, and 8310.
-------
I hop. these r.ca mendations will be of assistance. Please
feel. free to contact again, if y i hay. any questions at
(202) 475—B990.
Sincerely,.
Agnes M. Ortis
Chiical Engineer
c4ethods Progr , W9—S 2B
cc : Region VI
-------
9445.1985(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU)OIARY
AUGUST 85
‘ Ski=.r List
1. WMt is ttir.t y the te Skir. ar t.ist?
The teen ‘Skinner La.st’ refers to a sjbset of 40 R 261 Appe. iz vi:: CO .StLtj tS
(89 coi j, j) trgt, en developed, s or.sidered a or.sevative List f r azar o
corjt jer.r s tMt re .rsaaorably likely to e u-. petrole n ref inert stes •
list s ori Lna.Uy an attacr, nt to a tns dated Apr21. 3, 1984, f:3n JOhi Skir.rer,
tner. Director for tt Office of SO1 . 5t 5• tO tt giona1 . Hazac , S
ar.ch iefs.
Its primary pur es to provide peonit writers g idar.ce or. evaljitj pur..r o1.ejn
ref rery sta analyses su n1tt.d .n lard teaoner.t p.cn.it app1icatior s, iver,
as a result of cP r eg an delisti. requi:ei nts as specified by the Ka rd a
Solid ste T1eninents of 1984, the list becama relevar.t for pur s.s of retirery
delist3r actions ti idenification of analyses to be perto d for
delist2rq pur ,ssj. (The list of ccr.stit ar.ts sent to petitioners act Uy differed
sliqhtly fran the erigi.-al. Last that appeared with t Sith.-* wsr . The corsti-
t .aents appeared in a List entitled •Cor.stit .ants of sibl. L terest to fin.y
LIsti.ç £ffort.)
As a result of additional data Oll.ctad by t1 Pçeney duri t sprL of 1985,
the decision es made to el2n%irava a siqr.afica.tt nia r of cor.stitusr.ts for iAu
ar.aiy52s s needed for delist i.-ç p.r ses. t subaeqantiy rsd.ced list LS
en one row u ’ . se for delisti. pur ses only. gioral offices reta in
authority to req.ai:e t canpl.t. Skmnner t.ist to be ed in L& tsete pe it
appi ice ucr . In additacn, ti* zaz o sts listing pr ren at A Piudq art.rs
may *riodically add tit ar.ts to t listi.-qs as a rs gt of data collected
thro .qh tlaar i istry st-4ies. T ) gJidar e man jal entitled P•titicr. to Oslise
st . tii s rJa c rrsnt list for ich analysis is needed for ref i ery
stes in eddition to general u’.fo ti n described art prtpizi. a d.1isti
peution. This guida.’2ce ew .al n be ot er,d at a cost of $19.00 throt.qh tr
atioral Technical Info 7nItion Ssgvtce (PITXS) by ref.rrig to og .r nis sr P
85—194488.
So..r:e: 3ar ara 8.sh (202) 475—6776
-------
9445.1987(01)
K0NT1 SWOthRY
RCP.k/SUPER D HOTLI
1(ARCH 87
5. A r iix VIII, Groundweter t .tnitorinq
In the July 24 • 1986 Federal gister , EPA proposed d anges to the
ex sti.ng ground-water i cnitoring requ.irenents. These cthanges LnvoLve
replacing the requiren nt for o&ner/cperators to nixtitor for the
40 R 261 Apper iix VIII hazardous constituents , with a rt list of
haz r 1ous constituents in 40 CPR 264 Apper iix DC. The Appendix IX
List is the same as the Appendix VIII List except it dose not inelixie
those listings fros Apperdix VIII that cannot be analyzed for in
grcund-weter. Also, the proposed erxiix DC list includes 25
na i constituents that are routinely analyzed for in the Siper fund
program. Urtier the existing regulations t en the 0/0 discovers a
statistsos .Lly significant increase of an indicator parameter during
the detection ricn.itoring r1 ase, the 0/0 im st inreediate2.y sanpie all
ground weter atit0ring wells and analyze those sanples for the
presence and concentration of Appendix VIII constituents. Based on
th3.s information, the gicnal óninistrator will set “ground-weter
protection standards” • or levels, for the stituents in the ground
weter. If these levels are exceeded in the ground weter, corrective
action tu.ist be zpleiiented. If the Appendix DC list is used in
place of the Appendix VIII list. will the 25 additional perfu id
thenicals also b analyzed for and be subject to the gr .md-weter
protection standards of the 40 CFR 264 grourxi- . ater r cnitoring
program? -
These 1diticnal 25 Superfurxi d enicals uld be analyzed for
along with h other pr eed Appendix IX constituents i .t*en a
statistically significant increase of an indicator parameter
wes identified during detection lTcnitoring, and again any t3iT
Appendix DC lTcnitorir wes required. Because the Agency has
not yet evaluated these 25 constituents to be “hazardous” per
47 FR 32295. as they have the Appendix VIII atituents, the
Regi nal P inistrator coul4 use the “o ibus aut riey ’ of
40 ‘R 270.32(b)(2) and Section 3005 (c)(3) of A to set
protection standards and require corrective action for these
additional 25 atituents if it wes deame necessary to protect
h n health and the envircrre.nt.
Source: Jerry German (202) 382-4658
Research: byn Neavjlle
-------
9445.1987 (02)
SEP I 6 ;g87
Dr. Su•ll•n Piuq..
National Solid Wast•s
Nanaqs.snt Association
Suit. 1000
1730 Ihod Island Avs.,
Washinqton, DC 2003
D.ar Suslisni
I am writing in rsspoas. to your rscs.t 1.tt.r r.qvsst laq
clarification of OSW’s policy r.qardtaq tho states of —S4$.
It appoars fro. your lottor that a •ise.d.rstandi.g •xist with
rsqard to P bs function and requlatory states of ho manual.
In qon.ral, SPA viii mandats Ph. quality assvranc./qvaijty
control proc.dur.s in SW—84 but not th. spocifia theds. To
this .nd, vs irs in tho procsss of pr.p.ri.s a Notion f Propos.d
iusking which vs •zpoct to publish in tho P.d.rai Soqist.r
.arly Ia lESS. svsr, for a li.it.d group of regulation., vs
cwrr.nt ly usadats us. of iW-S41 ..thods. P.r thoss regulations,
IV-S46 viii onntfnu. to b. wdatory. lb. sp.cific proqrnu areas
vhirs SV.44 .sthods ar. mandatory includs.
1. tsr .1aIng vhsth•r a vast• is hazardous by rsason
of on. or mar. eharact.ristics,
2. Sa liaq and aaaiysiag a waits to qath.r data to
support a dolisting pstiti.n,
3. Csa tIn. an inc la.rator trial burn: and
4. t tnIn. vhoth.r a bulk or oontainoriu.d vasts
osntsta. •fr.. lIqvId.
-------
2
Other than exceptions noted above, SW—546 serves as a
compendium of methods which are anprove , not mandatory, for
use in con 1yjng with the requiremen of the RCRA regulations.
This approach was adopted, by OSW, to of far the greatest decree
of flexibility to the regulated Community while minimizing the
burden to them of having to evaluate methods for each and every
RCPA monitoring requiremen The Agency continually reviews the
effectiveness of this approach. If V. find that the flexibility
is resulting in compliance problems i specific program areas, we
would consider expandinc the areas where use of SW—846 methods
are mandatory.
We aaree with your comment that, when developing a testing
roaram, one should consider not only th• methods in SW-846 but
alio those published by organizat ions such as ASTM, AOAC, and
Standard Methods. To that end, OSW has an active Program to
encourage and work with standard settinq orqanizatjon in
developing testing “ ethods that can be used in the RCRA
program.
We would appreciate any assistanc. NSWMA can qiv. us in
developing and evaluating testing methods. Wher•v g possible,
we would very much like to undsrtak joint programs with NSW A.
I would be happy to have David Friedman attend thi nIxt meiting
of your Technical Com itte. to explore specific areas where NSW A
can assist us in developing and evaluating testing methods.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
cci Sylvia Lowranc.
David Friedman
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A( FNC
9445.1987(03)
OCT 20 i gi
MEMORANDUM $20
DATE: October 1987
FROM: David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section WH-562B)
TO: Addressees
This ‘eemo viii address the following topics:
o CC/MS Suitability Testing of RCRA Appendix VIII- and
Michigan List Analytea
o notes on Safety in the Laboratory
o Standardizatiort of Method 8610, Part 2
o 1988 Solid Waate Testing and Quality Assurance Symposium
o TCLP Video
o Application of Structural Integrity Procedure when
Performing EP Analyses
CC/MS Suitability Testing of RCRA Appendix VIII and Michigan
List Analytee
The RCRA list of toxic compounds (Appendix VIII) contains
over 300 orginic aa.1 ti .. In response to a petition by the
state of Ntc i ai . thrAgency proposed to add over 100 additional
organic co o $ to th. list. In order to develop and validate
methods for ,s 1y*I$ of these compounds in wastes, EP
extracts, a, flr i 4Vat.r, the Environmntal Monitoring and
Support Laboratory In Cincinnati (EMSL-CI) has been evaluating
applicability of Methods 8240 and 8270 for these analyses.
1(3.3. —
-------
2
The first phase of this approach involved the identifica-
tion of those co ounds which are amenable to GC separation
and S detection. These evaluations involved the analyses of
solutlorta of standard materials usinq the GC/MS conditions
described in the Contractor Laboratory Protocol (CLP) for the
aDplleatiorr of Methods 8240 and 8270 for volatile and semi—
volatile organic compounds, respectively.
EMSL—CI recently issued the first report on this study.
The rer ort describes the procedures and presents the results
obtained from this first phase of the study. The compounds
were classified as candidates for Method 8240 or Method 8270
testing. Some compounds were not tasted because they fell
into one of the following catecorles:
o The chromatographic behavior of the compound had
already been thoroughly characterized.
o The comoound was known to degrade rapidly in aqueous
sam’le matrices.
o The compound was known not to be amenable to cias chroma-
tography —— Compounds known to be too polar and/or too
thermolabile to elute using Method 8270 conditions.
o Standards were not available, either from the EPA
repository or from commercial sources, for the
compound.
For compounds not excluded for the above reasons, the followina
data were obtained:
o GC Performance —— retention characteristics.
o Mass Spectral Performance —— response factors, key ions
for detection and quantification using extracted ion
current profiles (EICP).
The project demonstrated that of the Appendix VIII or
Michigan List analyt.s tested. 64 are compatible with the GC/MS
analysis for volatilse and 220 others can be detected usino
the Superfund GC/MS program for semi-volatllee.
Notes on Safety in the Laboratory
The items below were brought to our attention and we felt It would
be of benefit to reprint them in this issue. Chemical Safety (C&EN,
July 27, 1987)
-------
3
Noxious Fumes From Nitric Acid Digestion
SIR: W r. interested to read of Paul Haae’ description of
an urtexpeat reaction involving the acidification of hydrous
metal oxid a with nitric acid (C&EN, Apr11 20, paqe 3). The
health and •nvirortmental chemistry group at Los Alamos National
Laboratory conducts the extraction procedures—toxicity tests
for determination of metals in hazardous waste materials as
required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Because of
the nature of these materials, there is always an inherent
amount of uncertainty with each sample to be analyzed. However,
our experience has shown that approximately one third of all
samples are likely to yield a fairly vigorous reaction at some
point throuahout the extraction procedure.
Recently, we experienced an incident involving one
of these samples. A sample aliquot was being prepared for
mercury analysis by the stepwise addition of digestion acids
and potassium permancanate. Nitric acid had been added to the
aliquot In a 100—mi. Erlanmeyer flask and the mixture had been
allowed to stand for 15 to 20 minutes with occasional swirling.
An ice bath was used to douse vigorous reactions. The flask
was then removed from the hood and placed in the laboratory
sink, which contained approximately 1 inch of cool water.
Shortly thereafter, a reddish—brown mist containing probable
fumes of nitrogen dioxide and butyric acid (based upon the
appearance and odor) was liberated from the flask, resulting
in mild exposure to the employee conducting the analysis.
Several other individuals In the building also reported
nausea and slight dizziness.
At the time of removal of the flask front the laboratory
hood, the sample appeared auiescent; It was removed from the
hood in order to make room for other samples being prepared
in a similar fashion. In the future, all such samples will be
retained in the hood throughout the procedure at the possible
cost of increasing throughput time for sample analyses.
Mary C. Williams,
Fred N. Bolton
Bs lth, Safety & Environment Division
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Standardization of !PA Method 8610, Part 2
Method 8610, TotslAromatica by Ultraviolet Absorption
was evaluated in conjunction with Method 3560, Reverse Phase
Cartridge Extraction for the separation and semi—quantitative
determination of visible or ultraviolet absorbing organic
compounds listed in Appendix VIII. In Part 1 of this program,
reported on earlier by EM$L—CI (EPA/600/S4—85/052), the following
work was conducted:
-------
4
o A data base of visible and ultraviolet (UV) spectral
data tor,th• Appendix VII I compounds was developed and
used to estimate detection limits for those compounds
wtttcb absorb UV or visible light in the region 220 to
7 G• na.
o The reverse phase cartridge extraction procedure of
Method 3560 was evaluated and modified for the separation
of polar and non—polar subsets of 21 Method 8610 analytes
using methanol hexane eluents. However, the extraction
procedure was found to be unsuitable for analyzing the
tested composite groundwater samrle. The tested water
contained five sediment particles which partially moved
through the extraction cartridge and possibly interfered
with the UV analysis.
o The spectrophotOffletric determinative technique of Method
8610 was evaluated and found, in the range of 220 to 400
nm, to be very sensitive for a majority of the compounds.
Based on these results, further work was conducted
by EMSL—CI to further investigate the applicability of thee.
methods in a variety of ground-Water samples and to refine
method detection limit estimates.
Seven ground—water samples were supplied for the study by
ASTM Committee D—34 members. These samples were evaluated for
background UV absorbance, and duplicate sample extractions
were used to simulate down—gradient versus upgradient testing.
An estimated positive response decision level was found to be
0.02 absorbance units. Five Method 8610 analytes were evaluated
for spike recoveries from both reagent water and a composite
ground—water sample. One analyte was found to be unstable in
water and the e]ution solvents used. The remaining four analytes
had good total recoveries from reagent water ranging from 79
to 108 percent with standard deviations of all but one analyte
ranging from 1 to 5 percent. Spike recoveries for composited
ground water were not reproducible due, apparently, to a
significant variability in recovery of native UV absorbing
‘ taterial. The cause of the variability could net be specif 1—
cally attributed to, but may have been associated with, the
presence of very finely divided particulate material.
Microwave Oven Safety
It has recently com. to our attention that several
laboratories are using kitchen type microwave ovens to aid in
the acid dissolution of solid and liquid waste samples. The
Methods Section Is currently evaluating commercial microwave
oven assisted sample digestion procedures and hopes to recommend
-------
S
certain approaches in the near future. Those laboratories now
using ør.b (at1sg the use of kitchen type ovens should be
aware of w y.taZ •ig,tiflcant safety issues. First, when acids
such as nI jc and hydrochloric acids are used to assist sample
diqestion tiopen vessels, or in sealed vessels equipped with
venting f k re., the potential for the acid gases released to
corrode the satety wiring that prevents the microwave magnetron
from shutting off with the door open. This can result in
operator exposure to microwave radiation. On at least one
occasion this has resulted in a severe burn to a laboratory
technician. Use of an oven with corrosion resistant safety
wiring may prevent this from occurring.
The second safety concern relates to the use of sealed
containers In the oven. It has been found that pressure,
coupled with elevated temperature and the acid matrix is more
effective in dissolving certain samples than either of these
separately. However, many commonly used digestion vessels
constructed from fluorocarbons may crack, burst, or explode in
the oven under certain conditions. Only a few containers ar.
considered acceptable at present. In addition, pressure buildup
may be exacerbated by use of certain acids such as perchiorlo
which decomDose under certain pressures and temperatures to
form gaseous byproducts.
1988 RCPA/CERCLA Symposium
We are again recuestinq your suggestions for papers and
poster presentations for the 1988 Solid Waste Testing and
Quality Assurance Symposium. It is scheduled for July 11—15,
1988 and will cover the areas of physical, chemical and
biological testing, quality assurance, sampling, hazardous
waste identification, enforcement, laboratory information
management and any other topics that are of interest to State,
Reqional, private sector, and contract laboratories. This year
we plan to offer training classes in quality assurance/quality
control, and statistics. Denise Zabinski will be accepting
your suqqeetions and can be reached on 202/382—4761 or FTS
382—4761.
TCLP Video
Each Regional Quslity Assurance Officer has received 2
copies of the new Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) videet be used both for In—house training and to
serve as a lending library. For those of you who would like
to purchase the video instead of borrowing it from a QAO, It
is available for $40 from the American Public Works Association
(APWA) In Chicago. Please contact Dan Hansen of APWA at (312)
667—2200 for further information.
-------
6
Applicability of the Structural Integrity Procedure When Performing
Extr *oe’ftOSsdUt. Toxicity Determinations
a question came in regarding whether or not one
could u tiuctural Integrity Procedure (SIP) when evaluating
a certain uhat. in lieu of grinding the waste prior to performing
the extraction. Since this was not the first time we have
received such cuestlons, I felt it would be appropriate to
review when use of the SIP is appropriate and when it should
not be used.
The Extraction Procedure (Method 1310) protocol requires
that wastes be ground to pass a 9.5 mm sieve unless the waste
is In the form of a single piece (Step 7.9). If the waste
consists of a single piece, or if upon disposal will be in the
form of a single piece, then one may use the SIP In lieu of
grinding. The SIP may, therefore, only be used to evaluate a
waste that Is In the form of a monolithic mass. In addition,
in order for the sample, being tested, to be truly representative
of the waste as a whole, the waste will have to be homogeneous.
Put another way, one must be able to obtain a cylindrical sampla
of the waste with the dimensions 3.3 cm X 7.1 cm which has thw
same compostion and properties as the waste as a whole. Thus
when determining whether one can use the SIP the critical
questions to be answered are:
1. Is the waste a monolithic block when disposed of, and
2. Is the waste homogeneous.
To be considered a monolithic mass, the waste must be
produced or generated in the form of discrete units of material.
For example, a solidified waste may be cast into cylinders or
blocks of a predefin d size and shape; the waste may be emplaced
in a landfill cell as a fast setting liquid which then hardens
into a mass the shape of the cell (a Ia concrete poured into a
form); or the waste may be a product that is in the form of a
discrete unit (e.g., telephone pole, block of plastic). A
material, however, that, while at some point in the production
process is in the form of a monolithic mass, randomly breaks up
as a consequence of its management prior to disposal would not
be considered to be a monolithic waste and therefore is not a
candidate tot testing using the SIP. It should be noted that,
while wait•* are normally tested using the SIP at th. time of
generation, otsolonic or other wastes that set up with time
to form a solid ma ss may be aged for up to 30 days before
testing (sesINthod IflO Step 7.10.1).
The second critical parameter that must also be considered
is whether the waste is homogenous. In order for the sample
that is to be tested to be a representative sample. the waste
from which the sample is being derived must be homogen•ous. If
-------
7
the waste 1$ not bosogeneous the subsample used in the SIP
would not be representative. Examples of non-homogeneous wastes
ara bettert.. and hazardous wastes encapsulated in a plastic or
other covering to prevent contact between ground water and the
waste. Thee. wastes are considered not to be homogeneous since
the outer surface Is different from the inner surface, and a
smale sample of the waste cut from the larger block of waste
would not have the same properties (i.e., composition,
permeability) as that of the whole waste. If, however,
the waste was prepared, by a fixation process, In the form of
cylinders 3.3 cm X 7.1 cm. the samples would be representative
of the waste as a whole and could be tested using the SIP.
-------
9445 .1987(03a)
i U 7
Suellen Pirages, Ph.D.
Director, Institute of chemical
Waste Management
National Solid Wastes Management
.ssociation
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Dr. Pirages:
Thank you for your letter of October 26, 1987, expressing
the Institute of Chemical Waste Management’s (ICWM) concerns on
various issues.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shares your
concerns regarding the performance guideline of 50 psi
compressive strength for wastes subject to liquid absorption/
adsorption treatment. We intend to provide additional guidance
to the Regions and States in the near future. This guidance
will emphasize that we are not reconm ending that a specific
compressive strength be incorporated into permits. The guidance
will, at a minimum, deemphasize the importance of a specific
level (such as 50 psi) and stress that the important criterion
is that following treatment, compressive strength must increase
over time.
Therefore, if an owner/operator shows an increase in
compressive strength over time, then it can be concluded that
the treatment process is indeed achieving stabilization/
solidification for that waste, and is not merely an
absorption/adsorption process. -
You also raise the issue of the tendency on the part of
permit writers to allow facilities to use only SW—846 methods
when testing wastes. While the regulations do not require the
use of SW-846 methods, the permit writers may be requiring
facilities to use them because these methods have been evaluated
by EPA and found to be suitable for their intended purposes.
Before a permit writer can allow a facility to use a non—SW-846
method, he/she must be convinced that the method works, and
iould probably_require that the applicant first submit data
- w ’ nn trate the method’ in the intended
‘ k 1icationI. There4ore i a, 1 &i tha s nd ’
±t jt s. we . M4x ss the rob lea
-------
We are trying to include in SW-846 the least costly methods
that can adequately answer the testing questions that facility
owners/operators need to answer. It is our aim to continue to
expand the list of approved methods as expeditiously as
possible. To this end, EPA has been soliciting from industry,
and other members of the regulated community, suggestions on
methods to include in 511-846. I suggest that ICWM submit to EPA
any fingerprinting or other cost-effective testing methods that
have been evaluated by ICWM. Once EPA has reviewed the method
and its supporting data and determined that it is suitable for
RCRA use, EPA will add the method(s) to SW-846. iclosed is a
copy of tile Test Methods Equivalency Guidance Manual which
describes the information EPA requires and the procedures.
EPA is currently considering alternative systems to use in
coding hazardous wastes. Among the alternatives being evaluated
are systems that more accurately describe the type of waste
being characterized (e.g., incinerator ash, scrubber water,
etc.). The Agency is also considering a feature by which the
code would reflect the treatment requirements to which the waste
must be subjected prior to disposal. This project is still in
its early, conceptual stage. Finally, as to the proper
characterization of mixture derived from wastes according to the
current system, EPA requests that all of the waste codes (from
which the new material is derived) be used.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me Jmow.
Sincerely,
‘ 3)
J. Winst n Porter
Assistant Administrator
lC losure
— 382-2074/11—06-87/
CONTROL NO. SWER—00221.lfl)uz DATE: ll-l2—87/T .Ex CONTROL #1
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
9445.1987(04)
Mr. Lundy Adeisberger
Ohio £nvironmenta],
Protection Agency
P.O. Bo 1049
Columbua, OH 43266—0149
Dear Mr. Adelaberger:
I am writina to clarify how to determine allowable holdina
tjr’es when teetina RCRA samples. Basically, the holdina time
for a given sample begins at the time the sample is generated.
For example, If one has to analyze a sample of ground
water for volatile organic. using Method 8010, the holdina
time soecifled In SW—846 Is 14 days. This means that within
14 days fror. the time the sample of water was taken fror the
well, it must be analyzed using Method 8010.
If, on the other hand, one is to analyz. a sample of around
water for semi—volatile orpanics using methods 3510 and 8270,
the water must be extracted within 7 days (the holding time
for Method 3510) and then the orqanic extract analyzed within
40 days from the time the water was extracted (th. holding time
for Method C270 samples).
In sumrtary, as long as the holding time for each secuen—
tial step in a determination is not exceeded, the holding time
criteria is not exceeded and th. determination is not considered
invalid.
With respect to th. testing of waste materials to determine
whether or not they exhibit th. characteristic of Extraction
Procedure Toxicity thino. are slightly mor. complicated. The
listed holding times apply to analytes in the matrix in which
they will he determined. If mercury is to be determined in
TM ethod 1310 leachate (the Extraction Procedure), the 29 day
holti lnq time, listed in SW—846 for mercury, begins when the
leachate is generated. There are no holding times established
Pn e,nv irn th , fi i. hetw en nl1eetjon anr leaeP 1nn. The analyst
i er niunrt nn wlP’t Ph eu offi i l. a? e uld
ju .ment iii such ca ee. I I
-------
2
I h r e this di cu j n c1ari jes th jssu of hc1 inc
ti”’ : r v u. If you hevc ny ad itior.a1 ucstfcns, :,1ear ci
ccr.t ct F1orenc ic ar son, of my staff, at 2’)2/382.4778,
S1ncerely yours,
David FrjQdr an, Chief
Methods Section ( fI—562R)
F’. R1ch rriqoy,
Drs /rrRC A Potjir,e
-------
9445.1987(05)
,, I “—
Mr. Robert Meltzer
Vice-President of Publications
and Marketing
ASTM
1916 Race Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Dear Mr. Me ltzer:
I am writing as a follow up to my dISCUS$jOfl with Kathy
Green at the D-34 Committee meeting held in Clearwater, Florida
last month. We discussed reprinting some ASTM Standards in the
Environmental Protection Agency manual SW-846, lest Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste. Phvsiepl/Chemjepl Methods , Third
Edition .
SW-846 contains testing methods approved by EPA for meeting
the testing requirements of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. In response to requests by laboratory personnel
who use the manual, we would like to include the approved ASTM
Standards listed below in SW-846 to ease the burden on users.
We estimate 10,000 copies of SW—846 are presently in print to
which the ASTM Standards would be added. Currently, the
following ASTM Standards have been approved for use in the RCRA
program.
D445—86 Test Method for Viscosity of Transparent and Opague
Liquid and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity
D446—85a Specificatjo for Operation of Glass Capillary
- - Viscbmeters
D2015-77 Test, Method for Gross Calorif Ic Value for Solid Fuel by
the Adiabatic Bomb Calorimeter
Dl888-78 Method A Test Method for Particulate and Dissolved
Matter in Water
D]888-78 Method B Test Method for Particulate and Dissolved
Matter in Water
-------
D93-80 Test Method for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed
Tester
D3828-81 Test Method for Flash Point by Setaf lash Closed Tester
Kathy indicated that she thought there might be a mechanism
to permit ASTM methods to be included. As we are approaching
our deadline for the next update, I would appreciate any
assistance you can give us on this matter.
My staff arid I look forward to working with you. If you
have any questions related to this matter, please contact Denise
Zabinski or me at 202/382—4761.
Best regards,
David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WM-562B)
-------
UNITED: (ES ENVIROPIMENTAL PR0TECTI ii A(, cy
j 3 I B7
9445.1987(06)
John J. Mou5a , Ph.D.
Environasneal Science and
rngineering, Inc.
P.O.Box ESE
Gaintayjije, FL 32602
Dear Dr. Mousai
Soil/sediment/sludge samples, if
held for 14 days prior to extraction.
be held for 40 day. prior to analysis
cornpounds. provided they are properly
properly stored, may be
Extracted •aapl.. may
for sea—volatile organic
stored.
If I can be
cc: David Frisdean
Iartin Meyers
Denise A. Zabinaki
Cheaist, Methods Section
I am responding to your request for interpr.tation of the
S i—S46 , Third Edition holding times for Se i—volatjl.s in
soil as they appear in Table 4—1.
I hope this response answers your question.
of nore help, please feel free to contact me.
egsrds,
•..m.sw £fl I)eJ&e
-------
9445. 1989( 1)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU)OIARy
JUNE 89
1. Appendix vm and Appendix j
What is the difference between Appendix VIII and Appendix IX under RCRA?
When is each used?
The hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR ) contain two lists of chemicals
which are sometimes confused: Appendix VU! of Part 261, and Appendix IX
of Part 264.
—Appendix VU]
Appendix VIII In 40 CPR Part 261 is EPA ’s list of RCRA hazardous
constituents. This list was first promulgated in the May 19, 1980 Feder J
gj j (45 33130). The Appendix VIII list is comprised of chemicals
which ) ve toxic, cardnogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on humans
or othir life forms. Compounds which meet the criteria for 40 CFR
Sections 261.33(e) and (0 as identified In Sections 261.1 1(a)(1), (2), and (3) are
also Included in Appendix VIIL
-------
1. Appendix vm and Appendix IX (Conrd )
Appendix VIII is a composite of several other lists of regulated chemicals.
Appendix VIII includes chemicals from the priority pollutants list under the
Clean Water Act, chemicals considered hazardous to transport under
Department of Transportation, chemicals identified as carcinogens by EPAs
Carcinogen Assessment Group, and chemicals which have a high acute
toxicity as identified by NIOSH’s Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances list. Appendix VIII lists the chemical names fl alphabetical
order, the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) name and number, and the
RCRA hazardous waste code (where applicable). There are currently 416
chemicals or classes of chemicals on Appendix VIII.
The main purpose of Part 261, Appendix VIII is to identify the universe of
chemicals of concern under RCRA. Appendix VIII is used for two main
purposes. EPA uses Appendix VIII to determine if a waste contains
hazardous constituents and, therefore, should be considered for listing
under 40 CFR Section 261.11. (Appendix VIII however, should be used
by a generator identifying hazardous wastes under Part 261, Subparts C and
D. Appendix VIII is much broader than the actual hazardous waste lists in
40 CFR sections 261.31-261.33.) Owners/operators of RCRA facilities use
Appendix VIII for hazardous waste analysis before incineration (Section
264.340).
EPA’s original regulations for ground-water monitoring at permitted land
disposal facilities rcquired owners and operators, under some circumstances,
to analyze samples of groundwater for all constituents listed on Appendix
VIII. The Agency soon discovered that compliance with this requirement
caused a wide range of practical analytical problems. These problems
included listings in Append x VIII that covered broad categories (e.g.,
chlorinated naphthalene, not otherwise specified), listings of compounds
which decomposed in water, and listings for which no analytical standard
existed. To abate these groundwater monitoring problems, EPA
promulgated Appendix IX of Part 264, the Groundwater Monitoring List (see
52 25112).
—Appe dlx IX
Part 264, Appendix IX was promulgated to replace Part 261, Appendix VII I
for groundwater monitoring for permitted facilities. Hence Part 264,
Appendix IX is the Groundwater Monitoring Ust. It is comprised of
compounds in the Part 261, Appendix VIII list for which it is feasible to
analyze in groundwater samples as well as a few compounds routinely
monitored under Superfund. Appendix IX lists the chemicals’ common
name in alphabetical order, the CAS number, the CAS Index name, the SW-
846 suggested test method, and the Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs)
2
-------
1. Appendix VIII and Appendix IX (Contd )
which are the lowest concentrations of analytes in groundwater that can be
reliably determined within specfied precision and accuracy limits using the
suggested method. Appendix DC of Part 264 curTently contains 211 chemicals
and their associated test methods.
Under the July 9, 198? rules (52 EB 25942), an owner/operator of a RCRA
facility will have certain Part 261 Appendix VIII hazardous constituents
specified in his permit for which he must determine background levels (40
CFR Section 264.98). LI he determines that there is a statistically significant
increase over the background values specified in his permit at any
monitoring well, he must notify the Regional Administrator and
immediately sample the groundwater in all monitoring wells to determine
the presence and concentration of any Part 264, Appendix IX constituents.
Appendix IX is only used for groundwater monitoring. It is not used as
widely as Part 261, Appendix VIII (e.g. incineration, listing criteria). For
further discussion of Part 261, Appendix VIII and Part 264, Appendix IX and
their respective roles in the groundwater monitoring program under
RCRA, see Part 264, Subpart F and the July 9, 19$? f ji&i g ter (52 E.
25942)
Source: Bob April (202) 382-7917
Research: Reneé Bench (202) 3823112
-------
UNITED STATES !NVIIONMENTAI. PROTECTION 9445.1989(02)
SUBJZCT: *alth Based Values for Chemical List
FROM: an Griffin, Ph.D.
icologist
Health Assessment Section
Technical Assessment Branch (OS-331)
TO: Percival Miller
Legislative Commission
Solid Waste Management
Albany, NJ 12207
Listed below are the risk specific doses (RSDS) or reference
doses (RfDs) for the chemicals which you requested. The RZDs are
agency verified non-carcinogenic health numbers. The RSD’s are
carcinogenic numbers obtained by dividing the risk level (10’)
by the cancer slope factor. The RSD values given below may or-
may not be agency verified numbers, however, they are all used in
our regulations to set acceptable concentration limits. (is.
soil).
Antimony - oral RfD 4x10’ mkd (mg/kg/day)
Arsenic - a carcinogen; RSD 2.OxlO’ mkd
Barium - oral RfD 5x10 2 mkd
Benz(a)anthracene - B 2 carcinogen; RSD 3z10 7 mkd
Benzo(a)pyrene - B 2 carcinogen; RSD 8.6x10’ mkd
Benzo(b) fluoranthene - 2 carcinogen; no quantitative data
Benzo(ghi)perylene - RSD 8.6x10’ mkd
Benzo(K) fluoranthene - B 2 carcinogen; RSD 1.4x10 9
Bis(2—ethylhexyl) phthalate - 32 carcinogen; RSD 1.4x10 2 mkd
Cadmium — oral RfD 5x10’ micd
Chlordane - oral RfD 6x10 3 akd
Chromium III - oral RfD 1.0 micd
Chromium V I - oral RfD 5x10 3 mM
Chrysene - C carcinogen; RSD 8.6x10 mkd
-------
Copper no data available
Dibenz(a,h) anthracene — B 2 carcinogen: RSD 2.OxlO’ mlcd
l,l-Dich].oroethane - no data available
Diethy]. Phthalate - oral RfD 8xlO mkd
Indeno (l,2,3—cd)pyrene - C carcinogen; RSD 5.7x10’ mkd
Iron - no data available
Lead - clean up to background levels
Manganese — no data available
Mercury - oral RfD 2x10 3 mkd
Nickel - oral RfD 2x10 2 mkd
Phenanthrene - oral RfD 5.7x10 5 mkd (this is not an agency
verified number)
Phenol - oral RfD 6x10’ mkd
Selenium - (Selenious acid) - oral RfD 3x10 3 micd
Silver - oral RfD 3x10 3 mkd
2,3,7,8 — TCDD — B 2 carcinogen RSD 6.2x10’ 2 mkd
to luene - oral RZD 3 xlO mkd
1,1,1-trichloroethafle - oral RfD 9x20 2 mkd
l,l,2-trichloroehtafle - (1) oral RID 4x10 3 m)cd
(2) RSD l.7x10 3 mkd
Vanadium (Vanadium Pentoxide) — oral RID 9x10 3 mkd
Vinyl Chloride - no data available
xyrene - oral RID 2.0 mkd
Zinc — oral RID 3x10’ inkd
The following compound are currently in the process of
having RID’S developed:
Acenapthene Fluorene
Anthracene Pyrene
Fluoranthene
-------
9445.1992(01)
.t 5 ° 574,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
t
OFFICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SEP 2 992
Mr. Joseph R. Storrs
Recontek, Inc.
P.O. Box 379
Newman, IL 61942—0379
Dear Mr. Storrs:
I am writing in response to your letter of August 28, 1992
regarding the calculation of TCLP concentrations from total
concentrations.
As we previously discussed, you may use total analysis in lieu
of TCLP analysis to determine if an analyte could possible be above
the appropriate regulatory level. This is stated in Section 1.2 of
Method 1311(TCLP) as you correctly pointed out. Your understanding
of EPA’S policy on this procedure as outlined in paragraph 3 of
your letter is correct.
Eguation(2) presented in your letter is not valid and is
inconsistent with paragraph 3 of your letter. Samples are almost
never completely dissolved in the extraction fluid during TCLP
analysis. Generally only a small portion goes into solution as
this is a leaching procedure and not a total dissolution procedure.
To summarize, in the case of a 100% solid sample where TCLP
is required, you may perform a total analysis for the regulated
analyte by an appropriate method, divide the total concentration
found by twenty (20), and compare the result with the regulatory
limit for that analyte identified in the appropriate regulation.
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,
&m’ 4 - 9,.
Oliver M. Fordham, Jr.
Chemist
Methods Section (05-331)
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1992(02)
2BLWP137.92
December 22, 1992
Ms. Kelly S. Swanson
QA Officer
Analytical Technologies, Inc.
Ii. East Olive Road
Pensacola, Florida 32514
Dear Ms. Swanson:
This letter is in response to your request of December 16,
1992, for clarification on the issue of matrix spikes for Method
8310. Your response to the Florida HRS Water Certification’
Deficiency Report was not enclosed with your letter.
I believe that Section 8.7 of Method 8000A, included below,
should adequately address the issue of frequency of spikes from the
Office of Solid Waste Headquarters point of view.
8.7 The laboratory must, on an ongoing basis, analyze a
reagent blank and a matrix spiked duplicate for each
analytical batch (up to a maximum of 20 samples/batch) to
assess accuracy. - For soil and waste samples where detectable
amounts of organics are present, duplicate samples may be
appropriate in place of spiked duplicates. For laboratories
analyzing one to ten samples per month, at least one spiked
sample per month is required.
However, if the requirements of any RCRA-Authorized State differ
from those of EPA, the State regulations apply.
If you have any questions, please call me at 202—260-7459.
sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (OS—331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
‘ _ n_.
c2S- 3I Cs-331
I •S...eSS..sS .s• — S.... •S• • .• .••••••• —
P4&ME) wsr
I I •I•SI.flII
- E ,2/22/ 2
A Fc’ 13201 12.7o) .USCPO:I9$9 .624-. .B .. OFFICtAL FILl C’PY
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1993(01)
January 21, 1993
Mr. Mark 3. Mensik
Q.A. Coordinator
Evergreen Analytical, Inc.
4036 Youngfield Street
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033-6021
Dear Mr. Mensik:
In response to your letter of December 30, 1992, the
definition of holding time, as applicable to the RCRA Program, is
the time period between the taking of the sample and the completions
of its analysis. In the case cited in your letter, the specific
holding time of seven (7) days, for semivolatile analytes in
aqueous matrices, refers to the time period between the taking of
the sample and the completion of the extraction using either Method
3510 or Method 3520.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 202-260—
4761.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (OS-331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
— -
S-33I S-J3 T
qHAME
) //21J93 / 6 1/u ________________
COwetJu wcts
.....•.....e...
.........
.
....
— I
..._..••••••S••
• SI
A F i,i 132G.) (J3.70) •u.s.cpo Tià9-oz - as .. OFFICIAL FILE C PV
-------
9445.1993(02)
IO S14,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
J WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
March 11, 1993
Dr. Jerome King
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Director
A & L Mith’est Laboratories, Inc.
13611 B Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68144
Dear Dr. King:
I am writing in response to your inquiry of January 28, 1993,
concerning Method 8260 calibration standards and “waste type”.
Regarding calibration of Method 8260, the calibration criteria were
established for 5-mL samples, since virtually all volatile organic
analyses performed under the RCRA Program can be done on 5-mL
samples. Since RCRA analyses are not typically performed on 25—mL
samples, OSW has not done any extensive investigation of
appropriate RFs for 25-mL samples.
There is an ongoing EPA effort to generate an integrated VOA
method that would satisfy the analytical and regulatory
requirements of the various Agency Program Offices where this issue
is currently being addressed. Until this integrated method is
completed, I would suggest that if you need to run 25-inL samples,
you use either the Drinking Water criteria specified in Method
524.2 or the CLP criteria specified in the Low-Level Volat.iles
method in the c nt CL? Statement of Work.
Regarding inquiry about data reporting, that is an issue
that should be a dressed to either your State regulatory agency or
EPA Region 7.
Regarding the QA/QC associated with SW—846 Method 1311 (TCLP),
“waste type” refers to materials which have significant differences
in chemical constituents or physical properties. Every time there
is a significant change in the chemistry or physical state of the
waste, a matrix spike must be performed in order to prove that your
analytical procedure is working properly on the material being
tested. There are a myriad of potential chemical and physical
interferences that can alter analytical results. The matrix spike
is the simplest, most cost-effective means of monitoring these
possible problems.
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
We would agree with you that a waste generated from latex
paints is different from a waste generated from enamel paints.
Additionally, a waste generated from a titanium based paint is
different from a waste generated from a lead based paint. There is
no way to simply divide “waste types” into solids, liquids, and
sludges. For example, sludges generated by oil refineries, by
chrome plating operations, and by wood preserving would have
totally different chemistries and certainly must be analyzed as
different “waste types”. Spiking one of these sludges tells you
absolutely nothing about the possible analytical problems with the
others.
If you have any further questions about organic or
characteristics methods, call either me or Ollie Fordham at 202—
260—4761.
Sincerely,
L ,/ I
Barr%’Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (OS-331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
cc: Ollie Fordham
OS-331 5 3 I
K
/‘ii/93 %J1 It?
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9445.1993(03)
April 8, 1993
Mr. Alex N. Blanche
Analytical Technologies, Inc.
225 Commerce Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Mr. Blanche:
This letter is in response to your inquiry of March 30, 1993,
requesting clarification on analytical quantitation using GC/MS
methods. You are correct in your use of the average RF values
obtained for the initial five-point calibration curve for the
quantitation of RCRA analytes using Methods 8240, 8260, and 8270.
The daily midpoint check standard was only intended to verify that
he GC/MS irtstrument has not drifted out of its initial calibration
Lnge. If the daily calibration check fails, the analyst must then
-egenerate a new five-point calibration curve.
It is not scientifically sound to quantitate over a wide
calibration range using only a one-point calibration curve
generated from the daily check standard. In addition, analytical
samples should be prepared so that they will fall within the
working range of the initial five-point calibration curve.
We have drafted language to clarify this five-point vs. one—
point calibration issue. This revised language is currently
scheduled to be included in the Third Update revisions of the GC/MS
methods. However, there is a possibility that it could be moved to
the Second Update in response to public comment.
If you have any additional questions, please call me at 202—
260—4761.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (OS—33l)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
C ONCUR !! NC! S
j OS-331
I .,.._I • ••• .....ss.ss.tfl... ..fla.....s...... .SS..S .Iss IS_SS•S•SS••SS• !
J RNAM )‘j . ...............e. ................. .._ _fl.fl..._
i 4/8/93 4/ / i __________ I
pr;?frdn, OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1993(04)
APR 1 9 gg
Mr. Raymond D. Hiley
Goodwin, Procter & Hoar
Counsellors at Law
Exchange Place
Boston, MA 02109—2881
Dear Mr. Hiley:
Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1993 concerning the
determination of the corrosivity characteristic. The Paint Filter
Liquids Test (Method 9095 in SW-846) was developed to determine
free liquids in a waste. It was never intended for use in
determining if a waste contains any bound or absorbed liquid or if
such liquid is aqueous.
The Office of Solid Waste is looking at the issue of what
constitutes a liquid for characteristic testing. We will shortly
be proposing revisions to the Third Edition of “Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste” (SW-846) in the Federal Register. In this
proposal, we hope to clarify the meaning of liquid for
characteristic testing. After this rule is proposed in the Federal
Register, we would happy to sent you a copy of the notice.
The guidance on the use of Method 9095 provided in the
February 16, 1990 letter to Mr. Robert D. Wyatt would still be our
best advice to you until rules have been promulgated defining the
meaning of “liquid” and “aqueous’ t for characteristic testing.
As you have correctly stated, under the present regulations an
aqueous phase must be present in the sample in order to determine
the corrosivity characteristic by pH measurement. This is because
it is technically impossible to determine pH in liquids where water
is not present.
—
CONCIJRR!NC!S
—
JRNAME
i..
o .../ I
.. ...............
4tt o/V qIiL q ) I
.........n
......S....
•
!. . ._
- . I
.. ._fl_u .—
I
...Seec•••
............•...••
EPA Form 1320 -lA (1190)
Prà led i Recycled Peper
OFFICIAL. FILE COPY
-------
I hope that this information will be of use to your analytical
program. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Ollie
Fordham of our Methods Section at (202) 260—4778.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9445.1993(05)
tO S14 ,
TI
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
qL pg 0 (C
APR 29 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. E. 3. Solomon
Genmin Laboratories
Cnr. East Geduld & Cowles Rd.
Geduld Springs
2357, Springs 1560
Republic of South Africa
Dear Mr. Solomon:
Thank you for your March 18, 1993 letter to Matthew A. Straus
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concerning hexavalent
chromium analysis. EPA has an ion chromatographic procedure for
the analysis of hexavalent chromium, Method 218.6, “Determination
of Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water, Groundwater,
and Industrial Wastewater Effluents by Ion Chromatography.”
It was developed for the Office of Water’s NPDES program
(Clean Water Act) by EPA’s Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. The current edition is Revision
3.2 dated April 1991. A copy is enclosed for your information and
convenience. To date, the method has not been promulgated, but it
is being used “uz w .ficia11y” in many applications where promulgated
regulatory methods are not required.
The Office of Solid Waste intends to incorporate Method 218.6
into SW-846 for its own testing needs after it passes work group
review and is put into SW-846 format. Another ion chromatographic
procedure being considered by our work group is Method 0013,
“Determination of Hexavalent Chromium Emissions from Stationary
Sources.” This is a draft method and is unavailable for
distribution at this time.
I have made numerous phone calls to ascertain if there have
been any updates to EPA’S regulations governing disposal of Cr(VI)
and Cr(III) wastes, particularly with respect to possible oxidation
of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) and the possible reclassification of Cr(III)
wastes as hazardous wastes. I have been unable to find any
addition information on this topic beyond the October 30, 1980
Federal Register notice which you cited.
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
I hope 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,
p, iL4.
Oliver N. Fordham, Jr.
National Inorganic Program
Manager for RCRA
Enclosure
cc: Alec McBride, TAB, (OS—331)
Larry Rosengrant, WTB, (OS-322W)
Matt Straus, WMD, (OS-320W)
-------
tO Sr 4 %
4 L
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUL -71993
9445.1993(06)
SUBJECT:
FROM: Sylvia
Office of Solid
Office of Solid
H. Matthew Bills,
Office of Modeling,
Office of Research
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring and
TO: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Environmental Service Division Directors, Regions I-X
A fundamental requirement of the RCRA program is the collection of
environmental data that are of adequate and documented quality to support our decision
making. To meet this requirement, data quality objectives (DQOs) are established
through the quality assurance project planning process. This memorandum discusses the
application of the DQO process to the ground-water monitoring and corrective action
program, and provides additional information sources and guidance documents that are
available for quality assurance program development. As a follow-up to this
memorandum, we are developing examples of Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPjPs).
These examples will demonstrate that QAPjPs can be of varying complexity depending
upon their associated DQOs, and that review and approval of QAPjPs designed to
achieve less complex DOOs can be expedited in certain cases.
The overall level of uncertainty that a decision maker is willing to accept in this
decision making process is known as a DQO. Quality assurance project plans are used
as a management control to ensure that DQOs are defined and documented. QAPjPs
may vary in complexity based on acceptable levels of uncertainty associated with the
goals of a specific project. The minimum elements of a quality assurance program for all
data collection activities in RCRA are outlined in Cli pter One (Quality Assurance) of
“Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods” (EPA SW-846,
Third Edition, as amended by Update One, July 1992), which is currently being issued by
the Office of Solid Waste.
MEMORANDUM
Quality Assurance
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Chapter One of SW-846 addresses Quality Assurance (QA) programs and Quality
Control (QC) procedures that should be implemented by hazardous waste facility owners
and operators conducting ground-water monitoring and remediation programs pursuant
to RCRA. Chapter One of SW-846 defines fundamental elements of a data collection
program that include:
1. Design of a project plan to achieve the data quality objectives (DQOs);
2. Implementation of the project plan; and
3. Assessment of the data to determine if the DQOs are met.
The overall acceptable level of uncertainty expressed by the DQO is used to
specify the quality of the data, usually in terms of precision, bias, representativeness,
comparability and completeness. These terms apply to the entire measurement system
(e.g., sampling network design, sample collection and handling, laboratory analyses, etc.),
not just the analytical operations. QAPjPs, or equiv’alents, such as ground-water
sampling and analysis plans, should detail the Quality Assurance and Quality Control
(QA/QC) goals and protocols for data collection activities that will generate data of
adequate quality to achieve the DQOs.
We consider the DQO/QAPJP process to be necessary for adequate data
collection in the corrective action program. The process used within a Region for review
and approval of QAPjPs should be documented in the Regional Quality Management
Plan. How the process is structured is a Regional decision that should consider
resources ( FIE and time), criteria for the reviews, and available expertise.
In addition, during the Corrective Action Program Reviews, the Regions raised
questions about the amount of detail required in QAPjPs and the level of review
necessary for QAPjP approval. The DQO process is designed to collect data that are
scientifically valid, defensible, and of known precision and accuracy relative to the use for
which the data are obtained. Different components of the corrective action process may
have different objectives and data collection uses. This data use may vary in complexity,
for example, from field screening to delineate areas of gross contamination (“hot spots”),
to detection monitoring scenarios where constituent concentrations are measured in
ground water at the parts per billion (ppb) level of sensitivity. For specific project
purposes, it may be acceptable for the DQOs for hot spot screening to be of lesser
precision than those for the ground water analyses. Similarly, QAPjPs that detail the
data acquisition and analysis for less precise DQOs can also be of reduced detail, and
may be more quickly reviewed and approved in certain cases. As stated earlier,
examples of QAPjPs for field screening and RCRA l aci1ity Investigation (RFI) activities
that involve reduced levels of detail but still meet the DQOs are under development,
and will be sent to you in the future.
-------
To assist you in the development of QAPjPs and DQOs, we are forwarding
several recently published guidance documents that address data quality. These
documents include:
1. Chapter One of ‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods” (EPA SW-846, Update to Third Edition. July 1992),
2. Ground-Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance (EPA/530-R-93-001;
November 1992),
3. Handbook of RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Constituents: Chemical and
Physical Properties (EPA/530-R-92-022; September 1992),
4. Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities:
Addendum to Interim Final Guidance (EPA/530-R-93-003; July 1992),
5. Ground-Water Information Tracking System and Statistical Analysis Software
(GRITS/STAT) and User Manual (July 1992).
We hope that the enclosed materials are helpful in assisting with the development
of DQOs and QAPjPs. If you or your staff members have any questions or additional
suggestions on how to improve data quality, please contact Charles Sellers, OSW’s
Quality Assurance Officer at (202) 260-3282.
Enclosures (5)
cc: Dave Fagan, 05W
Ken Gigliello, OWPE
Charles Sellers, OSW
Nancy Wentworth, ORD
Regional RCRA Branch Chiefs
Regional Quality Assurance Managers
3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1993(07)
September 2, 1993
Mr. Chris Ricardi
QA/QC Coordinator
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
110 Free Street
P. 0. Box 7050
Portland, Maine 04112—7050
Dear Mr. Ricardi:
I am writing in response to your inquiry of August 30, 1993,
regarding initial and continuing calibration requirements in Method
8240. The Office of Solid Waste considers the language in Section
7.3.4,
“If no source of the problem can be determined after
corrective action has been taken, a new five point calibration
MUST be generated. This criterion MUST be met before
quantitative sample analysis begins.”
to be clear and unambiguous. If you are out of calibration for
your Calibration Check Compounds, you must generate a new five-
point calibration curve before you analyze any samples. This does
not mean using an archived curve from last month or five years ago.
It means generating a new five—point curve immediately prior to
running any samples. However, you only have to meet the
calibration requirements for the actual target compounds which you
must determine for your particular application.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 202—260—
7459.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
OSW-Methods Section (OS—331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1993(08)
MEMORMJDUM
DATE: November 5, 1993
SUBJECT: Additional Analytes for HWIR Target Analyte List in
Wastewater
FROM: Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (5304)
TO: William Morrow
Characteristics Section (5304)
Per your request of November 3, 1993, I have reviewed the six
potential HWIR analytes for their analytical suitability and their
potential to be found in wastewaters. Paraldehyde, formaldehyde
and chioroacetaldehyde can be found and analyzed in wastewater
matrices. Appropriate analytical methods for paraldehyde are
sample preparation by Method 5031 (Azeotropic Distillation)
followed by determination by either method 8015B (GC/FID) or Method
8260 (GC/MS). Formaldehyde can be analyzed by Method 8315 (HPLC).
Chioroacetaldehyde has not been tested as a Method 8315 analyte,
but I believe that it should be suitable for HPLC determination
using this method. High concentrations of chioroacetaldehyde in
water result in the formation of an insoluble hemihydrate form of
the compound, which precipitates out.
Phosgene is a gas which reacts vigorously with water. Thus,
it is highly unlikely to be found in wastewater matrices. Sodium
azide and hydrofluoric acid are also highly reactive compounds
which are unlikely to be found in wastewater matrices.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 260-7459.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445. 1993(09)
December 7, 1993
Ms. Mickey Owens
President
SOS Environmental, Inc.
13800 Thermal Drive
Austin, Texas 78728
Dear Ms. Owens:
This letter is in response to your inquiry of December 1,
1993, about the use of Method 1311 as an alternate extraction
procedure for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in soils. The
fact that we are not able to respond within the unrealistic
timeframe specified in your letter, does not in any way affect your
obligations under the RCRA regulations.
In response to your specific questions, I would like to
clarify that Method 1311-Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) is not an extraction procedure, but a leaching procedure.
It was not designed as a sample preparation extraction method,
which maximizes analyte removal from a solid matrix, but as a
measure of how much of the target analytes may leach from a waste
in a landfill into the groundwater, due to rain and other
environmental factors. Therefore, TCLP is not an appropriate
sample preparation procedure either for extractable TPH or for
volatile TPH fractions such as gasoline. It is neither equivalent
to the sample preparation procedures in the following paragraphs,
nor is it an adequate sample preparation method for TPH in soils.
In our opinion, the appropriate methods to be used for the
preparation of extractable TPH in soils are Method 3540-Soxhlet
Extraction, Method 3541—Automated Soxhlet Extraction, or Method
3560-SupercritiCal Fluid Extraction (SFE). Methods 3540 and 3541,
using pentane as the extraction solvent, are appropriate for the
preparation of samples from which the TPH is to be determined only
by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC/FID)
(Method 80153). Method 3560 is appropriate for the preparation of
samples from whieh the TPH is to be determined either by GC/FID
(Method 80153) or by Infrared Spectroscopy (IR) (Method 8440).
-------
Also, in our opinion, the appropriate methods to be used for
volatile TPM in soils are closed-system purge-and-trap (Method
5035) as the preparative method, followed by GC/FID (Method 8015B)
as the determinative method. Aromatic gasoline fractions (BTEX)
can be determined by GC simultaneously with TPH by using a
photoionization detector (PID) (Method 8021) in series with the FID
(Method 8015B).
If you have any further questions, or want to request copies
of the methods mentioned above, please call the Methods Section
Office at 202—260—4761.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (5304)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
-------
9445. 1994(01)
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
January 1994
RCRA
1. Use of Total Waste Analysis in Toxicity
Characteristic Determinations
A generator suspects that his wa s:e may
exhibit the toxicity character&snc and thus be
subject to regulation as a RCRA hazardous
waste. Since he is unsure of the types and
concentrations of hazardous contaminants
present in the waste, he performs a total waste
analysts. Can he use the results-of the total
waste analysis to make a toxicity characteristic
determination, or must he perform Method
1311, the toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP), to determine the waste’s
regulatory start is?
While a toxicity characteristic
determination under §261.24 typically
involves application of the TCLP followed by
analysis of the TCLP extract, a generator may
be able to use total waste analysis to
demonstrate that a waste does not exhibit the
toxicity characteristic. Section 1.2 of the
TCLP states, “If a total analysis of the waste
demonstrates that individual analytes are noi
present in the waste, or that they are.presern
but at such low concentrations that the
appropriate regulatory levels could not
possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not be
run.” This analysis can provide the generatcw
with a convenient and cost-effective means of
determining if he needs to run the TCLP in
order to definitively characterize a waste.
The means for using total waste analysis
results to make a toxicity characteristic
determination reflect TCLP methodology and
therefore vary depending on whether the waste
is defined as a liquid, a solid, or a dual-phase
waste. Under the TCLP, liquid wastes (i.e.,
those wastes that contain less than 0.5% dry
solids) do not require extraction. The waste,
after filtration, is defined as the TCLP extract
(Part 261, Appendix 11, §2.1). A generator can
therefore characterize a liquid waste by filtering
the waste, measuring total constituent
concentrations in the resulting filtrate, and
comparing these concentrations to the
appropriate regulatory limits under §261.24.
Wastes which are either 100% solid (i.e.,
wastes that contain no filterable liquid (Part
261, Appendix II, §7.1.1.1)) or which contain
both a liquid and a solid component require
conversion of total waste analysis data to
estimates of constituent concentrations in the
TCLP extract, or maximum theoretical leachace
concentrations. For instance, to evaluate the
regulatory status of a 100% solid, a generator
can simply divide each total constituent
concentration by 20 and then compare the
resulting maximum theoretical leachace
concentration to the appropriate regulatory limit
(the division factor reflects the 20-to-i ratio of
extraction fluid to solid used in the TCLP). If
no maximum theoretical leachate concentration
equals or exceeds the appropriate regulatory
lamn. the solid cannot exhibit the toxicity
haracteristic and the TCLP need not be run.
The generator of a dual-phase waste (i.e.. a
wa.ste which has both a solid and a filterable
liquid component) can perform a total waste
.&naivsis on the liquid and solid portions and
Lak .late maximum theoretical leachace
-------
Hotline Questions and Answers January 1994
conations for the waste as a whole by Because the 4.18 mglL maximum
combining results mathematically through use theoretical leachate ConCentration is below the
of the following formula: 5.0 mg/L regulatozy limit, the generator
determines that the waste cannot exhibit the
[ A x B] + [ C x D ] toxicity characteristic for lead.
—= M
B + [ 2OL1kgxDJ
If maximum theoretical leachate
where: concennations are less than the applicable
limits under §26 1.24, the waste does not
A= concentration of the analyte in the exhibit the toxicity characteristic and the
liquid portion of the sample (mg L) TCLP need not be run. If on the other hand,
total waste analysis data yield a maximum
B= volume of the liquid portion of the theoretical leachate concentration that ecluals
sample CL) or exceeds the toxicity characteristic
threshold, the data cannot be used to
C= concentration of the analyte in the conclusively demonstrate that the waste does
solid portion of the sample (mg/kg) not exhibit the toxicity Characteristic. The
- generator ma have to conduct further testing
D= weight of the solid portion of the to make a definitive toxicity characteristic
sample (kg) detennination.
M= maximum theoretical leachate
COnCentration (mg / I.)
For example:
A generator who receives the results of a
total waste analysis wishes to determine if his
waste exhibits the toxicity characteristic for
lead. Since he knows the lead concentration
in each phase of the waste (0.023 mg /L in the
liquid phase, 85 mg/kg in the solid phase), the
volume of the liquid phase (0.025 L), and the
weight of the solid phase (0.075 kg), he can
calculate the waste’s maximum theoretical
leachate Concentra on:
[ AxB] + [ CxD ] -
B+ [ 20L/kgxDj —
[ 0.023 mg / I. x 0.025 L] + [ 85 mg/kg x O.O75kgj
0.025 L + [ 20 11kg x 0.075 kg]
= 4 . l8rng /L
2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1994(02)
March 10, 1994
Dr. Joe Tehrani
SFE Programs Manager
Isco, Inc.
Separation Instruments Division
P. 0. BOX 5347
Lincoln, Nebraska 68505
Dear Joe:
Thank you for your letter of January 25, 1994, submitting the
results of the BCO PAH study using SFE as the preparative method.
While we have not yet had the time to review it in great detail,
there is one major issue in the preliminary validation that causes
OSW considerable concern.
The issue of concern is the comparison of the SFE extraction
results to those obtained using Sonication (Method 3550) rather
than Soxhiet extraction (Methods 3540 or 3541) for a validation
study. It is well known that target analyte recoveries using
Method 3550 are lower than those obtained using either Method 3540
or Method 3541 (See References 1 and 2 below). OSW has also made
it clear that validation of new extraction procedures should be
done with comparison of results to the most rigorous validated
reference method,.i.e., Soxhlet extraction. Prior to making an
informed evaluation on the BCO PAH method, the SW—846 Organic
Methods Workgroup would like to see both single laboratory and
round robin data evaluated against Soxhlet extraction using either
Method 3540 or 3541.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 202-260-
7459. I am enclosing for your information a copy of Reference 1.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (5304)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
attachment
-------
References
1. Christopher S. Hem, Paul J. Marsden, Arthur S. Shurtleff,
“Evaluation of Methods 3540 (Soxhiet) and 3550 (Sonication)
for Evaluation of Appendix IX Analytes form Solid Samples”, 5-
CUBED, Report for EPA Contract 68—03-33-75, Work Assignment
No. 03, Document No. SSS-R-88—9436, October 1988.
2. Lopez—Avila, V. (W. Beckert, Project Officer); “Development of
a Soxtec Extraction Procedure for Extraction of Organic
Compounds from Soils and Sediments”; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory. Las Vegas, NV, October 1991; EPA 600/X—91/140.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
a_)I’ , WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4’ • 1I
9445. 1994(03)
fl IñAA OFFICE OF
MAR I u i u SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Chris Miller
National Technical Director of Inorganics
GTEL Environmental Labs, Inc.
MeadoWbrOOk Industrial Park
Milford, NH 03055
Dear Mr. Miller:
I am writing in response to your letter of February 23, 1994
to Alec McBride concerning your request for a variance to use
palladium for graphite furnace analysis in several SW—846 metals
methods.
Monitoring requirements under RCRA Subtitle C specify only
that the analyst must demonstrate that he can determine the
analytes of concern in the matrix of concern at the regulatory
level of concern. Since SW—846 methods are written as guidance
for a wide variety of matrices, it is up to the individual
analyst to optimize a particular method to his specific needs.
Allowable modifications include adjustment of sample size or
injection volumes, dilution or concentration of the sample, and
modification or replacement of equipment. These method changes
must be documented and the analyst must demonstrate that his
method can meet the previously-stated analytical requirements.
Specifically, Chapter Two of SW—846, Section 2.1.2, states that
reagents “specified in these methods may be replaced by any
similar types as long as this substitution does not affect the
overall quality of the analyses”.
If you have any further questions concerning inorganic
methods, please call Ollie Fordham of my staff at (202) 260—4778.
Sincerely,
Gail Hansen
Chief,
Methods Section
(5304)
cc: Alec McBride
- Ollie Fordham
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
RCRA
2. Nitroglycerin Patches: Not Listed
Hazardous Wastes When Discarded
Unused
Nitroglycerine can be administered as a
medication by apptying a patch containing the
chemical to a patient’s skin. Nitroglycerine
appears on the P-list of RCRA hazardous
wastes and carries the waste code P081 (40
CFR §26133(e)). When nitroglycerine
patches are discarded unused, nuts: they be
classWed as P-listed hazardous waste 2
Discarded unused nitroglycerine patches
are not classified as P-listed hazardous waste.
The P- and U-lists of hazardous wastes at 40
CFR §261.33(e) and (f) apply to unused
discarded commercial chemical products.
EPA refers to commercial chemical products
as commercially pure grades and technical
grades of the listed chemicals or chemical
formulations in which the listed éhemical is
the sole active ingredient (54 EE 31335,
31336; July 28, 1989). Although
nitroglycerine may be the only chemically
active component of a medical patch, a
nitroglycerine patch is considered a
manufactured article, similar to mercury-
containing thermometers, not a commercial
chemical product. EPA did not intend for the
phrase “commercial chemical product” to
apply to manufactured articles like medical
patches that contain a chemical listed in
§261.33. Unused discarded nitroglycerine
patches are regulated under RCRA Subtitle C
only if they exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste.
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
April1995
9445 .1995 (01)
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9450 - GENERATOR
STANDARDS
Part 262
ATKL/1104t21 kp
-------
9451 - GENERAL
Part 262 Subpart A
ATK1/1 104/22 kp
-------
9451.1980(01)
December 2, 1980
Michael Ridge
Manager, Environmental Health
Carrier Corporation
Carrier Tower
P.O. Box 4000
Syracuse, New York 13221
Dear Mr. Ridge:
This is in response to your letter of August 19, 1980, to
Ms. Eileen Claussen requesting clarification of our RCRA
hazardous waste management regulations as they pertain to
hazardous waste generated in the field servicing of air
conditioning equipment.
Your letter indicates that in servicing air conditioning
equipment owned by your customers, your servicemen may remove
waste oil, spent refrigerant and other materials from such
equipment and, because these materials are to be discarded, they
are solid wastes and may be hazardous wastes. You basically ask
whether your company is a generator of hazardous waste (or
whether the owner of the equipment being serviced is the
generator) and what are your company’s responsibilities, if any,
are in managing such hazardous waste.
We interpret our regulations such that, when hazardous
wastes are generated in the servicing of equipment (air
conditioning or other types of equipment), both the owner of the
equipment being serviced and the person (company) performing the
servicing are generators and are jointly and severally liable for
performing the generator’s responsibilities of Part 262 of our
regulations. We hasten to point out, however, that we will allow
and, in fact, prefer one of these parties to perform the
generator duties. And, where one party, in fact, does perform
those duties, we will look to that party as the generator and
normally will not bother the other party. However, we feel that,
from an enforcement position, we must hold both parties jointly
and severally responsible. A discussion of this can be found in
the preamble to a recent amendment we promulgated in 45 Federal
Register 72026—72027, a copy of which is enclosed.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
I hope I have helped clarify our regulations for you. If
you would have additional questions, please do not hesitate to
write, call or come see me. I apologize for the tardiness of
this response but we simply have been overwhelmed with requests
for clarification of our regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Gary H. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
Enclosure
bcc: Filomena Chau W/ incoming
Jack Lehman w/incoining
Regional A&HN Division Directors, Regions I, III—X
w/ incoming
Water Division Region II w/incolning
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A ENCY 9451.1980(02)
NOV 1 8
Julie R. Cooper
kttorn.y
Nobay emica1 Corporation
Penn Lir.celn Psr way West
Pittsburg , Pannsylvaina 3.5205
Dear Ms. Cooper
This is in response te your Letter of Lovenber 5 . 3.980. to
15 • ?iL i.ns au requesting an interpretation of our hazardous
waste managenant regulation.
You indicate that your c pany hir.. many independent contractors
and they, in turn. often hire subcontractors to perform various
services tnc2.i ing painting, jenitolcal service., boiler cleaning
and construction • You iadtcats that these contractors and
subcontractors generate vsst.e and that son. of thes. wastes way
be hasardous vasti.. You stat. that you normally require your
contractors to r s their wastes fron your preni.es arid you indicate
that they way or may not require vest. renoval by their subcontractors.
Finally, you say that you would ltka to continue the practic, of
having contractors renave their vests but would Like to have the
option of assts ing this r..pcnsibLl.tty.
!y bu’J ication. you ax. making who is the generator of hazardous
wast your caupan ’ e’r your contractor. (or hi. . eontractor) EPA
contends that both partie. or. as thi case may be. e]l three parties
are generators and ar, jointly and severally Liable for casplying
with the generator standards in Pert 262 of o ’ regulations Cs.. 45
ted. Mg. 333.40 -33148). We do not object to and, in fa , rirefer
that only one of the .. parties by mutmal aq:=it (•.g. • a contr et)
perform the.. respcnaibilitie. in fact. We viii rserve the right,
h evsr, to held both or .11 three parties Liabl, for these
r..ponaibiUties in any eofore mat action. vs eight tak• as a result
of a violation of th. regulations. This int.rpr.tation parallels
the int.rpretaticn vs ha,. üken and discussed in th. preambl. to a
recent .ndment to our r.guIations (... 45 Fed . 72026-72027.
October 30, 1980).
-------
—2—
Consequently. either your c pany, your contractor or his
subcontractor can asstm e responsibility for r noving hazardous
wastes generated on your premises and further assim e the responsibility
for c plying with Part 262 of our regulation, as your caupany
prefers. But your canpany, in any case, wil have liability for
proper performance of these responsibilities.
We will plan to issue this interpretation in a Regulatory
Interpretation Memorandui in the near future. Pending such issuance,
you can consider this letter to be an official interpretation on
this matter.
Sincerely yours
Gary T . Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Adrnir.istrator
for Solid Waste
bec: Filanena cI’ au v/moaning
Mike Barclay v/meaning
Regional A&RM Division Directors v/meaning
-------
Mobay
Mobay
Ch.mical Corporation
November 5, 1980
15205
l.iAh.r S 4121777.2000
Ms. Filomena Chau
Office of Solid ‘Jaste ( Tti 562)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 1 Street, S.U.
‘Jashington, D.C. 20460
Re: Independent Contractor Generators
Dear ‘1 . Chau: -
I have had several conve sations with regional and headquarters’
staff retarding the regulatory status of independent contractors
who generate hazardous waste on sites owned or leased by us.
none of these persons has been able to point to specific
affirmative regulations that clearly et forth the responsi-
bilities of the owner and the indepefldent con;ractor under these
circumstances.
In the manufacture of chemicals and maintenance and construction
of plants, many independent contractors are used. These
cont:actors.and their subcontractors may generate hazardous
waste in the course of performance of their contracts. Examples
of contractors who might generate hazardous waste include
consulting engineers, painting contractors, janitorial services,
boiler cle;nirtg services, industrial cleaners, construction
contractors and c00fl carriers. In many of our contracts we
would oblige the contractor to remove waste from our premises.
These contractors may or may not contract in the same manner
with their subcontractors. We would like to be able to continue
wmsr. rs I NuIT*Sf
412 — 777—2187
* *n i ci .......i • • Rbs .
- Co •
-------
! ovember 5, 1980
Ms. Filomena Chau Page 2
the practice of having the contractor3 remove waste from our
premises, but we would also like to have the option of being
able to take the waste from them for disposal.
Please advise us of the proper procedures to fellow in each
instance. If appropriate, e would appreciate issuance of a
Regulatory Interpretation Memorandum.
Very truly yours,
Julie R. Cooper
Attorney
JRC:my
-------
RCRA/SUPERFIJND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 83
9451.1983(02)
RCRA
Several colleges and unlversltles have asked for clarification on
the Issues of filing for generator 1.0. n rbers and determination
of eligibility as small quantity generators.
Several basic configurations exist for college caii uses. The
rural or suburban can us might have several buildings on one
contiguous piece of property. This would be considered a single
or individual generation site even though one or more hazardous
wastes are generated from one or more sources. One EPA 1.0.
nisnber would be assigned, and small quantity generator status
would be determined by looking at the total hazardous waste
generated or accisnulated on the site. -
Nany univertity campuses are divided by public roads or other
rights-of—way which they do nnt control. Metropollta, c uses
are frequently constructed on a nu”iber of adjoining city blocks
where the various campus buildings are separated by city streets
but the buildings may be connected by tunnels or overhead walkways.
Even in these oases, each generation site (I.e., each city
block or each half of a Campus bisected by a public road) would
be • generator (or small quantity generator) and assigned its
own EPA 1.0. nw.ber.
Hazardous wastes being shipped from one ca u; building (I.e.,
generator) to another building (I.e., TSDF) where the iltes are
divided by a highway would need a manifest while on the highway,
The one . zception is when the waste Is shipped directly across
the road. In this case, the receiving building Is considered
on-slte, as defined in 4OCFR 260.10 even though both sites
are required to have separate EPA 1.0. ns bers. (tWit: The
definition of on—site Is Intended to be used only In determining
whether or not a generator ;hould initiate a manifest. It does
not define two buildings owned and/or operated by the same
person but divided by a highway as one generator site). The
Agency’s philosophy is to identify each shipment of hazardous
waste as being fro. a specific location, EPA needs to identify who
is responsible for the waste (I.e., who created the waste, determined
It to be hazardous, and Is liable for its proper managmnent). This
may cause some or all of the waste from a university to be subject
to the reduced requirements of the small quantity generator.
The Agency Is coritempliting lowering the small quantity generator
exclusion limit which should then capture these wastes.
Source: Lee Daneker and Rolf Hill Cf lS1.
-------
9451.1984(02)
September 4, 1984
K. T. Ailford
NL Treating Chemicals
NL Industries, Inc.
17402 Wallisville Rd.
P.O. Box 490
Channelview, TX 77530
Dear Ms. Aliford:
I am writing in response to your July 24, 1984, request for
application of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste identification regulations as they apply to
SULFA-CHECK spent slurry.
It is the responsibility of the person who generates a solid
waste to determine whether the waste is a hazardous waste,
following the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 262.11. First,
SULFA-CHECK is not excluded from regulation in §261.4. Second,
determine whether SULFA-CHECK is a listed waste from 40 CFR 261
Subpart D, and, third, determine whether or not SULFA-CHECK is
hazardous based on 40 CFR 261 Subpart C characteristics either by
testing or applying knowledge. Steps 2 and 3 are elaborated on
below.
Since it is spent, it is neither a §261.33(e) or (f) unused
commercial chemical product, off-specification species,
container, nor spill residue of those listed chemicals. You have
probably eliminated the §261.31 and §261.32 source listings based
on your knowledge of the waste.
The sample has a flash point of over 200°F, but the test
procedure was not specified. Ordinarily, open cup tests (such as
the Department of Transportation requires) will produce higher
flash points than the closed cup tests required by EPA. You
should determine what type of flash point protocol was used by
the Chemical Research Laboratories.
If SULFA—CHECK is aqueous, it is not corrosive. If it is a
nonaqueous liquid, the “quarter-inch” corrosivity test (or an
equivalent method) outlined in 261.22 must be performed.
Although the RCRA regulations do not specify tests for
reactivity, suggested cyanide and sulfide concentrations are less
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
than 10 ppm, or roughly 10 mg/kg. You should ascertain the
reactivity status of SULFA—CHECK.
In terms of EP toxicity criteria, your laboratory report
does not indicate how the analysis was performed, and your
enclosed analysis does not indicate concentrations of the
pesticides produced by the EP toxicity procedure. You can
probably conclude, based on the starting composition of SULFA-
CHECK and the type of use it has, that none of the heavy metals
or pesticides designated in the EP toxic test would be found in
SULFA-CHECK.
You should not perform the determinations outlined in 40 CFR
261.11 (a) (2) to classify your waste. The Administrator uses
those criteria to designate solid wastes as hazardous waste.
Thus, even if a solid waste met one of the criteria, it is not a
hazardous waste until so designated by EPA.
I hope this overview of the hazardous waste determination
clarifies the steps you must take in order to certify whether or
not SULFA-CHECK is a RCRA hazardous waste. On the basis of what
you wrote, SULFA-CHECK would not be a RCRA hazardous waste, but
you will have to confirm this preliminary determination by
reviewing the points I have raised. You can understand why the
regulations (S262.l1) make it the generator’s responsibility to
determine whether their solid waste is hazardous, considering the
many parameters involved.
As you may know, 44 States and territories have instituted
hazardous waste programs that operate in lieu of RCRA. In those
States, you will have to comply with State hazardous waste
specifications, instead of the Federal standards. You should
contact the appropriate State agency to acquire their regulatory
standards. For a copy of the State hazardous waste agency
addresses and phone numbers, and for a further discussion of your
question, call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800—424—9346.
Please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 382—4770 if the
Hotline cannot clarify these issues for you.
Sincerely yours,
Alan S. Corson
Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
94 51. 198 5 (03)
3. ste Minimization
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 85
Section 3002(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act ( ), as nded, requires that a
generator sign a certification on the manifest (EPA form 8700—22) and on the bienniaj
report. The certification states that the generator “has a prog -am in place to
reduce the voluirm or quantity and toxicity of mach waste to the degree dete by
the generator to be econanically practica je. • If a generator of hazard waste
reclainu and reuses saim of the hazardous waste On-site and sends the rest Off-site
for recycling, can the generator certify that a waste minimizatj prQg .am is in
place since the vo1im of hazardous waste actually disposed of has been minimized?
The waste minimizati provision of 53002(b) is a self -isp1 nting program
in which the choice of CU jjj machani is to be made by the generator in 1ig
of his/her n particu3 r. cirajnmtarices. The waste minimizatj requir ,, is ma
for the purpose of certification when the generator makes a g faith effo to
minimize threats to human health and the EPA has determir that
various tmanage!rmnt practices conducted by a generator can be view as foz,rm of
waste minimization, e.g., participation in a waste exchange, recycling of solvents,
and that these practic are consistent with the Congressj j intent of the requir
nent (see Ss te Report No. 284, 98th Congress, 1st Session 66 (1983)). These
activities reó.ice the vo1u of waste disposed of by the indivj al generator and
also minimize the Overall quantity of hazaxd waste disposed of by a.Ll ing
continual reuse of hazar g substances. Theref ore, in the case described a ve,
the generator may si the certification on the manifest since the generator has
a waste minimization program in place.
Source: Elaine Eby (202) 382—7930
-------
UN STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT AGENCY
9451.1986(01)
7 ã6
Honorable Edwin Garn
United States Senate
Washir%cton, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Garn:
This letter responds to your request dated February 4,
1986, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Richard I .. Meibos.
Mr. Pleibos is concerned that regulations being promulcated for
small quantity generators of hazardous waste will force his
institution to change certain waste management practices.
The regulations to which Mr. Meibos refers are being promul-
ated under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA), signed into law on November 8, 1984. RSWA directs the
Agency to promulgate standards •for hazardous waste generated
by a generator in a total quantity of hazardous waste greater
than 100 kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms durina a calendar
month, by March 31, 1986 (Section 3001(d)(l)). HSWA also
specifies certain minimum requirements for these 100—1000 kg/mo
qenerators that the standards must include. One such statutory
reQuirement is that treatment, lone—term storaele (for more than
180 days or 270 days if the waste is to be shipped more than 200
miles), and disposal of hazardous waste from 100—1000 kq/mo
aenerators occur at a facility which has interim status or a
permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The Agency proposed standards for these cjenerators on Aucust 1,
1985, and accepted comments on the prooosal until Seotember 30,
1985. EPA expects to promulaste final standards before the
March 31, 1986, deadline. Thee. standards will incornorate the
statutory minimum requirements. A copy of the proposed rule is
enclosed.
Mr. Meibos discusses th. following waste manaaemeflt practices:
-—burning waste as fuel;
-—evaporating waste in rooftop containers:
——discharging diluted waste to public sever systems: and
——neutralizing sludges, T’Iixing them with sand or vermiculite,
and disposing of them in solid waste management tacil tteS.
Currently, regulated quantities of hazardous waste may be
burned as fuel in industrial boilers without a permit or interim -
status. In the coming months, we will propose technical standards
for the operation of these industrial boilers, as HSWA requires.
-------
2
Ry contrast, burning of reiulated cuantities of hazardous waste
in non—industrial boilers, SUCh as those at schools, hos’,itals
and fticl! buildings, is prohibited (see 40 CFR 266.31, as anencled
at 50 FR 49164 (November 29, 1985)).
Regulated quantities of hazardous waste may be stored in
containers, but those containers must be closed except when
necessary to add or remove waste (40 CPR 265.173). Disposal of
rer7ulated quantities of hazardous waste must occur at a facility
which has interim status or a permit from EPA or an authorized
State.
Materials that pass through a sewer system to a publicly owned
treatment work (POTW) are excluded from the hazardous waste
management provisions of RCRA (40 CFR 261.4). However, such
i’ aterials may be subject to pretreatment standards under the
Clean tiater Act or to local limits on what may be sent to the
POTW.
If a slueirie results from the treatment of a listed hazardous
waste (lists of hazardous waste are found at 40 CFR Part 261
Subpart D) and that sludge is mixed with other material, the
entire mixture is considered a hazardous waste and must be
managed as such. A eludqe could also be a hazardous waste if it
exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity, reactivity, ignitability,
or extraction procedure toxicity (40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C).
If such a sludge is mixed with other material, the mixture must
be managed as a hazardous waste only if the mixture continues to
exhibit one or more characteristics.
Mr. ‘ieibos is concerned that chanoes in hazardous waste law
and regulations will result in more waste being diB osod ot on land,
w ’ h may cause releases from sites such as those which occurred
at the Love Canal. The Congress made limitations on land disposal
of hazardous waste an Agency priority in HSWA. This statute
prohibits land disposal of nazardous waste by certain dates, unless
the Agency determines that land disposal would be protective of
hu . .an health and the environment.
? r. ihos also discusses a generator’s permanent legal
I la!iiity for nagement of the generator’s hazardous waste.
This liability was tab1iahed by the Comorehensiv Env tunr ental
Response, Compens’t,.cn a d1 LP1aUL.. t. Act ( upe: unc1). It applies
to all generators of ha?aruuus waste. an ‘ t subiect t
change by the Agency.
One ‘i thod for mitigating the land ‘isposal and liability
rohtc ms discussed by Mr. t :ibos is tor generators to r ’.luc.. t e
an unt of hazardous waste they produce. HSZA waste
int”iizatlon and the Agency is current..v e uAyinq waste minimization
strategies.
-------
3
The American Chenical Society has produced a broc’wre
entitled !Less is Better,u that describes techniaues laboratories
nay use to reduce the anount of hazardous wastes they produce. I
have enclosed a copy, which you nay want to pass alonc7 to ttr. Pleibos.
I have also enclosed a cony of an EPk brochure which describes the
current requirements for 100—1000 kq/mo generators, and an insert
which deals specifically with laboratory wastes.
I hope that this addresses Mr. rleibos’ concerns. If I can
be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
3. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
-------
9451.1986(02)
March 17, 1986
Honorable Gillespie V. Montgomery
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Montgomery:
I am responding to your letter of February 11, 1986, to Mr.
Matthew Straus in which you express concern that EPA is
considering classifying port facilities as generators of vessel
oily waste.
In response to questions raised by the Coast Guard, EPA
issued a directive on February 5, 1985, which clarified the
applicability of EPA’S regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to operational waste from
ships. A copy of that directive is enclosed. In particular, the
Coast Guard asked EPA to determine who is the generator of oily
waste that is produced on ships and discharged to reception
facilities at ports and terminals.
EPA has determined that for any oily waste that is produced
in product or raw material vessel units both the ship, and in
some circumstances, the operator of the port facility would be
considered hazardous waste generators. For other types of oily
waste, such as bilge water in vessel engine rooms contaminated
with engine lubricant drippings or solvents, only the ship would
be deemed to be the hazardous waste generator. A more detailed
discussion of EPA’s regulations for generators of oily hazardous
waste is contained in the February 5 directive to the Coast
Guard.
We hope that this has been responsive to your concerns
regarding the applicability of EPA’S hazardous waste regulations
to terminals. If you have other questions on this subject,
please don’t hesitate to contact Carolyn Barley of my staff at
202—382—2217.
Sincerely yours,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UPIITEOSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 9451.1986(03)
is. Patricia t)eJong APR 28 1986
InL3r aatlon ervices of Alaska
P.o. dox d43
Aztc iorage, Alaska I LO
L ar 4s. L eJongs
Your ldtter to Mr. y R. Jones regardinv the acceptability
of performing total analyses, in lieu of perfor tin the extraction
Proc* dure (b ) Toiiicity rest, was forwarded to Ms. Florence P4•
Richardson, tne Office of solid Waste’s Qualitj Assurance
Officer, nc1 fiually, to myself. The CP, as well, the new TCLP
test tnat you referred to, are both ‘%y resoonsibility.
In answer to your question, Section 262.11 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (4() CFa 262.11) provides Cor the
usc of generator knowledge in anp lication of the cnsracteriati:s.
i ractica1ly speaking, the enorator has the option of con.qjderjn,
nis ot hoe knowledcje of tI%e w3st 3 in determininq whether it ‘ieets
any of the characteristics. This includes information re erdin:
total waste c3rlcentration.
The TCL (enclosed — See Section 1.2), which will soo’ be
proposed tor use in expanding the EP Toxicity Characteristic,
s cifical1y itat.s that if a total analysis of the waste
des onstrates that a waste does not contain a particular conta’ —
inant, or tnat it does contain the contaminant, but at such low
concentrations that th. particular ha zardous level could not
possiblY b e*ce3ded, then the 1VL ’ does not have to be prfor!le 1.
£nj3 evaluation must be mad., however, assuming that all the
contaQinant present in the waste will rtigrate or leach into the
liquid extract.
-------
wle e cal]. i o at (2U2)332—47 5 if I can be of any f’irt er
assistance.
sincerely,
Todd A. KiMmell
riviroru enta1 scientist
Methods and Studies Branch ( IH—562r3)
nclosure
cc: Floranca H. Richardson (O W)
} oy k . Jones, PA Reion X
-------
9451.1986 O6
j , UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
J11 h.J WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
i.O ’
I5 6
OPPICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. William Plunley
#80391—Ol l—V—3
P.O. Box 1010
Bastrop, Texas 78602
Dear Mr. P1.uznley:
Thank YOU for your letter asking for information about
how to dispose of “dry” toluene and carbon tetrachloride safely.
In addition, you asked whether it is safe to dispose these
wastes in the regular trash.
As you might be aware, regular trash is frequently disposed
of in landfills. Toluene and carbon tetrachloride are chemicals
with the potential to cause serious health risks when land
disposed. Even though your wastes maybe “dry,” other liquids
in the landfill could ncbilize these materials.
From your letter we can not determine whether you are a
small quantity generator(SQG) of hazardous wastes. Therefore,
if you are a SQG, you will find enclosed the brochure A Handbook
for Small Business that explains how small quantity generators
(see pages 6 to 9 for the definition) must comply with applicable
Federal laws. I alsoam enclosing the document Alternative to
Hazardous Wastes Landfill that describes available methods to
treat regulated hazardous wastes prior to dispose them in a
permitted RCRA hazardous wastes landfill.
If you have any questions regarding the SQG brochure or
on your statue as generator of hazardous waste please contact
Dave Plant of our R.gional Office at (214) 767—2600. EPA also
maintains a toll fr.. hotline for questions on hazardous waste
disposal th. “umber ii 1—800—424—9346.
-------
2
For additional information on disposing of hazardous wastes
safely, yOu also can contact your local authorities. In Texas
you can contact Ed Hatton of the Texas Water Commission at (512)
463—7754.
Sincerely, ;2 dr—
R. Barlow
Chief
Treatment Technology Section
Waste Treatz nt Branch (WH-565A)
Enclosure
cc: Dave Plant, Region VI
Ed Hatton,
Texas Water Commission
-------
J.A, j Nc AL ° OT . I0P AGENCY 9451.1986(07)
2fl e6
Honora ,l il’ian V. Roth. Jr.
t’r it’ States Senate
S ashincton, DC 20510
Dear Senator Roth:
This letter res nds to your reauest of February 3, 1986,
on behalf of your constituent, Lir. William N. Cann, Jr.
PIr. Cann is concerned about his responsibilities for the
transportation and disposal of small quantities of hazardous
waste.
As you know, the Comprehensive Envjronm.nta l Response,
Conpensatjon, and LiaDility Act of 1980 (CCRCLIA), Section 107(a),
establishes liability for the costs of removal or remedial action
and any other costs or dartages resultinq from a release of a
hazardous substance. CCRCLIA establishes three classes o people
responsible for cleanup costs, damages to natural resources, and
related expenses; (1) all owners and operators of faciliti s or
vessels, including persons who owrt d or operated facilities at
the time of disposal: (2) persons who contracted for the disnosal
or treatrtent of hazardous substances (i.e., generators), and
(3) nergons who accented the hazardous substances for transnort
and selected the treatment or disposal facility (i.e., trans orters).
This concert of loint and several liability has b’en a consistent
oart of the CF RCLIA prooram. What has underr one recent chanr7eg
are the snecific requirements which a cenerator ilk. Mr. Cann
rnust neet under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( CRA).
In 1990, when EPA initially issued reoulationg under PCRA
for the manaqement of hazardous waste, small auantity qnnerators,
those “roducing less than 1000 kilonrams (about 2200 pounds) of
hazardous waste in a calendar month, were exempted from most of
the requtreme g applicable to 1ara’ r aenerators. The Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), however, direct CPA
to publish, by March 31, 1986, final renulations for generators
of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendat
month. At a ninj um, the rectulatjons tuet require 100 to 1000
kilooram/rtonth aenerators to: use a Uniform Hazardous Waste
‘lanitest when shtpvlng hazardous vast, off—site: store waste
-------
2
on—site tor 10 mor’ than 120 days (270 days jF the w q e is to
h shiDp a note than 200 miles): and ensure that their h zard us
waste’ is managed at a hazardous waste aci11ty wtth intArfln
t tuq or a p r’iit under RCRA. PA is now finalizing the rer ula—
tions, and expects to publish these rules within the n3zt two
weeks. The reaulations will be effactjva six months following
publication in the Federal Ranister.
Until the final rules become effective in Sentenber
virtually the only requiren nt for 100 to 1000 kg/mo aonerators
under federal law is the HSWA statutory requirement, effective
August 5, 1985, that these generators use a oartialIy completed,
singi. copy Manifest to accompany hazardous waste shirmed off—site.
Many States, however, have additional or more stringent roquire ic ’nts
for small quantity generators in place now.
Although Delaware has generally adopted the federal RCRA
pronra’ , there are additional State laws that may impact your
constituent’s activities. While federal law, for exannie,
currently allows snail quantity generators to send thcir hazardous
waste to a sanitary landfill or other facility authorized by the
State to accept it, I understand that Delaware landfills are not
authorized to accept hazardous waste. Therefore, it is likely
that Ut. Cann, as he indicates in his letter, does need to send
his hazardous waste to facilities located out ot State. WhIch
is the closest facility he may use is largely den’ndent upon the
type of hazardous wast. Pir. Cann qenerat.s, as different facilities
accept different tynes of hazardous waste. While printing
stahlish,,ents q°.nerally produce such vast s as contaninated
solv nt , without more information about Mr. Cann’s snecific
wastes, it is difficult to provid the namo of a facility
authorized to accept his waste. The Dolawarn Denartment of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control should be able to provide
assistance to Mr. Cann.
Similarly, Mr. Cann’a •ucpciestlon that small quantity
generators be allowed to transport their own hazadous waste to the
facility they select is currently permitted under federal regulations.
Aqain, however, I believe that certain State reauirements may
aeply. If this is the case. ‘Ir. Cairn may be required to obtain
a transporter license before he can haul his hazardous waste to
the facility he selects.
I have enclosed a copy of a brochure we have prepared for
small quantity generators explaining the current federal hazardous
waste requirements, which nay be helpful to Mr. Cairn. Included
in the brochure is an insert providing information snecific to
the printinq and allied industries. This is one of a seri s of
eighteen 1ndustry—s ecjfjc inserts we have prenared as a part of
our educatjon/outrr ach effort for newly regulated small c uantity
e’e’n’retors. For your referenc , I an also including a con 1’ tp
-------
3
s’ t of these industry—specific inserts. We wou ld br hap y to aid
‘Ir. Cann nane to our r’ailjnci list so that h. nay receive a cony
of the final federal reaulationg and other education materials
as they become available. In the meintime, I suci’jest that Mr. Cann
contact the laware t parthent of Hatural Resources and
Cnvironmentaj, Control at (302) 736—4781 for information on soecific
State reauirements as they may apply to him.
I hope this information will be heinful. Sic appreciate your
inquiry and your interest in the small quantity generator nro’iram.
Sinc”rely yours,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
E nc1osures
-------
9451. 1987( OIJ
FEB 5 T
W!MOPM JM
TT J!Cr. Rapid Issuanc, of Identification Number, to Sites
‘inder Investigat ion by the Drug nforc.m.nt
Mministration -
—
PPOM, Marcia Williams (V
Director
Of Lice of Solid Waste (WP — 62)
Regional Project Officers, Regions I —
(S.. list of address...)
Th. purpos. of this morandum is to •xt•nd EPA’s policy for
rapid issuanc. nf identification numbers to Sit3s under investiga-
tion by the f)ru’, !nforcs ent kdministration (D ).
9scauae of this Administration’s comsitmertt to halt the illegal
‘iianufacture and sale of drugs, th. D!A ias embarked upon an ambitious
‘ roaram of enforcement against illegal drug msrtufacturinq operations.
In particular, D!A special Agent . have b.•n securing clandestine
lahoratories, riany of which generate hazardous waste (6.9., ether,
cyanid. wastes). inc. the waste is usually transportef off—site
iimnedistely to a proved treatasnt, storage, or disposal facilities,
0Th officials need ii’usediate access to gsn.rator identification
numbers for these sites in order to coi lete the manifest which must
acco any the shipmant.
The Agency’s policy rsgard.tnq rapid issuance of identification
numbers for e rgericies or unusual circumetances allows generators
or transporters to obtain provisional identification numbers orally
by teisphone. See attached Federal of D.cemb.r 24, 1980.
The unusual circumstances surrounding the 0Th clandestine lab
operations warrant extending the rapid issuance policy to such sites.
Therefore, we ask that you orally provide emergency identification
numbers to D A agents who may call to obtain the numbers for shipment
of wastes from secur.d laboratories. The numbers. can be used on a
-------
—2—
on.-tia.—ortly basis. The asehanisa usad by Region V for issuiflg
such raab•rs (attached) asy be a a.fi.1 tomt for you to follow.
Polloi, —up r•cui,.asnts to provide cospl•tod notification foras
(e700-12) would d.p.nd upon th• Individual circuastanc.. at each
si • is wsll as upon Rgional and Stat. diserstion and policy.
If you have sty qu.stions about this reguest, pleis• cOr.tact
Mike Petruska of sy staff on 47S’45 l.
Attachments
Addressees 3
Len Bluah.rg, Region I
‘ark Sav.doff, Region TI
Shirley uflir , Region II!
Rita Lord, R.qion TV
Judy Stone, Region V
ob St•nd.r. R.aior VT
Jan. *atclltf., Region VT!
Jon Minkoff, Region VIII
Mitt Mttq sard Region IX
Judy ?.y,P•qior. X
cc Stev. Levy (WR-563)
-------
9451. 1987(02)
February 18, 1987
Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Hammerschmidt:
Thank you for your letter of January 21, 1987, on behalf of
your constituent, Mr. Gene Culver. Mr. Culver is concerned about
the costs for disposing of the hazardous wastes from his dry
cleaning establishment, and a recent increase in charges for the
Safety—Kleen® service he has been using.
As you know, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate
regulations for small quantity generators of 100 to 1000 kg of
hazardous waste per month. Congress directed that, at a minimum,
regulations issued by EPA require that: (1) all treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes from 100 to 1000 kg/mo
generators occur at facilities with interim status or a RCRA
permit; (2) 100 to 1000 kg/mo generators be allowed to store
waste on-site for up to 180 days (or 270 days if the waste is to
be shipped more than 200 miles) without the need for a permit;
and (3) that 100 to 1000 kg/mo generators use a Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest when shipping their hazardous waste off—site for
treatment, storage, or disposal.
In developing these regulations, the Agency attempted to
assure protection of human health and the environment while
avoiding unreasonable burdens on the large number of small
businesses affected by the rules. As a result, the final
regulations for small quantity generators of 100 to 1000 kg/mo
that went into effect on September 22, 1986, provided some relief
from a number of paperwork and recordkeeping requirements
applicable to larger generators. In addition, 100 to 1000 kg/mo
generators were allowed a longer on—site storage period (180 days
as opposed to 90 days) in which to accumulate their waste for
more economical shipments off—site. For your reference, I have
enclosed copies of a handbook we developed to explain these new
requirements to affected businesses.
As a result of these new rules, a number of waste management
and disposal firms, such as Safety-Kleen®, have developed “milk
run” programs to serve small quantity generators. State
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
agencies, local governments, and several trade associations have
also recognized the need for innovative, economical, and
efficient programs for handling small quantities of waste from a
large number of generators. We are encouraging some of these
programs through a series of grants awarded under §8001 of RCRA.
Some pilot efforts now underway include establishment of periodic
“milk runs”, transfer stations, and waste exchanges. EPA does
not, however, have any authority over private companies pricing
structures, which appears to be one of the sources of
Mr. Culver’s concerns.
In sum, we understand Mr. Culver’s concern about the
increased costs he faces for properly disposing of his dry
cleaning wastes. We hope that, as additional firms enter the
small quantity generator market, and as State and local programs
evolve, Mr. Culver will be offered a greater variety of waste
management plans, and will be able to select one that most
economically and appropriately fits his needs.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
— - -- ._n
9 451. 19 I . 0 3)
“It
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT, Generation of Aids to Navigation (ATCI)
Batteries and RCRA Requirements
PROM, Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waite (WH-562)
Gene A. Lucero
Offic, of Waits Programs Enforcement (wi—527)
TOt Kenneth D. Feigner, chief
Waite Management Branch (Ew-112)
EPA Region X
This is in response to your June 30, 1987, memorandum in which
you requested clarification as to how the RCRA rules apply to ATOM
batteries. The answers to your specific questions ar. as follows,
1. We agree with you that the entire battery is counted
in weight calculation.
2. The points of vast, generation are, as you suggested,
each ATOM unit service area (either landbased or the
tender vehicle). Each area is subject to the quantity
determination of c261.5, except when several areas are
on on. sit.; then th. entire quantity of hazardous waste
generated at the sit, is counted.
3. The location to which the spent batteries ar, taken
would normally be a ?SDF, provided the waste is received
from one or more ATOM units which generate greater
then 100 kg/mo. of hazardous waste. You should note,
however, that 40 CFR 263.l2 provide, that properly
packaged and labeled hazardous wast. containers may
be held for 10 days or less at a transfer facility
without having to comply with Parts 264, 265, or 270.
-------
-2-
4. Tb. satellite accumulation area provisions of 3262.34 (c)
do not apply to the ATON locations b•caus. they are
not all on one sit., but rather are each distinct
sites surrounded by water.
S. We believe that th. batteries remov.d after t.nd.r
servicing do require manifesting, as well as those
removed from land-based vehicle servicing. The loca-
tion where a battery is removed from service is the
waste generation sit.. The generator must manifest
the batteries to a TSDP provided they are not a condi-
tionally exempt generator. As indicated above, the
batteries may be held for up to 30 days at a transfer
facility under 3263.12.
Plea.. f..1 free to contact Michael Petruska at 475-6676 if
you have any further questions.
cc , Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I XX
Solid Waste Branch ø iefs, B.gion. I X
-------
9451.1987(04)
RCRA/SUPERFTJ HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
3. 100—1.)Oo k /i o Generators
40 CFR Part 262 states that a 100—1000 k / o
ener3tor has igo days to store hazardous waste w].thout
a per nit or interLrn Status. tf the waste is shipped
more t,an 200 miles, the generator is allowed to store
waste on—site for up to 270 days, Is it perInissj’ ] 5 for
a 100—1000 ks/mo generator to ship waste to a TSD
facility more than 200 miles away, even though the
generator could send the shipment to a facility less
than 200 miles away’
40 CFR Part 262 contains no regulations addressing
when a generator is permitted to Ship waste in
excess of 200 miles, and thus receive an extra 90
days storage time. 40 CFR 262.40 states that a
generator can store hazardous waste for 270 days,
“if he must transport his waste or offer his waste
for transportation over a distance of 200 miles or
more.” The preamble notes that “the Agency has
decided not to establish specific criteria for
determining if a generator may accumulate waste on—
site for 180 or 270 days. EPA believes that such
criteria would not serve any useful purpose... .“
“In addition, the Agency was concerned that
establishing criteria for demonstrating that the
closest facility was greater than 200 miLes from
the generation site would be unnecessarily
confusing and could have the perverse effect of
causing waste to go to less desirable management
practices (e.g., where a disposal facility is
located within 200 miles while a recycling facility
is located over 200 miles from t generator, the
generator could be forced to utilize the less
desirable disposal facility).” Therefore, it would
be permissible for a generator to send hazarious
waste to a facility greater than 200 miles away
even though there is a TSD facility closer than 200
miles away.
Source: tjce Petruska (202) 382—7936
Research: lark Janaskje
-------
9451.1989(01)
I
MAY 3 B
Alan H. McLean
Hughes Hubbard and Reed
Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Dear Mr. McLean:
This letter is in response to your letter dated
March 2, 1989, requesting a written interpretation of aspects
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (R RA)
implementing regulations applicable to recycling activities
(40 CFR Parts 124, 264, 265, 266, 268 and 270). It is my
understanding that Environmental Technology Group’s (ETG’s)
operation involves a mobile recycling unit that visits
hazardous waste generator sites. Used solvents are pumped into
the mobile unit through hoses connected to the generators’
storage tanks or containers and a horizontal thin film
evaporator is applied to reclaim reusable solvents. The
reusable solvents are then pumped back into the generator’s
product tanks or containers. All rinsing. and non-recoverable
residues exiting from the mobile unit are placed in waste
containers and remain on-site as the property of the generator.
In your letter, you reached several tentative conclusions
regarding the applicability of certain RCRA regulations to your
process. I have discussed those Federal regulations below to
clarify how they would apply to your activities. However, it
should be noted that in states that are authorized to implement
the RCRA program, the state regulations, rather than Federal
regulation., are applicable. The state program can be
broader-in-scope or more stringent than the Federal
counterpart, so ETG should check all applicable state standards
before deploying its mobile recycling units.
The first question raised is, who is considered the
generator of the residue or still bottom resulting from the
recycling of the spent solventby ETG’s units. EPA considers
the original generator of the spent solvents and ETG to be
co-generators of these still bottoms, and the RCRA regulations
regarding generators, found at 40 CFR Part 262, are applicable
to both. However, thi. does not mean that both generators
-------
—2—
must satisfy each regulatory requirement individually. When
two or more parties contribute to the generation of a hazardous
waste, as is the case in the generation of the still bottoms,
these requirements are satisfied if one of the parties assumes
and performs the duties of the generator on behalf of both the
parties (45 E 72026, October 30, 1980). Therefore, by mutual
agreement either party could perform the generator
responsibilities of recordkeeping, reporting, and manifesting
for the still bottom waste. Typically, these duties are
assumed by the original generator who owns the site.
Nevertheless, EPA reserves the right to enforce against any and
all persons who fit the definition of “generator” in a
particular case if the requirements of Part 262 are not
adequately met. For more discussion on generator
responsibilities, see the October 30, 1980 Register
notice referenced above.
Regarding the notification process, generator
notifications under section 3010 of R RA are generally
required only once, at the time that RCRA regulations initially
become applicable to the generator. it is through the
notification process that a generator obtains an EPA
identification number. If the original generator has already
submitted a notification and received an EPA identification
number, and if this generator consents to perform the generator
duties for the still bottoms as described above, then,
additional notification is not required for the mobile unit to
perform the recycling operation. This arrangement appears to
fit the circumstances described in your letter. However,
should the agreement between ETG and a particular client
prescribe that ETG be the generator of record for the still
bottoms, including manifesting the residue, ETG would need to
obtain an EPA identification number for that particular site by
submitting a notification form (40 CFR 262.12(a)).
You also inquire about the applicability of the permitting
requirements to the generator or the mobile unit operator.
Your letter correctly states that a hazardous waste recycling
process is exempt from the RCRA permitting requirements
(40 CFR 261.6(c)). Therefore, neither ETG nor the generator
would be obligated to obtain a permit for the recycling
operation. Further, generators are allowed to accumulate
hazardous waste on-site in tanks or containers for up to 90
days without being required to obtain interim status or a
permit (40 CFR 262.34). It should be noted, however, that
90-day generators must comply with the technical standards of
Part 265, Subpart J (for tanks), and Subpart I (for
containers), as well as certain emergency response and
personnel training provisions, it the accumulation period
before the waste is introduced into the recycling unit exceeds
90 days, the generator will need to obtain interim status or a
permit for such storage.
-------
—3—
Wastes or residues from recycling activities are
considered to be newly generated wastes and therefore are also
allowed a 90 day accumulation period without a permit. Note
that these wastes are also “derived from” wastes and are
assigned the same EPA waste codes as the spent solvent from
which they are derived (40 CFR 2 61.3(c) (2) (i)).
You also indicate in your letter that ETG will not be
subject to the Part 268 land disposal restriction requirements
since a permit is not required. However, you should note that
the Part 268 standards apply independent of the permit program,
and any such requirements that are applicable to a particular
waste (e.g., the solvent still bottoms) must be complied with
regardless of the §262.34 accumulation provision.
I hope this information will be helpful to you: If you
have further questions please feel free to call Frank McAlister
at (202) 382—4740.
Sincerely yours,
N
Joseph S. Carra
Director
Permits and State Programs Division
-------
f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9451.1989(32)
\ / WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
J14 26U9
O r ICE O
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Donald A. Barbour
Nuclear Metals, Inc.
2229 Main Street
Concord, Massachusetts 01742
Dear Mr. Barbour:
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 1989 to EPA
Administrator William Reilly regarding inconsistencies between
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) and EPA’s regulatory
programs. In that letter you identified both regulatory
requireme and routine radioactive waste management practices
as examples of inconsistencies between the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The first joint Initiative undertaken by EPA and NRC was a
comparative study of the respective agencies regulatory
programs. The purpose of that study was to delineate
Inconsistencies. None were identified although differences in
stringency were. However, implementation of the dual regulatory
program may reveal instances where compliance could result in an
inconsistency However, RCRA permitting and/or administrative
requjreme 5 are not examples of inconsistencies Neverthe-
less, I would like to respond to each of the Concerns and
proposed resolutions OU raised.
First, YOU indicated generators of mixed waste may routinely
treat the waste to conform with NRC waste form requjre e
and/or Department of Transportation (DOT) shipping require-
ments. You expressed Concern that this treatment might force
generato 5 into the RCRA Permitting scheme.
Admittedly, the overwhelming majority of mixed waste
handlers are already licensed by NRC for operations involving
the radioactive constituent of the waste. Also, hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal that may have been incidental to
radioactive waste management must now be brought into
conformance with regulatory requirements for hazardous waste
management including permitting. However, not all hazardous
waste handling processes must be permitre under RCY .
Faci].jt es engaged in recycling, resource recovery, totally
-------
—2—
enclosed treatment and certain in tank treatments within the
generators o day accumulation time do not require a RCRA
permit, for example. Generators need to assess their waste
managexnen operations and processes to take advantage of these
and other exemptions Which may be available.
Second, you suggested the benefits of storage for decay of
high activity waste may not be fully exploited by generators
because storage beyond 90 days Would warrant a RCRA permit.
In addition to storage of high activity wastes to minimize
occupational exposures, storage for decay of short-lived
radjonucljdes is also a Common practice. The latter practice
could Potentially allow certain mixed wastes to be managed
solely as hazardous waste. Staff is currently assessing the
implications of RCR.A on these practices. This effort, however,
has been hampered because of scanty information on the actual
number of facilities and waste volumes in this category.
Currently, the Agency is not considering changes to existing
storage rules although some modification may be justifiable in
the future.
Third, you commented that the absence of disposal capacity
will force generators that might otherwise be exempt from
hazardous waste permitting requirements to obtain RCRA storage
permits.
Mixed w%ste disposal capacity like low—level waste disposal
capacity is unlikely to be available unti ], after the January i,
1993 deadline established by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Policy Act Amendments of 1985. Even then, the Probability of
national mixed waste capacity being available is small. This
uncertainty underscores the need to ensure that mixed wastes are
managed in a manner which protects human health and the
environment from the hazardous constituent of the waste. The
Agency is developing guidance jointly with NRC that will
integrate the respective regulatory regimes for storage. The
Agency has undertaken this initiative because of anticipated
long-term storage of mixed waste.
Fourth, you indicated dual manifesting would be cumbersome
and recommended use of the radioactive waste management
manifest.
As you know, NRC manifesting data elements differ for wastes
destined for disposal versus treatment or storage under RCRA.
Similarly, information necessary to satisfy EPA recordkeeping
and reporting requirements may not be data elements on the NRC
manifest. We have explored the Practicality of using a single
manifest with NRC and both agencies agree that dual manifesting
represents a reasonable and expeditious approach.
-------
—3—
Fifth, you questioned whether mixed waste could be shipped
from a State where the waste was a hazardous waste and subject
to RCRA to a facility in a State where the waste was not
hazardous waste.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 262.20(b) require generators
of hazardous waste “to designate on the manifest one facility
which is permitted to handle the waste described on the
manifest.” The regulations are clear that the facility so
designated is the “designated facility” as defined in the
Section 260.10. That definition refers specifically to Section
262.20, the requirement that generators designate a permitted
facility. Thus, a “facility which is permitted to handle the
waste” must also be a facility that fits the definition of
“designated facility.” Under that definition, a designated
facility must: (1] have an EPA permit (or interim status) in
accordance with the requirements of Parts 270 and 124, (2) have
a permit from a State authorized in accordance with Part 271, or
(3) be a treatment, storage or disposal facility that is
regulated under Section 261.6(c) (2) or Subpart F of Part 266,
and that has been designated on the manifest by the generator
pursuant to Section 262.20.
The phrase “in accordance with” as used in the definition of
designated facility can be read to imply that if a RCRA permit
need not be issued to a facility because the waste is not
hazardous under authorized State law, then the waste could be
delivered to that facility without violation of authorized State
or Federal law. It should be noted that this interpretation of
“designated facility” reflects the special situation where
hazardous waste in one State is shipped to a second State that
does not regulate the waste as hazardous.
Sixth, you expressed concern that transporters may need to
obtain a “State hazardous waste transporter permit” which could
impede mixed waste shipment.
Transporters are not required to obtain a RCRA permit.
Rather, transporters must comply with the regulations governing
handling, transportation, and management of hazardous waste.
EPA has also adopted DOT hazardous materials transportation
regulations as necessary to protect human health and the
environment in the transportation of hazardous waste. EPA’s
transporter standards are found at 40 CFR Part 263.
You should note that while transporters are not required to
obtain a permit under Federal regulations, States are not
precluded from developing such regulations under authorized
State la :. authorized State lidS instituted such a
requirement for hazardous waste transporters although New York
is considering such a State law.
-------
—4—
Last, you commented that any reconsideration or change in
the Federal regulatory status of used oil “Should consider the
advantages of preserving present disposal Options for
radioactively contaminated waste oil.”
As you know, used oil is not “listed” as a hazardous waste
under RCRA. However, the Court of Appeals has overturned this
1986 decision, and the Agency is currently re—evaluating the
technical basis for listing used oil on an accelerated
schedule. To date, the Agency has not made a finding on the
regulatory status of used oil although, any such finding will be
predicated on environmental considerations.
However, authorized State hazardous waste programs may be
“broader in scope” than the Federal program. And, consistent
with this provision, used oil may be listed as a hazardous waste
under authorized State law. Several States have, in fact,
established such a waste listing. Handlers of mixed waste need
to be cognizant of the scope of authorized RCRA programs to
ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requiremen
I hope my comments have been useful in delineating the
Agency’s position on regulation of mixed waste. Again, thank
you for your comments and analysis of what are certainly some of
the key areas of concern regarding dual regulation of mixed
waste. While immediate plans do not include revamping the RCRA
program specific to mixed waste, certainly the issues YOU raised
will receive additional attention as we continue to refine our
regulatory program.
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Carra
Director
Permits and State Programs
cc: John Greeves, U.S. NRC
-------
9451.1991(01)
,1IO $74
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAR 13 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarific QG quirements and Liabilities
FROM: Sylvi . tor
Office o St / (OS—300)
TO: Jeffrey Zelikson, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (9H-1)
This memorandum is written in response to your February
20, 1991, request for clarification of the regulatory
requirements and potential liabilities of small quantity
generators pertaining to the use of hazardous waste manifests to
assist you in• responding to William Apger.
The practice in question is a situation in which hazardous
waste is transported to a permitted (or interim status) storage
facility, accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest: a small
quantity generator has initiated the shipment, and has contracted
with the storage facility to clean up and remove th waste from
the generator’s property. Once the waste reaches the storage
facility, the manifest is signed and returned to the generator.
The waste is later sent to another designated facility for final
treatment and disposal, and is accompanied by a second manifest
on which the storage facility is named as the generator. The
requestor asks if this practice conforms to the legal
requirements imposed under RCRA, if obtaining and following
recordkeeping requirements for the first manifest is sufficient,
nd if the generator should request copies of the manifest
initiated by the owner/operator of the storage facility when the
waste is shipped to the second facility.
Small quantity generators who generate between 100 and 1000
kg of hazardous waste per month, as well as generators of more
than 1000 kg per month, are required to comply with regulations
pertaining to the manifest. If the generator, the transporter,
and the storage facility in the scenario presented each use the
uniform hazardous waste manifest during handling of the waste,
completing the required signatures (the generator, transporter,
and storage facility before a copy is returned to the generator
in accordance with 40 CFR 262 Subpart B) and maintaining the
required records, then the generator would appear to be in
compliance with the Federal regulations. Note that
onditiona1ly-exempt small quantity generators, i.e., generators
Pthtt d , Recy P
-------
of less than 100 kg of hazardous waste in any given month, are
exempt from the manifest provisions.
As you are aware, States are allowed to impose regulations
which are either more stringent or broader in scope than the
Federal regulations; therefore, the generator should also check
with the State in which his facility is located.
The letter which you provided with your request for
assistance also states that the storage facility would, upon
request, furnish the generator with copies of the manifests which
are prepared at the storage facility for the subsequent
transportation of the waste to the ultimate treatment and
disposal facility. If the generator is requesting such copies
because of a concern about potential future liability, a request
for copies of these manifests could be regarded as a prudent
practice. As you know, the generator retains potential liability
under Superfund for future mismanagement of hazardous waste even
after it has left his site and is out of his possession.
Please contact me if you need further clarification on this
or other issues.
-------
9451.1991(02)
RCRA/SUP FUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU)O(ARY
MARCH 1991
1. Amendments to Part 262 Ha.zardous Waste Determination and Recordkeepi
Requirements of Part 262 and 268
The Land Disposal Resthctions (LDR) Third Third final rule (June 1, 1990,55 ER
22520) revised the waste identification requ rements of 40 CFR 262.11. PrIor to the
revision, section 262.11 set out an either/or scheme where, if the generator
detndthtawas t ewas tpa1Subp Dhe
determine whether the waste exhibited a characteristic under Part 261, Subpart C.
With the promulgation of the Third Third rule, the Agency amended section 262.11
to indicate that generators must determine whether listed wastes also exhibit any
hazardous waste characteristj for purposes of compliance with LDR.
A generator is required to develop and maintain records for hazardous waste under
two regulatory programs, LDR (Part 268) and generator standards (Part 262). How
does the amended language of 40 CFR 262.11(c) affect the paperwork associated
with these two regulatory programs?
The amended language of section 2 62.11(c) does not affect the generator
paperwork required in Part 262. When a generator determines that a solid
waste meeta a Part 261, Subpart D hazardous waste listing, he/she is not
-------
required to determine whether the listed waste exhibits any characteristics for
purposes of filling out Part 262 paperwork such as generator notification
forms (870042) and biennial reports. (However, the generator may elect to
determine whether the waste exhibits a characteristic for his/her own
information or for other reasons.) On the other hand, the paperwork of Part
268 must reflect the amended language of section 262.11(c) which states that
for the purposes of compliance with Part 268 a generator must determine if a
listed waste is also characteristically hazardous. (Emphasis added.)
The general principal of the section 262.11 waste identification modification is
that if both the treatment standard for a listed waste and the treatment
standard for a characferistic waste are in effect for a common constituent, then
the treatment standard for the listed waste applies because it is more specific.
If, however, the treatment standard for the listed waste does not specifically
address the characteristic(s), the waste codes for both the listed waste and the
characteristic waste(s) should be included on the notification paperwork of
section 268.7. (see 55 ER 22659) In the Third Third technical amendment rule
(January 31,1991,56 ER 3864), the Agency provided an example of this second
scenario. 1(062 is listed for toxicity as well as for the characteristic of
corrosivity. Because the 1(062 treatment standard does not specifically
address the characteristic of corrosivity, both 1(062 and D002 must be included
in the section 268.7 paperwork. (56 EB 1 3872)
There is also a variation of the principle illustrated above. If the most specific
treatment standard is subject to a national capacity variance or a caseby-case
extension and thus is not yet in effect, then the treatment standard for the
most specific waste code that j jneff must be met. The January 31, 1991,
Fed al Register also provides an example of this situation. During the 1(048
variance period from August 8, 1990, until November 8, 1990,1(048 was
subject to the treatment standards for EP toxic chromium and lead (D007 and
P008) since the treatment standards for these two characteristics were in
effect. After the variance expired for 1(048, section 268.7 notification for the
1(048 treatment standard would only apply because the listing treatment
standard Is more waste specific than the two characteristic waste treatment
standards. (56 ER 3873)
In conclusion, the amended language at 40 CFR 262.11(c) was intended for
compliance with LDR treatment standards. The generator recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of Part 262 remain unaffected.
Source RiLonda Crai& 09W (202) 382-7926
Becky Cuthbertson, 09W (202) 475-9715
Cynthia Hess
-------
9451.1991(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR I 6 1991
OFc ICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EME AGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Michael H. Oberg
Chief Operating Officer
United Marketing International, Inc.
P.O. Box 989
Everett, WA 98206-0989
Dear Mr. Oberg:
Thank you for your letter dated February 19, 1991 concerning
the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule and its relationship to
used oil filter disposal as outlined in a October 30, 1990
memorandum to Mr. Robert Duprey in EPA’s Region 8 office.
The TC rule was effective in all states on September 25,
1990, regardless of the state’s RCRA authorization status. The
TC will be implemented and enforced by EPA’s Regional Offices
until such time as states are authorized to implement and enforce
the TC. Please note that the compliance date for generators of
small quantities (from 100 to 1000 kg of total hazardous waste in
a calendar month) of TC-hazardous wastes was March 29, 1991.
Small quantity generators (SQGs) were required to begin managing
their TC—hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable
hazardous waste regulations on that date. Of particular concern
to the Agency is the proper management (e.g., storage, treatment,
transportation and disposal) of these wastes.
As a point of clarification, I would also note that under
the TC rule, generators are not specifically required to test
their waste. The regulations allow generators to use their
knowledge of the waste and/or the process that generated it to
determine if it is hazardous. They are, however, required to be
correct in their determination.
The Agency intends to fully enforce this rule. The Agency’s
enforcement policy clearly is designed to identify and prosecute
violators and to deny any economic benefit resulting from
violations. Civil and criminal penalties are also available as
enforcement tools.
Finally, the Office of Solid Waste appreciates the
information you provided pertaining to recently completed studies
of used oil filters conducted by the University of Northern Iowa.
This study addresses the Agency’s recommended best operating
practice contained in the October 30, 1990 memorandum which
suggested both draining and crushing of the oil filter to ensure
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
maximum removal of the oil. Of course, as discussed earlier,
each hazardous waste generator is ultimately responsible for
making their own determination as to whether their waste is
hazardous under the TC rule for any waste stream generated.
I hope this letter clarifies the nature of the Agency’s
implementation of the TC rule. If you have any additional
questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Cochran of my
staff at (202) 382-4770 for general TC questions and Mr. Hugh
Davis in the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement at (202) 475-
9867, if you have TC enforcement questions.
Sinc ely,
I • /
- via . Lowran
i rector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9451.1992(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
AUGUST
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
1992
1. Treatment In a Generator’s 90-Day
Containment Building
According to the March 24, 1986, Federal
Register generators may treat hazardous
waste in accumulation tanks or containers In
conformance with the requirements of 1262 .34
and Subparts/or! of Part 265 without
obtaining a permit or interim status (51 f
10168). In the August 18, 1992, Federal
Register (57 L 37194), EPA promulgated
standarSs for a new hazardous waste
management unit known as a containment
building (Parts 264 and 265, Subpart DD), and
amended 1262.34 to allow generators to
accumulate hazardous waste on-Site lfl
containment buildings for 90 days or less
without a permit or interim status
(126234(aXiv); 57E&37264). May
generators accwnuladng hazardous waste in
containment buildings in compliance with
§26234 and Part 265, SubpartDD treat the
waste without obtaining a pennit or interim
status?
A generator accumulating hazardous waste
in a containment building for less than 90 days
in compliance with §262.34 and Part 265,
Subpart DD (the technical standards for interim
status containment buildings) may veal these
hazardous wastes in the containment building
without obtaining a permit or interim status as
long as thermal treatment is not involved. The
August 18, 1992, Federal Register states that
§262.34 has been revised to exempt generators
from permitting requirements when
accuninliting or wearing hazardous waste On-
site in t2inmCflt buildings (57 fft 37242
and 37253). Generators who accumulate or
treat hazardous waste in contRinm nt buildings
must comply with the general Part 262
regulations, as well as the following
requirements in accordance with
§262.34(a)(lXiv): comply with Subpart DD
of 40 CFR Part 265; place in the facility’s
operating record a certification by a
professional engineer that the building
complies with the design standards specified
jn40CFR 265.1l0l; and maintain in the
facility’s files documentation showing no
h 7Mdous wastes remain in the unit for longe*
than 90 days (57 37264).
If a generator chooses so treat a prohibited
hazardous waste in containment buildings,
however, and is conducting such treatment in
order to meet applicable Part 268, Subpart D
treatment standards, he or she must comply
with the waste analysis plan requirements of
§268.7(a)(4). Section 268.7(a)(4) has been
modified to reflect the addition of containment
buildings to §262.34 as accumulation!
treatment units (57 fB 1 37270).
Thermal veatment is regulated by the specific
standards for incinerators (Part 265, Subpart
0), boilers and industrial furnaces (Part 266,
Subpart H), and thermal treatment (Part 265,
Subpart P), and is therefore not eligible for the
§262.34 permit exemption even if the
treatment occurs inside a containment
building.
-------
,tD
1% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
“4t , 0 it
9451.1993(01)
SEP20 1993
OcFICE OF
SCUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Frank J. Prasil
Recycled Printer’s Ink
133 West End Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37922
Dear Mr. Prasil:
This is in response to our phone conversations of September 14
and 15, 1993, in which you asked me to clarify a couple of points
in the September 1, 1993, letter from Mr. Denit to you.
Specifically, I confirmed that under Federal regulations at 40 CFR
Section 261.5 (g), conditionally exempt small quantity generators
of hazardous waste may send their waste to any of the types of
facilities specified in Section 261.5 (g) (3), and this includes “a
facility which beneficially uses or reuses, or legitimately
recycles or reclaims...” the waste. (Section 261.5(g) (3) (v) (A).)
Further, as we discussed, waste shipped from conditionally
exempt small quantity generators under the conditions of Section
261.5 need not be accompanied by the National Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest. Finally, as the September 1, 1993, letter from Mr.
Denit noted, individual States may have more stringent regulations
than EPA’s, and U.S. Department of Transportation regulations also
may apply. Thank you for your interest in sound recycling of
waste. if you have further questions, please contact Ross Elliot
or Ann Codrington of my staff at (202)260-8551.
Sincerel
Michael J. Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
Qjr Recycled/Recyclable
& PtlIflH wIt SoyIC.nol. Ink on piper thit
contains •t least 50% IscycIld fibs?
-------
.#‘I°
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9451.1993(02)
OCT — 1 993
Mr. Mark Bell OFFICEOF
1001 Fannin Street SOLID WASTEANOEMERGENCY
Suite 2050 RESPONSE
Houston TX 77002-6778
Mr. Mark Bell:
Thank you for your letter of February 3, 1993, in which you
requested clarification on the amount, type, and frequency of
hazardous waste training for persons working in and around
facilities where hazardous waste is handled. We apologize for
the delay in our response.
The type of information you request is best provided based
on a site—specific assessment of each situation. This assessment
can be made by the authorized State agency (or, if the State is
not authorized, the EPA Regional office) that implements the
hazardous waste program in the State in which the facility is
located. 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.
In general, EPA requires generators of more than 1,000
kilograms per month (kg./mo.) of hazardous waste (or more than 1
kg./mo. of acutely hazardous waste) who accumulate waste on site,
to comply with the same personnel training requirements as
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (40 CFR 262.34 and
265.16). The generator’s training program must be “designed to
ensure that facility personnel are able to respond effectively to
emergencies by familiarizing them with emergency procedures,
emergency equipment, and emergency systems...” (40 CFR
265.16(a) (2)).
These requirements are intended to ensure that personnel are
adequately prepared to properly handle the types of hazardous
wastes that are managed at the facility and to respond to any
emergencies that are likely to arise.
The regulations at 40 CFR part 262, 264 and 265, do not
specifically address some of the scenarios you present. We have
provided information from Federal Register preamble discussions
and EPA guidance documents listed below to assist you in
developing appropriate training programs. We recommend however,
Q 7 Rscycl.d’R.cyclsbl.
p ft d wl 3oya naIa u s i 1ut
CDII AS 1uc$114 fibs?
-------
that determinations on information such as this be obtained from
your State (or appropriate Regional office).
Additional information on personnel training for persons who
work with hazardous waste can be found in:
RCRA Personnel Trainina Guidance Manual , U.S. EPA, September
1980, EPA FW—915. Order from: National Technical Information
Service (703)487—4650, Order number PB87—193 348 Cost:
$27.00
Permit ADplicant’s Guidance Manual For the General Facility
Standards of 40 CFR 264 , U.S. EPA, September 1980, EPA FW—
915. Order from: National Technical Information Service
(703)487—4650, Order number PB87—151 064 Cost: $44.50
You also may find the following Federal Reaister notice
preamble discussions to be helpful:
49 FR 49570 December 20, 1984;
51 FR 10164 March 24, 1986; and,
45 FR 33182 May 19, 1980.
Generally, 40 CFR Part 262.34(d) (5) (iii) provides that “The
generator must ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar
with proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relevant to
their responsibilities during normal facility operation and
emergencies.” Thus, if a person is handling hazardous waste, he
or she should have had training in proper waste handling and
emergency procedures appropriate to the types of waste handled,
the management methods used, and the hazards presented by the
waste type and waste management method. In addition “there must
be at least one employee either on the premises or on call...with
the responsibility for coordinating all emergency response
measures...” (40 CFR 262.34(d)(5)(i)). This may apply when
wastes are taken from a satellite accumulation area to a 90-day
storage area and to persons who will be responsible for managing
the waste (e.g., persons managing wastes in drums and tanks.)
If you have further questions about training needs, contact
your authorized State agency (or, if the State is not authorized,
the EPA Regional office) that implements the hazardous waste
program in the State in which the facility is located. If you
have questions about this letter, contact Ann Codrington of my
staff at (202) 260—8551.
ncere y,
j effery D. Denit
$ -‘ Ad M g Director,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
,?tO 5F4%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9451.1993(03)
NOV 1993 OFcICEOP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ethan R. Ware
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
Palmetto Center
1426 Main Street
P0 Box 11206
Columbia, SC 29211
Dear Mr. Ware:
Thank you for your letter dated January 4, 1993, Concerning the management of
hazardous waste by generators under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
In your letter you asked whether 40 CFR §262.34, which allows generators to store and/or
treat wastes in accumulation containers or tanks without interim status or a RCRA permit,
applies to the situation of your clients. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.
You specifically asked whether the transfer of hazardous waste from one container to
another for treatment affects the applicability of the generator 90-day treatment exemption.
This type of waste transfer may occur during the accumulation period for two reasons. First,
40 CFR §262.34 does not preclude generators from transferring waste between tanks or
containers to facilitate storage or treatment. Second, the requirements of Subparts I and J of
40 CFR Part 265, compliance with which is a condition of the exemption, address the
addition and removal of wastes in tanks and containers and provide procedures to prevent
releases to the environment from such activities. Of course, the requirements of §262.34
would apply to each tank or container holding hazardous waste (see, e.g., 40 CFR §265.173
and 40 CFR §265. 193).
However, please be aware that under §3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. §6926), individual
States may be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste programs in
lieu of the federal program. When States are not authorized to administer the program, the
EPA Region in which the State is located administers the program and is the appropriate
contact for any case-specific determinations. Also note that under §3009 of RCRA (42
U.S.C. §6929), States retain the authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are
more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. Some States may not allow generators
to treat hazardous waste under §262.34, while other States may not allow this type of
transfer of hazardous waste for either storage or treatment.
Prinle4 on Recycled Paper
-------
2
You indicated in your letter that the charactenstic hazardous waste treated under
§262.34 by generators would no longer be defined as hazardous waste after treatment. For
the waste to become non-hazardous, a generator must remove the characteristic and comply
with the applicable RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) requirements, including 40
CFR §268.7(a)(4), for restricted wastes prior to land disposal. Therefore, if the generators
waste is restricted from land disposal, he must either meet applicable treatment standards
dunng the on -site treatment period, or notify the treatment or storage facility in accordance
with 40 CFR §268.7.
Thank you for your interest in the safe management of hazardous wastes. If you have
any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Rick Picardi of my staff at
(202) 260-5756.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: EPA Regional RCRA Branch Chiefs
Susan Bromm (OWPE)
Dawn Messier (OGC)
Catherine Smith (OE)
RCRA Hotline
-------
iIO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PRO #
9451. 1994(01)
FEB I 0 (994 O FICEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RE%PONSE
Mr. Thomas J. Dolce
GZA-AET
140 Broadway
Providence, RI 20903
Dear Mr. Dolce:
Thank you for your letter of December 17, 1993, regarding
counting waste in satellite accumulation areas. You specifically
asked if a small quantity generator who collects hazardous wastes
at satellite accumulation areas must count this waste for the
purpose of determining generator status.
The regulations at 40 CFR 261.5(c) state what is, and is not
included when making quantity determinations.
Hazardous waste that is not subject to regulation or
that is subject only to §262.11, §262.12, §262.40(c)
and §262.41 is not included in the quantity
determinations of this part and parts 262 through 266,
268, and 270 and is not subject to any of the
requirements of those parts. Hazardous waste that is
subject to the requirements of §261.6(b) and (C) and
subparts C,D, and F of part 266 is included in the
quantity determination of this part and is subject to
the requirements of parts 262 through 266 and 270.
To determine generator status, generators must count all
hazardous waste generated at their facility in a calendar month.
Wastes not included in the monthly determination are either not
subject to regulation or subject to only the notification and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR section 262.22, 262.12,
262.40(c) and section 262.41 as cited above.
Wastes stored in satellite accumulation areas are subject to
certain container standards (e.g., sections 265.171, 265.172, and
265.173(a)). The container standards are not among those listed
in section 261.5(c) as “not included in the quantity
determination.” Therefore, wastes in the satellite accumulation
areas must be included in the generators’s monthly waste quantity
Fruited , R.c,cisd Paper
-------
determination as well as other on-site quantity determinations.
For further discussion of this and other generator
requirements please see 51 FR 10151, March 24, 1986. we have
enclosed a copy of this Federal Register notice for your
convenience. If you have questions about this letter, please
contact Ann Codrington of my staff at (202) 260—4777.
Thank you for your interest in the safe management of
hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of
Solid Waste
-------
Sr 41 , ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D C 20460
I
4 L
9451. 1994 C 02)
OF tCE C
SOLID WASTE AND i . . ..
4AR — 4 lgg RESPOi .S
Mr. John J. Stocker, President
Shipbuilders Council of America
4301 N. Fairfax Drive
Suite 330
Arlington, Virginia 22203
Dear Mr. Stocker:
Thank you for your letter of February 14, 1994, requesting
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issue generator
identification numbers to the Department of Defense (DOD), in
particular the Navy. Further, you request that the Navy’s ID
number always appear on the hazardous waste manifest, along with
a contractor’s number, if a contractor is used to prepare waste
for shipment. This would then make the Navy liable, in your
view, should the waste be mismanaged.
EPA certainly shares your concern that hazardous waste be
managed properly. As we have explained in previous letters, the
presence or absence of someone’s ID number on the Manifest is not
the determining factor in assessing liability. Liability under
CERCLA is determined based on the statute, and the facts in the
case in question. The Navy may or may not be liable in a
specific case, regardless of whether their ID number or someone
else’s ID number was on the manifest. Under RCRA, EPA allows
“co-generators” to decide between themselves who should take
primary responsibility for filling out the manifest and
fulfilling other generator responsibilities. As the preamble
discussions we have sent you explained, this does not mean that
one party has assumed liability for both parties. In fact, both
parties may be liable for any violations or for damages,
depending on all the facts in question. This is EPA’s
longstanding policy, and we do not view 10 USC 7311 to require
any change of EPA’s policy.
I understand that the Manifest Regulatory Negotiation
Committee did spend considerable time debating this issue efore
deciding not to craft any specific provisions to deal with it.
The Committee decided, as I understand it, that the manifest as
presently structured can accommodate the situation where more
RecycIed/Recyca
‘. Printed wIlh Soy Car ’o a
contain. at least SOS. —
-------
than one party are co-generators, and in fact a second ID number
can be placed on the manifest in the “other information” block.
The Committee decided against requiring an ID number to appear on
the manifest for each and every entity that may be a co-generator
in every situation.
In some instances EPA does issue ID numbers to DOD
installations. If a DOD facility is a site that produces
hazardous waste, they would normally be considered a generator
and (provided they generate more than 100 kilograms of hazardous
waste in a month) they would need to obtain an EPA ID number. At
this time, EPA does not have a national policy on how to handle
ID numbers for waste generated on ships. In some instances, EPA
has issued ID numbers to the ship, and in others the shore
facility or contractor providing service to the ship is issued
the ID number.
I hope this information is of assistance to you.
Sincerely yours,
4 ; ,fr
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
FILE COPY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
- WASHINGTON, 0 C 20460
AUG22 1995
9451.1995 (01)
OFICE oc
SOLID WASTE AND E ’AECE’.CY
RESPONSE
Mr. James M. Kuszaj
Ogletree, Keakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
4101 Lake Boone Trail
Post Office Box 31608
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
Dear Mr. Kuszaj:
Thank you for your letter of July 6, 1995, requesting EPA’s current interpretation of the
requirements in 40 CFR §262.12 regarding EPA identification numbers. You ask the following
four questions related to obtaining more than one EPA identification number (I.D. number) for a
geographically contiguous piece of property.
• Is there any prohibition against maintaining multiple I.D. numbers for the same property?
• Can two autonomous divisions of the same company co-located on the same property be
considered separate generators and be issued separate I.D. numbers?
• Would the answer to the question above be different if the aggregation of waste from both
divisions caused one of the divisions to change regulatory classification. For example, to
move from a conditionally exempt SQG to a large quantity generator?
• Would EPA or the state need to be specifically informed that there are separate l.D.
numbers for the same property?
The regulations at 40 CFR §262.12 require a generator to have an EPA I.D. number
before treating, storing, disposing of, transporting, or offering for transportation, ha zardous
waste. Because the regulations do not explicitly state how I.D. numbers should be distributed,
you should contact the state authorized to implement the RCRA program in your area with
specific questions. Notwithstanding the preceding, the following terms are useful in any
discussion of LD. numbers and their applicability to generation sites.
The definition of generator found in 40 CFR §260.10 is “any person, by site, whose act
or process produces hazardous waste identified or listed in part 261 of this chapter or whose act
first causes a hazardous waste to become subject to regulation.” The definition of a person in 40
CFR §260.10 is “an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, Federal Agency, corporation
(including a government corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality, commission,
political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body.” Individual generation site means the
contiguous site at or which one or more hazardous wastes are generated. An individual
EQ ) R.CyCIdlR CY 1btS
PtlA d It?I SoyiCifloIa Ink on pap.’ that
onnt S it Wait 50% rscyCIiø tibet
-------
generation site, such as a large manufacturing plant. may have one or more sources of hazardous
waste but is considered a single or individual generation site if the site or property is contiguous.
In our levier, you describe two autonomous divisions of a company which occupy
different portions of a contiguous piece of property. The company as a whole would meet the
definition of person” in 40 CFR §260.10 and although autonomous, the divisions would not
generally be considered separate generators if they operate on a geographically contiguous piece
of property meeting the definition of “individual generation site.”
Although there is no specific prohibition in the regulations against a generator
maintaining multiple I.D. numbers for an individual generation site, the Agency expects each
* individual generation site to have one I.D. number. Of course the approved state RCRA program
may have specific state law requirements which operate in lieu of the federal program.
Requests for multiple I.D. numbers for one individual generation site must be evaluated
on a case by case basis by the authorized state (or EPA Regional office in the case of Alaska,
Hawaii, Wyoming, Iowa and the U.S. Territories other than Guam) to determine whether the
entity (and perhaps its waste streams) can be separated in some meaningful way. Where the
entity’s accounting practices dictate separate documentation for waste streams, it may make
sense for the State or Region to likewise monitor them separately. The Agency does not intend
for properties to be subdivided for the purpose of avoiding regulation, e.g. by slipping under the
small quantity generator limitation.
EPA assumes that states assigning multiple ID. numbers for one individual generation
site do so because the entity (and perhaps its waste streams) is separate in some meaningful way.
Therefore, EPA does not expect to be informed where there is more than one ID. number for an
individual generation site. However, since you state in your letter that the two autonomous
divisions owned by the same company were not aware that the other had obtained a separate l.D.
number, it may be necessary to inform the state since formal application for two numbers for one
individual generation site has not been made and the requisite evaluation has not been done.
Finally, please be reminded that authorized states may impose requirements different than
federal requirements which may, among other things, have the effect of limiting or increasing the
number of I.D. numbers per individual generation site. If you have further questions on this
matter, please contact Ann Codrington of my staff at (202) 260-8551.
Sincerely,
Michael Petniska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
-------
LAW OFFICCS
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
4101 LAKE BOONE TRAIL
POST OFFICE BOX 31608
RALEIGH. NORTh CAROLINA 27622
TCLEPMONE (9191 7879700
FAX (919) 783-9412 -d
OYMCN OP ’CCS
QRCCNVIL..C. Ou1M CAROUNA
JAMES M. cU5ZAJ. WA$M NG?ON. 0 C
L . A. OCORGIA
COLUMSIA. SOUTM CAROlINA
NA SP,VILI.C. YCNNCSSCC
July 6, 1995
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Was c
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
Re: Generator Identification Numbers
40 C.F.R. 2 2.12
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am writing to request EPA’s current interpretation of the requirements in 40
C.F.R. §262.12 as they relate to generators of h wdous waste obthining multiple EPA
identification numbers for a geographically contiguous piece of property.
My specific questions involve the following facts:
Company A owns a large geographically contiguous piece of property. Two
autonomous divisions of Company A occupy different portions of the property. Each
division generates and manages its own h ardous waste. Each division applied for and
obt2n d from either EPA or tbe state a unique generator identification number. Since
the divisions were autonomous, neitber was aware that the other bad obtained a separate
I.D. number.
Given these facts, my questions are:
1. Is there any prohibition against Tnaint2ining multiple I.D. numbers for the same
property? -
2. Cr two autonomous divisions of the same company co-located on the same
property be considered separate generators and be issued separate I.D. numbers?
-------
Michael Shapiro
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
July 6, 1995
Pane 2
3. Would the answer to Question 2 be different if the aggregation of waste from
both divisions caused one of the divisions to change regulatoiy classification. For
example, to move from a conditionally exempt SQO to a large quantity generator?
4. Would EPA or the state need to be specifically informed that there are separate
I.D. numbers for the same property?
Thank you for your attention to the matter . I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
OGLETREE, DEAICENS, NASH,
SMOAK & Sii WART, L.L.P.
t’Th .D
J’ SM. Kuszaj
JMK/mvk
-------
2 ’ cs
l v ,4f 3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4 t p o1
9451.1996(01)
lIAR 12 19 5 OFFICEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Steven T. Warshaw
President
Olin Microelectronic Materials Division
Olin Corporation
501 Merritt 7, P.O. Box 4500
Norwalk, Connecticut 06856—4500
Dear Mr. Warshaw:
Thank you for your letter of February 21, 1996 regarding
states that Olin is proposing to enter into contractual
arrangements with certain of its customers who use Olin’s
specialty chemicals to fabricate computer chips, integrated
circuits, and other electrical devices. These contractual
relationships would be entered into as a part of Olin’s Product
Stewardship Program.
Your letter explains that under the contracts, Olin would
retain legal ownership of the specialty chemicals supplied to
customers; would maintain a physical presence at the customer’s
site; and would remove, accumulate, and manage any chemicals that
exit the customer’s process units, Specifically, your letter
asserts that Olin would retain ownership of any hazardous wastes
that result from the use of its chemicals, and that Olin would
assume responsibility for the proper management of these wastes
under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
According to your letter, Olin’s purpose in writing to EPA
is to obtain confirmation that Olin would be considered a
generator of the hazardous wastes which result from the joint
activities of Olin and its customers, such that Olin’s compliance
with the hazardous waste generator requirements (codified in Part
262 of 40 CFR) would also fulfill its customers’ obligations
Q RecycIedIReCyCIabIe
8 PitnIed with Soy!Canola Ink on paoer that
nwiI at Iceet 50% recycled fiber
-------
under these regulations. Olin also seeks confirmation that EPA
would, in the event a joint liability results from these
relationships, look first to Olin for performance of th
- generator obligations.
I am pleased to provide you with the requested confirmation.
First, it is correct that under the facts related in your letter,
Olin would clearly be a generator of any hazardous wastes which
• exit from the process units of your customers. Also under these
facts, EPA would look first to Olin for compliance with the
generator requirements set forth in Part 262 of 40 CFR. This
would be the case regardless of whether Olin or Olin’s customer
actually operates the process unit. This follows from EPA’s “co—
generator policy,” which was first announced in the October 30,
1980, Federal Register notice which you cite in your letter, and
discussed in numerous regulations and interpretive letters since
that date.
In the case where Olin operates the process unit, the status
of Olin as generator of the waste is straightforward. In this
instance, Olin would be the owner of the 3naterials being
processed, the operator of the process unit, and the person
removing the waste from the process unit. All of these roles are
acts which contribute to the production of a hazardous waste,
within the meaning of the generator definition at 40 CFR §260.10.
Under this scenario, Olin would appear to be the more significant
contributor to the generation of the hazardous waste. The
customer would still be a jointly liable co-generator, though,
because it owns the process unit and the product being fabricated
with Olins chemicals. As explained in the co—generator notice
of October 30, 1980, EPA would typically look first to the
operator of the process unit (Olin) to fulfill the generator
duties. Thus, Olins compliance with the generator requirements
would discharge Olins and its customers obligations under the
regulations.
In the second scenario, the facts are altered to the extent
that your customer, rather than Olin personnel, would operate the
process unit generating the waste. Olin and the customer would
again be co—generators, since each is performing acts which
produces a hazardous waste. The customer is a generator because
it owns the product being fabricated, and because it owns and is
operating the process unit. Olin remains a co—generator because
of its ownership of the chemical raw materials, and because it
would be the person removing the waste from the process unit and
subjecting it to RCRA regulation. See 45 FR 72024 at 72026.
Under this second scenario, Olins contribution to the
generation of the waste is not as predominant as in the above
first scenario. Further, under the policy discussed above
whereby EPA generally looks first to the operator of the process
unit for compliance, the customer might appear to be the
generator with primary responsibility.
-------
However, as stated in the notice, this
presumption would not apply in the case where there is a mutual
agreement among the parties for one of the co—generators to
- perform the generator duties on behalf of all. EPA encourages
such an arrangement, and the contracts between Olin and its
customers would clearly fall within this policy. As EPA
explained in the October 1980, notice, EPA will look first to the
generator designated by a mutual agreement among co—generators.
- The agreement overrides the policy that looks first to the
operator of the process unit, except in those cases where a
responsible party is not clearly, designated, or where EPA does
not know about the agreement. See 45 FR 72024 to 72027. I trust
that Olin will retain copies of its contracts to display to RCRA
inspectors, and that the contracts will be sufficiently specific
in designating Olin as the responsible generator.
I should emphasize, however, that the co-generator policy is
a Federal policy, and that since its announcement by EPA in 1980,
the RCRA program has been delegated (with few exceptions) to our
authorized state programs. So, you should contact the state
hazardous waste agency in each state where you propose to
implement this arrangement to verify that the state also follows
the sam.e or a similar policy with respect to co-generators.
Under RCRA, states may generally choose to operate hazardous
waste programs that are more stringent than EPAs requirements. -
Thank you for bringing Olins Product Stewardship Program to
our attention. I laud you for promoting this excellent example
of corporate responsibility, and I wish your company every
success in carrying it out.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, rector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
I
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWEP S
April 1996
9451.1996(02)
ii
RCRAJ
1. Frequently Asked Qàestlons on
Hazardous Waste Generator
Requirements -
May large quantity gener ators (LQGs)
and small quantity generators (SQGs) treat
hazardous waste on site without obtaining a
permit or interim status?
EPA has consistently maintained thit a
permit or interim status is not required if a
L G or SQG treats hazardous waste in
accumulation units such as tanks or containers
that are in full compliance with the
requirements âf 40 CFR §262.34 and the
special unit-specific requirements found in
Part 265 (March 24, 1986; 51 EE 1 10146,
l0l68) This treatment must be completed
within the specified regulatory time
limitations.
No, SQGs (generators of greater than 100
kg but less than 1,000 kg in a calendar month)
are subject only to the reporting requirements
listed in 40 §262.44. The Biennial
Report regulation at 40 CFR §262.41 is not
specifically listed in that section.
The 40 CFR Part 262 reguLations,
Standard-c Applicable to Generators, do not
mention conditionally exempt small quantity
1 lenerators (CESQGs). Where are the CESQG
reguLations found?
• Must generators preparing an off-site
shipment of hazardous waste list the EPA
waste codes on the manifest?
EPA manifest regulations at 40 CFR
§262.20 and Appendix to Part 262 do n at
require generators to list EPA waste codes on.
the m2nifcst. The shaded space provided on
the manifest for EPA waste codes is for the
convenience of state agencies, as some states
may require EPA waste codes to be listed on a
rn2nifest(40 CFR §271.10(h)). The
Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations may, however, require listing EPA
waste codes as part of the DOT description
(40 CFR §179.203 (k)(4)).
3 Unlike the LQG and SQO regulations that
are found’throughout Part 262, the CESQG
requirements are found in §261.5. CESQGs
are those generators who produce less than or
equal to 100 kgof hazardous waste, less than
or equal to 1 kg of acute hazardous waste or
less than or equal to 100 kg of spill residue of
acute hazardous waste per calendar month.
Must SQGs submit a Biennial Report for
their hazardous waste management activities?
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
.3 4VW\ f’lC2’Y
( €O SJ .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FILE CE
9451.1996(03)
MAY 1996
OFFICE OF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Resolution of RCR? Issues Relating to the Wood
)Preserving Industry
FROM: David Bussard, Director
Hazardous Waste Identification Division
TO: John B. Rasnic, Director
Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division
Office of Compliance
In your February 29th memo to me, you raised a couple of
issues that you wanted us to look into. The first of these was a
question as to whether the current regulations support a wood
preserving facility’s claim that a drip pad suinp is part of the
facility’s wastewater treatment system and is therefore exempt
from certain RCRA requirements, even though the wood preserving
regulations require that the sump meet subpart J tank standards.
The answer is yes, depending of course on the particular
facts, drip pad sunips may generally satisfy the wastewater
treatment unit exemption. The requirement that wood preservers
must meet subpart J standards does not trump the wastewater
treatment unit exemption. I have attached a memo from Tim
Sullivan in the Region IX office that I think does a very good
job of explaining this.
YQU also asked whether, should we end up excluding recycled
in-process wastewaters at wood preserving facilities from the
definition of solid waste, it would be possible that a previously
regulated facility could become a conditionally exempt small
quantity generator (CESQG); and, if so., would that facility need
to comply with RCRA requirements specifically crafted for wood
preservers.
InI on 100% Recyded Paper (40% PO COnSUITIOF)
-------
First, it is important to point out that if any facility
meets the conditions set forth in the section defin ing and
explaining CESQG status ( 26l.5), it is considered to be
c nditionally exempt from the definition of solid waste (and
therefore hazardous waste) and is thus subject to very few
requirements under RCRA. In the case of the wood preserving
industry, they would be conditionally exempt from subpart W and
subpart J requirements, among a number of other requirements.
However, with respect to conditionally excluding wastewaters that
are reused, one approach we could take in crafting a national
provision (whether regulatory or legislative) is to grant the
conditional exclusion only when the wastewaters are used in
connection with a drip pad that is in compliance with RCRA
Subpart W drip pad standards. Should we do this, your question
would be moot.
It would be useful to know if anyone in your office has been
able to determine how many facilities might become CESQG5 if
their in-process wastewater is not counted as solid waste; and
whether this issue has occurred at any facilities to date, in the
absence of a national wastewater exclusion for those wastewaters
prior to reclamation. Second, I would be interested to hear
whether you think a typical wood preserving facility could
qualify for an exemption under §261.5, especially those
conditions under 26l.5(g) (3), (4), or (5).
Finally, I would like to say that I appreciate all the help
that Seth Heminway of your office has been able to provide us on
a number of issues related to this industry. My staff will
continue to work with Seth to resolve any key issues raised by
your draft Wood Preserving Compliance Notebook .
I look forward to seeing any information you can provide on
the CESQG issue.
Enclosure
-------
cIi -IZ / 6
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY F IL U COP Y
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
L
MAY I igg 9451.1996(04)
OFFICE OF
SOLIO WASTE AP’ D EME CE? .CV
RESPONSE
Brenda J. Boykin
Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Ms. Boykin:
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 1995 requesting an interpretation of the regulations that
apply to generators who accumulate waste in containers at or near the point of generation where wastes
initially accumulate. Specifically, you ask whether the regulation at 40 CFR 262.34 (c) would allow the
generator to accumulate more than 55 gallons of non-acutely hazardous waste at one time at a satellite
location.
As you may know, the regulations at 40 CFR 262.34(c)(I) state that “a generator may
accumulate as much as 55 gallons of non-acute hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous
waste.. in containers at or near any point of generation where wastes initially accumulate, which is
under the control of the operator of the process generating the waste...” Such accumulation may take
place provided that the waste is placed in containers that are in good condition, the waste is compatible
with their containers, the containers are marked with the words “Hazardous Wastes” or other words
that identify the contents, and the containers are covered when the generator is not adding or removing
waste. See 49 FR. 49568 - 49572, Dec. 20, 1984. Should the 55 gallon limit be exceeded, Section
262.34(c) requires the generator to mark the container holding the excess accumulation of hazardous
waste with the date the excess amount began accumulating, and after three days, manage that excess
waste in accordance with Section 262.34(a).
Your question relates to the interpretation of 40 CFR 262.34(c)(2) which states that:
A generator who accumulates either hazardous waste or acutely hazardous waste Listed
in §261.33(e) in excess of the amounts listed in paragraph (c)(l) of this section at or
near any point of generation must, with respect to that amount of excess waste, comply
within three days with paragraph (a) of this section or other applicable provisions of
this chapter. During the three day period the generator must continue to comply with
paragraphs (c)(1)(l) through (ii) of this section. The generator must mark the container
holding the excess accumulation of hazardous waste with the date the excess amount
began accumulating.
According to these provisions, the generator has 3 days after the 55 gallon limit has been
exceeded to transfer the excess waste from the satellite area. In order to answer your question of
whether waste above the 55 gallon limit may be accumulated in the 3 day interim period and remain
subject to the accumulation area provisions, it is necessary to refer to the preamble language of -
1J RecycledlReCyClable
P,tnted wtjI SoyiCanoIa Ink on paber that
contlins at lead 50% recyCled fiber
-------
December 20. 1984. which considers the potential hazards of accumulating hazardous waste in these
sites. In the December 20, 1984 Federal Register notice, the Agency states that “.. the accumulation
at satellite areas of up to 55 gallons of non-acutely hazardous waste IS reasonable and safe and does not
pose a threat to human health and the environment” (49 FR 49569, Dec. 20, 1984) However, in the
discussion which followed, the Agency questioned the safety of the accumulation of non-acutely
hazardous waste in amounts above the 55 gallon limit. “Because the weight of evidence suggests
limited use by the regulated community of containers larger than 55 gallons and because spills of 110
gallons of non-acutely hazardous waste would pose a higher environmental threat, EPA does not
believe that the satellite accumulation level ‘should be higher than 55 gallons.” I d.
The preamble language above illustrates the Agency’s view that waste accumulation in satellite
accumulation areas should not be excessive. Although it is clear that the Agency did not intend for
amounts as large as 110 gallons to be accumulated on a routine basis, it is not specific about whether
small amounts of non-acutely hazardous waste exceeding the 55 gallon limit may be accumulated.
routinely. The Agency understands that due to the nature of the production process, there may be
special cases in which small quantities of wastes above the 55 gallon limit may need to be accumulated
for brief periods in one accumulation area. Thus, we ifiterpret that the satellite accumulation provisions
of 40 CFR 262. 34(c)(1) permit the generator to continue to accumulate nominal quantities of a non-
acutely hazardous waste in excess of the 55 gallon limit as long as the additional wastes accumulated
during the 3-days are managed in accordance with section 262.34(c)(I). Any excess waste must be
managed (including transferring that excess waste to the generator’s 90-day accumulation area) in
accordance with section 262.34(a) within three days.
The Agency does not expect thai any accumulation over the 55 gallon limit will be excessive
and believes that most facilities should be aware of the process waste generation rate and should be
able to arrange for the removal of any excess accumulatiOn within the 3-day time frame, thereby
avoiding excessive accumulation of waste over the 55 gallon linut. The Agency also understands that
there may be one-time circumstances during which quantities in excess of 110 gallons are generated.
In such cases, the Agency recommends that you contact your state waste management office for further
guidance on how such occurrences should be handled.
Also, because states may have regulations and interpretations that are more stringent than the
federal regulations, the Agency strongly recommends that you check with your state wa te management
office (or Regional office in unauthorized states) for questions specific to the amount of waste allowed
above the 55 gallon limit in the particular states where your clients operate. This interpretation is not
binding on authorized states.
I hope this response is of assistance. In you have additional questions, please contact Ann
Codrington of my office at (202)260-8551.
Sincerely yours,
L’’ t ” ,
I - Michael Sh piro, Director L. i.. L -
- ‘ Office of$6lid Waste
‘4
cc: Bill Hamele
-------
eA )
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
* PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
2300 N STREET N W
1501 FARM CREDIT DRIVE WASHINGTON. a C 20037 201 LIBERTY STREET. SW
MCLEAN. VIRGINIA 22.02 (202)663 8000 LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075
(703) 790-7900 (703) 777 0004
FACSIMILE “C’ O 478.8989
FACSIMILE (202)663 600’
(703) 8212397 FACSIMILE
- (703)7779320
BRENDAJ BOYKIN
(202) 6639130 August 15, 1995
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director, Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Satellite Accumulation Rule; Request for Interpretation
Dear Ms. Lowrance:
I am writing to request an interpretation of the rule that applies to generators who
accumulate hazardous waste in satellite accumulation containers. 40 C.F.R. § 262.34(c)
states that “ [ a] generatdr may accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste.. . in
containers at or near any point of generation” provided that the generator complies with
certain requirements. The rule states that if the generator accumulates more than 55 gallons
of waste, he must “with respect to that amount of excess waste” move the waste to the
facility’s long-term (e.g., 90-day) storage area within three days.
My question is whether the generator can temporarily have more than 55 gallons of
hazardous waste at a single satellite location. This could occur, for example, if the generator
has filled one 55-gallon container with hazardous waste and intends to move that container to
the long-term storage area within three days. If the generator then starts filling a new
55-gallon container in the three-day period before he or she removes the old one, this would
mean that the total quantity of hazardous waste at the satellite accumulation location could
exceed 55 gallons temporarily (because it would include the filled 55-gallon container as well
as the amount that accumulates during the three-day period). I am uncertain whether the rule
would allow the generator to have more than 55 gallons at one time at a satellite location,
even under these circumstances, and I would appreciate your clarification.
ç s\Ju \a3
-------
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
August 15, 1995
Page 2
Please contact me if you require any additional information in order to respond to this
inquiry. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
‘iL i
Brenda J. Boykin
204190.01 IDOCSDCI
-------
17” /(P)b(’r7
• ‘EO S74,
£% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PROJ
9451.1996(05)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Z4s. Young Mi Kim RESPONSE
5080 Likini Street #913
Honolulu, Hawaii 96818
Dear Ms. Kim;
Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1996 to President Clinton
requesting information about the management of hazardous waste generated in
quantities less than_lOQjçilQgrama.__Specifically, you ask why hazardous waste
is thrown away with ordinary garbage and what happens to the waste when it is
thrown away.
Generators of less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month are
currently referred to as “conditionally exempt small quantity generators”
(CESQGS) and are exempt from many of the hazardous waste regulations found at
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Although they are exempt from
the majority of hazardous waste regulations, these generators are still
subject to some requirements. First, they must identify their wastes to
determine whether they are hazardous; second, they cannot accumulate more than
1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste at any time; and third, they must either
treat or dispose of the waste onsite, or ensure that it is sent to a permitted
hazardous waste management facility, a permitted municipal or industrial solid
waste fa ility, or a recycling facility. Therefore CESQGB are not exempted
outright,but are exempted on the condition that the waste is managed at an
approved facility. These provisions were intended to assure that human health
and the environment are protected.
Additionally, federal regulations allow states to adopt more stringent
regulations if they choose, and some states have chosen not to exempt CESQGB
from many of the hazardous waste generator requirements. These requirements
are imposed through state municipal or industrial waste permit, license, or
registration programs.
When designing the hazardous waste management program in the late
1970s, EPA chose 100 kilograms as the point at which significant regulation
would apply because it sought to exclude from the regulations persons whose
generation of hazardous waste does not pose a substantial threat to human
health or the environment. At that time more than 90 percent of the hazardous
waste was generated by large quantity generators. The Agency believes that in
order to be as effective as possible at implementing the hazardous waste
program with limited resources, it must focus on those generators who generate
hazardous waste in significant quantities, rather than attempt to cover every
generator of hazardous waste (there are more than 215,000 hazardous waste
generators who generate greater than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per year
and between 455,000 and 700,000 cESQGS in the U.S.). By excluding CESQG9 from
most hazardous waste regulations, EPA is able to focus on the overall
environmental objectives of the Agency.
Additionally, small amounts of hazardous wastes may be included in
household wastes which are currently not regulated under EPAs hazardous waste
requirements. Many state and local governments impose regulations governing
the disposal of household wastes and may organize collection centers for
household hazardous wastes. In addition EPA has issued standards for
municipal solid waste landfills. These requirements for municipal landfills
01 Based Inks on 100% CYded P3Pe (40% Pasmonsumer)
-------
which are implemented by the states, are structured so that the public is
protected from potential hazards associated with landfills that receive
hazardous waste. These landfills are subject to requirements that minimize
hazards including location restrictions (e.g., they cannot be located near
flood plains or faults), operating criteria (e.g., they must e covered every
day), and strict groundwater monitoring requirements. These measures help
ensure that the hazardous waste that ends up in landfills does not pose a
th 1 reat to human health and the environment.
For your information, we have included three EPA publications which may
be of help in clarifying EPA’s waste management program for generators of
small quantities of hazardous waste. They are Solving the Hazardous Waste
Problem: EPA’s RCRA program; Understanding the Small Quantity Generator
Hazardous Waste Rules: A Handbook for Small Business; Safer Disposal for Solid
Waste: The Federal Regulations for Landfills; Criteria for Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities: A Guide for Owners/Operators; and Household Hazardous
Waste Management: A Manual for One—Day Community Collection Programs. We hope
this information addressee your concerns.
Sincerelyyours,
Waste
Enclosures
-------
iO S7q,
t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
- p O 1 tc
9451.1996(06)
HAYJ 1996
OFF IC OF
SCUD WASTE AP D EMERCE .CY
RESPONSE
Peter I Wojdyla
Pima County Risk Management
32 N Stone, 3rd floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
Dear Mr. Wojdyla:
Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1995 requesting an interpretation of several
questions regarding generator requirements and how they may apply to various on-site and off-
site scenarios. While we are responding to your questions based on EPA’s implementation of
federal regulations, please be aware that the State of Arizona is authorized to implement its
RCRA program in lieu of the federal regulations and should be consulted regarding the
circumstances of a specific location. The state may have regulations that are more stringent than
federal regulations, and these state requirements govern operation at these sites.
Below is a sununary of the questions you asked followed by our interpretation. For your
convenience we have attached copies of documents which relate to the issues you raise.
Question one
4
Your first question requests clarification of the definition of on-site to determine whether
two structures in one complex owned by a single owner are considered separate generators under
RCRA. You state in your letter that an office building and a factoiy are located on a single
property and that the office building generates one kilogram of hazardous waste while the factory
generates one thousand kilograms of hazardous waste. You ask whether the complex can be
considered one generator or two. You also ask for clarification of the terms “insta1Ja io i” ,
“facility”, and “individual generation site” as they pertain to the definition of “on-site”
For the purposes of generator notification and obtaining EPA identification numbers, and
assuming that the two structures you describe are on-site as defined at 40 CFR §260.10, one
identification number is sufficient for the two structures. Also, the wastes generated on the
contiguous property would be subject toihr qu rements for large quantity generators of
Q) Recycled/Recyclable
Pttnted with Soy .CaflOIa Ink an paeer mat
contains at least 50% recyclectlber
-------
hazardous wastes. t A manifest however, would have to be completed if waste must be shipped
on roads or other right-of-ways to which the public has access
There is no regulatory definition for the term “by site” However, at 40 CFR §260 10,
EPA defines “on-site” as:
.the same or geographically contiguous property which may be divided by public or
private right-of-way, provided the entrance and exit between the properties is at a cross-
roads intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going along, the right of way
Non-contiguous properties owned by the same person but connected by a right-of-way
wJüch he controls and to which the public does not have access, is also considered on-site
property
EPA also defines the term “individual generation site” as “...the contiguous site at or on
which one or more hazardous wastes are generated: An individual generation site, such as a large
manufacturing plant, may have one or more sources of hazardous wastes but is considered a
single or individual generation site if the site or property is contiguous.” (40 CFR §260 10) The
property you describe would meet the definition of individual generation site if it is contiguous
and would be “on-site” for the purposes of manifesting if the two structures were either a) not
divided by a public right-of-way, or b) the public right-of-way can be crossed directly without
traveling along it.
If the two structures were owned by different people, then under federal regulations one
identification number would be needed for structure even if the regulated activity is taking
place on a contiguous piece of property. However, please check with your state for specific
guidance on the issuance of identification numbers for the scenarios you provide.
The definition of the terms “installation” and “facility” are not directly relevant to your
specific question. “Installation” is not defined in the RCRA regulations at 40 CFR §260 10 It is
only defined within the instructions to the Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Form, (EPA
form 8700-12). Since the form is used by all persons requiring an EPA identification number, the
term installation is meant to refer in general terms to all users of identification numbers
“Facility”, as defined in 40 CFR §260.10, refers to treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. The term refers, for per nitting. iip ses to the area where hazardous waste treatment,
However, if acute hazardous waste is generated in quantities less than one kilogram, then
this waste may be counted and managed separately from non-acute hazardous waste. (See 40
CFR 6’l 3 ) and (f)). For example, a generator of one kilogram or less of acute hazardous
vaste and 1000 kilograms of non-acute hazardous waste may manage the acute hazardous waste
according to the provisions for conditionally exempt generators while the non-acute hazardous
waste would be subject to requirements found at 40 CFR §262.34(d) for small quantity
generators.
2
-------
storage, and disposal activities occur and/or the waste management area that may be made up of
one or more waste management units and also defines the area subject to corrective action.
Therefore the definition of facility is not of direct relevance in the context of the description you
provide since your question does not concern waste management sites subject to permitting
requirements, but rather generation sites.
Question two
You state in your letter that Pima County has several different individual generation sites
that are divided by roads which are owned by the County. You ask whether consolidation of
several locations currently having different identification numbers would be of any significance.
Consolidation of two or more locations having different EPA identification numbers may
cause several changes in the notification and manifesting process. For example, a change in the
County’s regulatory classification as a small or large quantity generator could result from the
consolidation of several locations having different identification numbers.
Should the County (the generator) decide to consolidate several locations into one site the
following conditions must be met: 1. The County must control the roads and public access must
be restricted. If the generator does not control the road, a manifest must be completed for
shipments that must travel off-site, (e.g., along a road) to the other property belonging to the
generator. 2. At a location where the generator controls the right-of-ways that divide the
property and restricts access, a manifest is not required to ship wastes to the different individual
generation sites. However, although there is no specific prohibition in the regulations against a
generator maint uning multiple I.D. numbers for an individual generation site, the Agency expects
an individual generation site to have only one I.D. number. A state may approve of the use of
more than one I.D. number in special cases. 3. The proper state or Regional office must be
notified of the change.
Also, please be aware that the Agency has proposed to change the definition of “on-site”
to include properties that, although contiguous, are divided by a public right-of way. (See 60 FR
56468, November 8, 1995)
Question three
You ask whether shipments of h iardous wastes between two properties under the same
ownership located at opposite corners of an intersectiOil would be considered “on-site”.
The Agency has stated in a November 4, 1994, letter from Michael Shapiro to
Congressman Tim Johnson, “If the entry and exit between two parts of a campus [ at a university]
are directly across from each other, or across the junction of two crossroads, they are considered
geographically contiguous” and would meet the definition of “on-site”. Two properties under the
same ownership whose entrances are located cater-cornered to each other would meet the
3
-------
definition of “on-site”.
Question four
You ask whether waste from a conditionally exempt small quantity generator could be
shipped for centralized handling to a site generating large quantities of wastes without obtaining a
permit for storage or treatment of hazardous waste.
The Agency is in the process of reviewing whether waste from a conditionally exempt
small quantity generator loses its exemption if taken to an intermediate location not identified at
40 CFR §261 .5(g)(3) for purposes such as consolidation and storage prior to delivery to its final
destination. We therefore cannot provide an interpretation on this question until a determination
has been made.
Question five
You ask to whom must a large quantity generator send waste?
Large quantity generators and small quantity generators shipping waste off-site must
prepare a manifest and transport the waste to a facility designated on the manifest in accordance
with 40 CFR §262.20(b). EPA defines the term “designated facility” to mean
...a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility which (I) has received a
permit (or interim status) in accordance with the requirements of parts 270 and 124 of this
chapter, (2) has received a permit (or interim status) from a State authorized in
accordance with Part 271 of this chapter, or (3) is regulated under section 261.6(c)(2) or
Subpart F of part 266 of this chapter, and (4) that has been designated on the manifest by
the generator pursuant to section 260.20 [ sic (262.20)]. If a waste is destined to a facility
in an authorized State which has not yet obtained authorization to regulate that particular
waste as hazardous, then the designated facility must be a f cility allowed by the receiving
State to accept such waste.
This definition includes only limited exceptions for facilities other than permitted or
interim status TSDFs. Therefore, a large quantity generator or small quantity generator could
manifest and transport hazardous waste to facilities other than permitted TSDFs provided that the
facility is appropriately designated on the manifest and meets the definition of a “designated
facility” (Small quantity generators possessing a reclamation agreement pursuant to 40 CFR
§262 20(e) are exempted from certain manifesting requirements as you mentioned in your letter.)
Question six
You ask whether a permit must be obtained if the owner of several small generation sites
4
-------
would like to itilize a centralized handling operation for packaging, transport, etc., and whether
all requirements at Part 263 apply
If a generator generates waste in quantities over 100 kilograms and ships the waste to a
location other than one that is on-sitó as defined at 40 CFR §260.10, a manifest is required for
these shipments, and the regulations at Part 263 apply.
However, waste in transportation ( e.g., manifested off-sitel may be consolidated at
transfer facilities defined at 40 CFR 260.10 as “...any transportation related facility including
loading docks, parking areas, storage areas and other similar areas where shipments of hazardous
wastes are held during the normal course of transportation”.
Under certain specified conditions, the regulations allow transporters to store shipments of
hazardous waste at transfer facilities without obtaining a permit or interim status. The regulations
state that:
A transporter who stores manifested shipments of hazardous waste in containers meeting
the requirements àf section 262.30 at a transfer facility for a period often days or less is
not subject to regulation under parts 264, 265, 268 and 270 of this chapter with respect to
the storage of those wastes (40 CFR §262.12).
If the county designated an area as a transfer facility and met the conditions identified,
consolidation would be allowable at that location. In order for the transfer facility to be excluded
from permitting requirements, the waste must be stored during the normal course àf
transportation (e.g., treatment, storage, and disposal facilities designated on the manifest cannot
qualify as transfer facilities.) Waste at such transfer facilities may be consolidated into larger
units or shipments may be transferred to different vehicles for redirecting or rerouting. (See
December 31, 198045 86966)
Question seven
The following clarifies how a facility may respond to a location where hazardous wastes
have been dumped illegally.
Persons who generate hazardous waste as a result of a discharge may temporarily store
those wastes without a permit Wthey comply with the requirements for 90 day accumulation
described on 40 CFR 262.34.
The Agency defines the term “discharge” or hazardous waste discharge” to mean “the
accidental or intentional spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping of
hazardous waste into or on any land or water (40 CFR §260.10).
The regulations at 40 CFR §270. 1(c)(3) exempt only those management activities
5
-------
performed to provide an immediate response for discharges of hazardous waste from the
permitting requirements
(i) A person is not required to obtain a RCRA permit for treatment or containment
activities taken during immediate response to any of the following situations
(A) discharge of a hazardous waste;
(B) An imminent and substantial threat of a discharge of hazardous waste,
(C) A discharge of a material which, when discharged, becomes a hazardous waste.
(ii) Any person who continues or initiates hazardous waste treatment or containment
activities after the immediate response is over is subject to all applicable requirements of
this part for those activities.
Additional provisions exempting immediate response activities are found at 40 CFR
§264. 1(g)(8) and §265. l(c)(11). To qualii r for the exemption the treatment or containment
activity must be for the initial, immediate response to the discharge. Once the immediate threat
passes, all applicable RCRA standards apply including the accumulation provisions described at
40 CFR §262.34. EPA explains:
The exemption concerns only treatment and storage activities; it does not relieve anyone
of complying with any requirements for the disposal of hazardous waste. In addition, the
exemption applies only during immediate response; all hazardous waste management
activities thereafter are filly subject to RCRA regulations (January 19, 1983, 48 E 2508,
2509).
Additionally, after the initial response has ended, an emergency permit may be available
for other emergency activities.
We hope we have clarified the issues you raised. Again, we strongly encourage you to
check with the state of Arizona because as an authorized state, Arizona may have regulations or
interpretations that differ from, or are more stringent than the federal requirements,
Please direct any questions about the interpretations in this letter to Ann Codrington, of
the Generation and Recycling Branch at 202-260-8551.
Sincerely yours,
— - . - -I / .
L L L.-.-
Michael piro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
cc: Bill Hamele
Ethel DeMarr, Arizona DEQ
6
-------
c -• Ci
ceIved
74 e
PIMA COUNTY
RISK MANAGEMENT
32 N STONE 3RD FLOOR
TUCSON. AZ 85701
(602) 740•5295
September 18, 1995
Michael Shapiro q 5 ’
Director, Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street Southwest
Washington, District of Columbia 20460
Re: Request for Written Interpretations
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am the Environmental Loss Control Officer for Pima County Risk Management in Tucson,
Arizona. Some of my duties include providing assistance for our various departments in
understanding federal regulations. I am in the process of performing a form of “desk audit” in
order to assist our operating units to comply with “RCRA” requirements in a consistent manner. I
find that some of the definitions and guidance given are subject to interpretation; I need to clarif ’
some of these issues before I attempt to provide direction to some of our operations which get
involved with hazardous waste and therefore RCRA compliance In the past, I have approached
the Region for such interpretations, and when I asked for a written response, my questions were
forwarded to the “central office”. In two cases, the Region and the “central office” provided
contradictory responses; for this reason, I am setting forth my questions in writing and asking for
a written answer, clarification, interpretation, and/or response to each.
I shall set forth each question or situation for which I am seeking guidance.
1 In 40 CFR 260.10, “Generator means any person, by site, whose act or process
produces hazardous waste. .. .“. What does “by site” mean? EPA Form 8700-12
utilizes the term “Installation” for notification purposes. It has also been suggested
that “Facility”, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, can be used to define “Installation”
for generator notification purposes in as much as a generator can be expected to
store hazardous waste for a time, no matter how short. Reflecting on these
various generator location descriptors, I am unsure as to the extent of a generator
for regulatory purposes. For example, if a complex, single ownership, has two
separate structures, one of which is an office building and the other a factory, and
the factory generates one thousand kilograms (1,000 kg) of hazardous waste per
calendar month and the office wastes one kilogram (1 kg) of spent flammable toner
per month, are there two (2) generators, one of which is conditionally exempt, or
just one (1) (with the office waste subject to full large quantity generator
4c9
-------
Mr Shapiro -
September 18, 1995
Page 2
regulation)? The term “by site” would seem to suggest there are 2 generators,
whereas if the “facility” definition is used, 1 generator. The term “Installation”
would appear to be able to cover either interpretation What if they shared the
same structure? Also do the definitions of “On-site” or “Individual generation
site” have any application in answering/interpreting the proffered situation?
2. As a political subdivision, Pima County owns many road “rights-of-way” and
could, theoretically, conjoin its various locations. Is this of any significance under
“RCRA” regulations?
3. If two properties with the same ownership are located “kitty-corner” across an
intersection and access can be had at the opposing corners, would they be covered
by the term “On-site”? -
4. If there are two (2) “generators”, one of whicir is a large quantity generator (LQG)
and the other is a “conditionally exempt small quantity generator” (CESQG),
which are owned and operated by the same entity but separated geographically, it
would appear that the CESQG waste cannot be transported to the other generation
site for handling by the LQG (without it being a permitted TSDF) for the purpose
of combining it with its own wastes in order to see that it is appropriately
disposed. Is this correct? (As a public entity, the county attempts to keep its
hazardous wastes out of local landfills and see that it is appropriately disposed or
destroyed.)
5. It appears that an LQG must manifest and transport his hazardous waste(s) to
nothing other than a permitted TSDF, unless it is being handled “On-site”. Is this
correct? And, except for contractual reclamation of hazardous waste, it appears
that the same is also true of small quantity generators (SQG). Is this also correct?
6. Pima County is a large county and has many operations/facilities located
throughout it. In order to transport hazardous wastes to a centralized handling
operation for packaging, transport, etc., must that operation acquire a TSDF
permit before being utilized? Also, do all the manifesting and transportation
requirements apply to moving the wastes to such a location?
7. At present, when there is a “wildcat dump” of what appears to be a hazardous
material within our “right-of-way” or on County property, we try to appropriately
mitigate the situation; this usually entails the containerization of the contaminant
and affected material(s) and transport to one of our maintenance yards for holding
until an appropriate disposition can be made. If the material is a hazardous waste,
and we are knowledgeable of this fact, can this be done in other than an emergency
situation?
-------
Mr. Shapiro
September 18, 1995
Page 3
Please provide me with written responses to the above. If guideline or program memoranda exist
which can assist in addressing the above, I would be grateful if they could also be provided.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
please call me at (520) 740-4001.
xc: Bob Healey, Director
Chris Straub, Deputy County Attorney
Becky Pearson, Public Works
If you have any questions concerning this letter,
Very truly yours,
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
. O Sri,
— 4
£ , r : UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ • - WASHINGTON 1 D.C. 20460
‘ L o’ ’
9451.1996(07)
OFFICE OF.
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary E. Toro, Compliance Offlcer .. ju I 2 1996
Consumer Product Safety ‘ - . . - • -.
From: Gregory Helms
Office of Solid Waste
Re: Management and Disposal of Waste Vinyl Minirn jinds
- - We have received your questions about management and disposal of lead-bearing vinyl
mini blinds that are being discarded by homeowners or retailers inconneçtion with ‘o ir.
recommendations that they be replaced due to their potential to cause lead poisoning; The
attachment to this memo-restates and answerseach of your questions.
- The Re ource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA only applie wheii b1inds become
a waste . i.e. , they ire being discarded or disposed; any blinds being sent backlo a inahufacturer.
for sale in other markets (e.g., for export) ‘ ,ould not be regulatedunder RCRA. Ho e’ r,given
the health conáerns about the blinds c sc has identified, we hope you will encourage those with
stocks of blinds not to export these products. Key points in managing and disposing of waste
blinds are: 1) waste blinds from households or other residential buildings may be disposed of as
ordinary household trash (i.e., they are exempt from Feäeral 1 azardous waste egulation under
RCRA); 2) whoever discards blinds from sources other than households or re identia1 buildings
is responsible for determining whether they contain enough lead to be considered a hazardous
waste, althäugh such a determination can make use of information from other reliable sources; 3)
- management a id di posal requirements for hazardous waste blinds vary depending on the
volume of waste being disposed; 4) there is a federal minimum set of management requirements,
but states may have additional requirements, and should be consulted in planning management
and disposal of waste blinds.
PnnIcd wuSi Vegetable Cit Based Inks on 100% Hccyaed Paper (40% I 1 oslconsumer)
- -—— I
-------
QUESTIONS ON LEAD-BEARING MINIBL NDS
1; What is the appropriate disposal method that consumers should be uiing for their
leadbe ring vinyl miniblinds? -
EPA’sregulations state that wastes from households (i.e, garbage and trash) are not
regulated as Ii , irdous waste under The Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct (see 40 CFR
261.4(b)(I)). Therefore, consumers may dispose of their miniblinds in the same mannei that•
they discard ordinary household trash. They may put the blinds out with the garbage, or they
may contact a commercial trash hauler.
2. If consumçrs have numerous ininiblindsin their homeito dispose of, e.g., if a’
household h d 15 miniblinds for disposal, would this be treated differ ntly than a.
household that had only one or two mihiblinds?
No. EPA ’s regulations provide that wastes from households are not regulate4 as
h rdouS, and there are no limitations on the quantity of the 5 wastes.
3.. What Li theappropriate disposal i ethod for partinent complexes, hotels, ilitary
bases and hospital facilities that house many people and may have ver 1,000 lead-bearing
miniblinds to dispose of?
EPA’s regulations provide that wastes from single and multiple residences, hotels,
motels, bunkhouses, crew quarters, and ranger stations are considered household waites and are
not regulated is hazardous under RCRA (see 40 CFR261.4(b)). These f cil ès may therefore
dispose of the blinds in the same manner that they discard other trash or garbage
Howevei, hospitals and other non-residential buildings are not cOnsidered generators of
household wastes. They. are subject to the same disposal requirements that apply .to retailers,
which are described in the answer to question #4 below. Therefore, waste blinds generated from
militarybase housing units would be exempt,while waste blinds generated from offices, day care
centers, and other buildings would not be exempted as household waste.
4) How should retailers dispose of the miniblinds they have in inventory if they decide
to dispose of them and not return them to the place of manufacture?. Retailers may have
tens of thousands of blinds in inventory. -
Once a retailer decides to dispose of the miniblinds, he must 1) determine whether they
are a h 7ardous waste (see 40 CFR 262.10 and #6 below), and if they are hazardous, 2)
determine his size status as a generator, because requirements vary depending on the quantity of
a hazardous waste generated. He should then contact his state hazardous waste agency for more
information on management and compliance in his state because states may have their own
regulations governing hazardous waste.
-------
The retailer can determine his geneiator status by calculating how much hazardous waste
he or she generates in a calendar month (40 CFR 262.10 (b) and 261.5 (b) and (c)). If the retailer
generates less than 100 kg of hazardous waste .(mini-bl bids plus any other hazardous waste•
generated on site) then the retailer would be classified as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generator (CESQG). A retailer who generates between a 100 kg and 1000 kg of hazarddus -
waste in a calendar month would be classified as a Small Quantity Generator (SQG); and a
retailer who generates morethan 1000 kg of hazardous waste in a single calendar month is
classified as a Large Quantity Generator (LQG)
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators have niiiimal requirements for
handling b iirdous waste (40 CFR 261.5), and may dispose of waste blinds in non-hazardous
waste facilities, although disposal must be instate approved facilities.. Some states hav e
additional requirements for CESQGs beyond the 1 edera1 minimum, so r tailers should always
contact their state 1 azardous waste agency for.coinplete information on applicable requirements.
Both SQGs and LQGs are required to handle hazardous waste under EPA’s hazardous
waste regulations (40 CFR 262 .. 270), and ultimately ensure their disposal in regulated
hazardous waste dispâsal facilities. The reqi irements for SQGs are similar but less stringent
• than those for LQGs; BothSQGs and LQGs may be required tO:
• obtain an EPA identification number (40 CFR 262.12) • .
• prepare the h rdous waste for shipmeht (package, label, mark, placard) (40 CFR 262.30
• .-262.33). :: :: .• •.-.• .. •. • . . .:... - •
• manifest the’waste for shipment to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, or
reôycling facility (40 CFR 262.20 262.23,262.42) - - -: • - •: :. -
• - manage the hazardous waste on site in an environmentally s und thanner (40 CFR
26234) -
• do record keeping and/or reporting (40 CFR 262.40 - 262-41) . . -.
• • ensure the waste meets treatment standards before land disposal (40 CFR 268) •:: -
comply with export and import requirements when necessary (40 CFR Subparts E and F).
Again, some state requirements may vazy from. the minimum fed ral requirements, so
contacting the state regulatory agency is important. . :,, • . •
5. - - Should retailers treat consumer returned merchandise differently than inventoried
products? .‘
As state regulations vary, generators of hazardous waste should always check with their
state hazardous waste authority for more information on management and compliance.
Assuming the blinds are a hazardous waste, generally, retailers may dispose of
ininiblinds returned from consumers and those from inventoried stock either separately or
together. A retailer who chooses to handle them separately may take advantage of the household
waste exclusion for the blinds returned from households (see questions 1, 2, and 3). Howeser,
the inventoried stock must be managed as described in the response to question 4. Because only
-------
ininiblinds generated in a household (as defined in 40 CFR 2661.4 (b)(1)) are eligible for the
household waste exclusion, the retailer must be certain that miniblinds returned from other
regulated sources such as businesses and commercial facilities are not mixed with thàse from
households. The miniblinds returned from sources other than households should be handled
along with the inventoried stock as a regulated b ’ rdous waste. ‘ -
If a retailer does not wish to segregate different groups of blinds, or if he wishes to adopt
the most environmentally consãvative approach, he may handle both gmups togetheras
described in the response to question 4.
6. Does EPA require testing to determine that waste is hazardous?
Once the retailer (or manufacturer) decides to dipose of.thè mm blinds, he is requiied to
determine whether they are a ha’ardous waste. This means the retailer must either teit a•
representative sample of he miniblinds to see if they are consideied a hazardous waste (see #7
below), or the retailer or manufacturer may also rely on knowledge of the composition ünd ’
jroperties oftheblinds in making this determination (40 CFR 261.10 (a)(2)). If the re tailer
does not want to test thá miniblinds, the most conservative approach is to handle all of the
miniblinds as if they were hazardous waste. Although testing is not required, if sUbsequent
testing by EPA or others demonstrates that the waste was h rdous,an incorrect determination
made based on knowledge would leave a waste generator (the retailer or manufacturer)
vulnerable to enforcement action. - . -. ‘ - - -
• • • • • • • • • •._.:- •
• - S • •• • • - •
7. What test method does the EPA recommend to retailers to determine whether their
inventory is hazardous? Are there certified laboratories that can conduct thesetests?.-
• The toxicity characteristic lea hing pr cedure (TCLP; Method13l1)test’vojldl üs d
to determine whether lead-bearing viny! mini-blinds are a hRwdo us waste when disposed. EPA
- does not certi1 y laboratories that perform the TCLP test. However, many reputable commercial.
laboratories are capable of performing the test. Testing labs can be identified by contacting the.
International Association of Testing’ Labs, at 703-739-2188, or ACIL, at 202-887-5872.
• 8. Where can retailers get a copy of the test method?
Retailers will generally want to rely on a testing lab to understand the test method details.
Copies of the TCLP test method are available as a part of the EPA analytic methods manual,
SW-846 (through NTIS, 703-487-4650), or from the analytical methods information
• communication exchange (MICE) hotline, at 703-821-4690.
9. What level of lead is hazardous for purposes of disposal?
The TCLP test uses a sample of the waste and a leaching solution (in a ratio of 1:20).
- After mxing the waste with the leaching solution,thè leaching solution is tested for hazardous
-------
constituent concentration. If lead in the leaching solution is present at a concentration higher
than 5 mg/i (or ppm), the waste would be considered to be ha rdous, and would be required to
be managed and disposed asa hazardous waste.
10. Is there a contact person at EPA that can offerretailers guidance on disposal if their
inventory is determined to be hazardous?
For further assistance in understanding the applicable hazardous waste regulations, the
retailer should contact the h rdous waste agency in his or her state. Other assistance resources
include the EPA Resources Centers, the RCRA hotline (800/424-9346 or 703/412-9810), or the
EPA Regional office.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
SZ%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C: 20460
4 L p O’I
SEP 2 3 1996 9451.1996(08)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Philip Kircher
Director of Government Sales
RGF Environmental Systems, Inc.
3875 Fiscal Court.
West Palm Beach, FL 33404
Dear Mr. Kircher
Thank you for your letter of July 9, 1.996 concerning the applicability of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations to your
chemical flocculation unit, the Split-O-Mat, when used to treat wash water from C-I 30
aircraft engines. As you discussed with Charlotte Mooney, of my staff, at the federal
level we can explain how the federal regulations might apply to your unit, and what
criteria you (and/or the generator of a hazardous waste) should use to determine which
federal regulations would apply.
However, most state environmental agencies are authorized to implement the
RCRA hazardous waste program, and the states’ regulations, rather than the federal
regulations, apply in authorized states. State hazardous waste regulations must be at
least equivalent to the federal regulations, but may also be more stringent. Because
authorized states implement and enforce.their own hazardous waste programs,
authorized states generally make decisions about how the regulations apply to specific
facilities within the states. Therefore, you (and/or the generator of the hazardous
waste) should work with the appropriate state agency to determine how the hazardous
waste regulations of a particular state would apply to the specifics of any particular
installation of your equipment. Since many of the state hazardous waste regulations
are similar to the federal regulations, the following discussion of the federal regulations
should help you become familiar with some of the possible regulatory requirements.
on 100% Recyded Paper (40% Pos consumet)
-------
2
- Based on the information you provided, it appears there are several ways your
unit might be regulated under the federal hazardous waste regulations. In general,
treatment’ of hazardous waste is subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
Thus, assuming the cadmium contaminated wash water you describe exhibits the
hazardous waste characteristic of toxicity, treatment of that waste would generally
require a hazardous waste treatment permit. However, there are several exceptions.
that may apply to your unit.
First, it appears likely that your unit would meet the wastewater treatment unit
exemption of 40. CFR 264.1 (g)(6), which exempts treatment units from RCRA permitting
if they meet the definition of wastewater treatment unit. This definition is found in 40
CFR 260.10 and reads as follows:
“Wastewater treatment unit” means a device which:
(1) Is part of a wastewater treatment facility that is subject to regulation under
either section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act; and
(2) Receives and treats or stores an influent wastewater that is a hazardous
waste as defined in §261.3 of this chapter, or that generates and accumulates a
wastewater treatment sludge that is a hazardous waste as defined in §261.3 of
this chapter; or treats or stores a wastewater treafment sludge which is a
hazardous waste as defined in §261.3 of this Chapter; and
3) Meets the definition of tank or tank system in §260.10 of this chapter.
To determine whether your unit would meet this definition, at each location you
should determine whether the facility is subject to section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean
Water Act (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting and
pretreatment standards, respectively), and whether the unit meets the definition of tank.
“Tank” is defined in 40 CFR 260.10 as “a stationary device, designed tocontain an.
accumulation of hazardous waste which is constructed primarily of non-earthen
materials (e.g., wood, concrete, steel, plastic) which provide structural support.”
Whether or not your unit meets the definition of tank will depend on the specifics of
each situation, and where questions arise, is a determination that should be made by
the appropriate state.
‘ The term “Treatment means any method, technique, or process, including
neutralization, designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological character or
composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste, or so as to recover
energy or material resources from the waste, or so as to render such waste non-
hazardous, or less hazardous; safer to transport, store, or dispose of or amenable for
recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. (40 CFR 260.10)
-------
3
Second, your unit may also be considered a generator accumulation unit and
therefore subject to 40 CFR 262.34. This provision exempts generator accumulation
tanks and containers from RCRA permitting as long as they are managed in
compliance with certain requirements. Thus, this provision could apply if it were
determined that the wastewater treatment unit exclusion did not cover some of your
units because they were considered to be containers, 2 rather than tanks. The 40 CFR
262.34 requirements include general standards for generators, accumulétion time limits,
and specific design and management requirements for each type of accumulation unit
(e.g., tank or container). Since the military sites you are working with are generators of
hazardous waste, it is likely that they are already in compliance with the general
standards for generators. If that is the case, they would only need to revise their
procedures for compliance with the general standafds as necessary to address .the new
treatment activity, .to meet the accumulation time limits, and to comply with the specific
design and management requirements for the unit itself (e.g., compliance with Subpart I
of Part 265 for containers).
The discussion above assumes that facilities using your unit are already
regulated large quantity generators of hazardous waste (greater than 1000 kilograms
of hazardous waste per’month). It is also possible, however, that such a facility might
be a “small quantity generator” or a “conditionally exempt small quantity generator,” in
which case less stringent requirements would apply.. I .have enclosed copies of two
documents that summarize the federal hazardous waste regulations for each of these
generator categories. -
You should also be aware that if the treatment sludge generated in your unit
exhibits characteristics of hazardous waste, including the toxicity characteristic for
cadmium, the waste must be managed as a hazardouswaste. Finally, there may be
requirements under the land disposal restrictions program (40 CFR Part 268) that would
apply to the treatment sludge or to the original wash water. Additional information
about the hazardous waste regulations can be found in the enclosed documents, and
by calling our RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346. The Hotline can explain the federal
regulations in detail, and can also provide contatts at the various state agencies to find
out about state regulations.
I hope this information concerning the federal regulations is useful. You (and/or
the generator of the hazardous waste) should check with the appropriate state agencies
2 The term “container” means any portable device in which a material is stored,
transported, treated, disposed of, or otherwise harTdled. (40 CFR 260.10)
-------
4
to determine the specific requiremehts that may be applicable in those states. If you
have further questions, please contact Charlotte Mooney, at (703) 308-7025.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Hazardous Waste Identification Division
Enclosures
-------
9452 - THE MANIFEST
Part 262 Subpart B
ATK1/1 104!23 kp
-------
9452. 1984(02)
October 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Violation of EPA Hazardous Waste Manifest Regulations
by Federal Facilities
FROM: Bruce R. Weddle
Director
Permits and State Programs Division (WH-563)
TO: Stormy Friday
Director
Facilities and Support Services Division (PM-215)
The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulation became
effective on September 20, 1984. This regulation mandated a
hierarchy for all generators of hazardous waste to follow in
acquiring manifest forms and shipping hazardous waste of f site.
A number of States and Regional offices have told us that
some Federal facilities including EPA facilities, are not using
the correct form for manifesting hazardous wastes to treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. In order to correct the
problem and bring all Federal facilities into compliance, we
would like you to notify all EPA facilities that might be
generating hazardous waste of the form acquisition hierarchy.
The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulation
(March 20, 1984 ) states that the generator must use the
manifest form of the consignment State if that State prints and
distributes the form. If that State does not print the form,
then the generator must use the manifest form of the generator’s
State if the State prints and distributes the form. If neither
State prints and distributes the form, then the generator should
obtain the form from any source such as a printer.
Attached is a list of contacts, including phone numbers, of
State printing and distributing the form. Any EPA facility
(e.g., our laboratories) that is manifesting hazardous waste to
any of these States, should call State for forms or that
assistance. There may be a charge for manifests in some States.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
If you need additional information or clarification, please
call the EPA Hotline. The Hotline number is 382-3000 for the
Washington area and 800-424—9346 outside the Washington area.
Attachment
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9 453.1984s 02)
RCRA/SUpEpF J HOTLINE SUMMARy
MAY 84
3. F006 (wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations) is
snipped to a coi pany that puts the waste rignt Into a smelter to dewater
it. me dewatered waste Is held until a load is accumulated and then snipped
to a metals reclaimer. The fines produced from smelting are held and later sent
off—site for disposal.
A) Does the smelting conçany need a permit for storage?
B) Is the dewatered waste still F006?
C) Must the smelting con any be a storage facility to hold the dewatered
sludge after smelting?
0) Are the fines from smelting subject to storage standards since they were
derived from F006 which Is s ject to storage standards when stored off-site
from the generator?
A) Since the smelting conpany puts the waste right into the smelter for
recycling, no storage permit Is needed to accept the F006.
9) No; the material after reclamation Is no longer considered a
solid waste.
C) Since tne dewatered slu4e Is no longer a waste, a storage permit Is
not needed.
0) No; tie production of the fines Is viewed as the generation of F0U6 er
261 .3(c)(2) and the fines can be accui ulated for less than 90 days per
262.34 without needing a storage permit.
Source: Matt Straus
Research: Denise Wright
-------
9452.1984(03)
RCRA 1 SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 84
2. S e of the Statcs that have received auth jaatj fr th. fr
___ A rcçz-a ,e r. lats a laz universe of w t e than Gca.s A. Wets
on t Urif H.zaróojs Wasts Mar jt. (UPfr.i) d s a ei at r.c d a vsata
rec)alated a 1y by the &tate? -
The W*’Jt was aasi ed to aflow the liaUrç of h f. aUy- lst. vestag
.14 v t r .a1ated solely by a Stats. The of
( .?T) .azar Paterlala 1 . alatS.ae (49 G’R 172.20L (aUl)) rs *ir• g.n
to diattrq4ah t— a fe ra1ly- ç at. i set.rL.la (u waste)
ar2 S tat -r. .a]ated óast.s. T T r.culatiors also I ?ecify several qetais
t distii utshjnC a federally reçulated atsr1al (cr sit.). Qe qelan
aU d by r is t e a itiai of a Kazardajs a at.rta1s Co1uIw1 to the t I4’
v jdi tie çer at vajid die sart f th s lite entries wbid are
rm Ju1atad by federal law as Piazardci&e wastes a hazazdczis saterial...
1 e use of the f Stats r ir ents Is dliø ssed in eatar detaIl in
tlie e - lc to the Ui 1L a Hizar a.ia haste anixest rul. gsabliati.d In tr
I’Iarth 20, l9 4 Pederal cister (4 fl 10492 -10496).
Saz , Carolyn harley (202) 3U-523 C 1 15 .O d J
Peseardu 1Lwy 6
-------
9452.1985(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUNMARY
JUNE 85
.ll Quantity Generators
4. InternatiOMl Fabricare Is a trade association that represents dry cleaning and
laundry establiS?!f tS. This industry will be affected by the new nall tantity
Generator (SQG) program pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste knen 1eitS (H9’ )
of 1984 (P.L.. 98616). Starting August 5, 1985, SOGs generating betwaen 100 g. and
1000 kg. per a nth must acocmparty hazardous waste shipitents with a 1 iform Hazardous
Waste Manifest. _ of the it on the manifest that nwst be np1eted is item 12,
Containers. Contathers specifies the n anber and type of containers. Q desig-
natirç the container type, the SOC ccrpleting the manifest must select one of 12
types. y cleaners saietlmes package and ship hazardous wastes in plastic bottles,
similar to Clorox bottles. How should item 12 be p1eted?
Q ce a hazardous waste is packaged per Wf/EPA regulat tone, the container
must be categorized according to item 12 on the manifest. A plastic
bottle uld be categorized as DF. DF maans fiberboard or plastic
drtma. barrels, or kegs. In obtaining arid cct p1eting the manifest, the
SOC should first contact the State regulatory agency responsible for
hazardous waste managetent as provided in 40 CFR 262.21. 1he Stats
agency will provide information regarding where to obtain the manifest
and how to caiçlete the portions required by the State, if any.
More i ortantly the SOC must package and label the t’ ’-ardous waste according to
DOT regulatrnns specified in 49 CFR Parts 172, 173, 178, aid 179. All RCRA hazar-
dous wastes which are sub )ect to 40 CFR Part 262 manifest r guirenents are also
hazardous materials subject to DOT shipping reguireients (40 GR S263. 10). Li
iip1yirtg with L requirements, technical assistance is available trait t by
calling the Office of Hazardous Materials gulations, Materials Transportat ion
Bureau at (202) 426—2075.
Source: Curt Oiercast (202) 382—4761 (flf5. D fS)
Carolyn Barley (202) 382—2217
-------
9452.1985(02)
OCT I7
Mg. Prank L. Deaveg
Corp. Enviror enta1 Services Manager
Tektronix, Inc.
T•ktrontz Industrial Park
P.O. Sox 500
Ssavsrton, Or.gon 97077
Dear Mr. Dsav.rs
Thank you for your l.tt.r of S.pt.mb.r 16, lflS, eoncsrT ing
the Waste Minimisation Statement on the Uniform Hasardoug Waste
Manifest (USWM) form.
In your lett.r, you indicated that T•ktreniz employees ag.
reluctant to sign th• statement unl•ss the signatur, block is
modified to indicati that th• Tektronix eapl.ye. signing the
statsment is signing as an agent of Tektronix. Yes Mv. included
a sugg.sted modification to the form and have requested SPA’s
concurrence on that modification.
EPA views the changes which you suggested as two s.parate
‘ odificationa. The first modification which Tektronix has proposed
is to preprint in the signature block at.. of ItS. 6 the words
TEKT NIZ, INC. to indicate the generator and to add th. word BV
to tndicat• that the employee signing th. fort is signing as an
agent of Tektronix, Inc. SPA concurs with thi. modification since
it Is consistent with the modification. SPA allows generators to
mak. to the form (i.e page 10499 of the enclosed March 20, 19S4,
r.dsral ! i±!.!r).
The second modification which Tektronix, Inc. is proposing to
mak. to th usim form is to add a block below Item 16 for an
employee to print or typ. his or her nan. . Thi. modification is
not p.rmiseable since the inclusion of an additional space alters
the fern. The only changes to the for . which may bs mad. are
td.ntifi•d in the March 20, 19S4, r.d.ral ister (page 10499).
However, I wssld like to sugg•st t7’lITow nq modification which
makes use of the existing spac. on the form. I beIie.• this accas
pli.h.s the a.. goal as your proposed modification without altering
the design of the forms
Printed/Typ.d Mae Signatures TUT M11, INC ft
IPC. .( p1eye.’s Name) ITs (esploy..’s signature I ‘‘•
-------
Other altorsati,., which Tsktronjz aay nt to consider vouL
to to phras. on tohaif of TUT Z INC. to the signature
bloch of It il (a.. tho attach.d July 11, l S5, l•ttsg to the
losing C aey) or to includ, additional inforastina about tto
signature in Iton 15, Sp.cj.1 landing Instruction, and Additional
Infez tjon.
I under Stand that Carolyn harley of ny staff spoke with
Jia Gren of Tiktronjz to discus, your propos•d wadification and to
rec .nd ths abs.. alternate aodificatjon. Mr. Grncn indic.t.d in
that con egsa jo that EPA’s recc sn d odifjcatjon nay resolve
Tektronix’s concerns, Novsv.r, Mr. Gr.•n u i. already ord.r.4 5,000
copies of th. torn with the ?sktrenjz a.difL atio included on it
and th. order cannot be r.scine.d. Mr. Orson requested SPA’s con-
curr.nc. on using thos• copt.. if th. additional spco was .oid.d.
H. basi ,.d that futur, printing, would not includ, this addjttsnai
space. locavs. Oregon is am authorja.4 Stat., its rvl s apply in
liou of EPA’ ., Thirster., you ..t discuss tto us. of existing f eras
with the Oregon partnsn of lnvirog . lity (D ). I swq st
that you contact Mr. Mike wns, iaistgator of D ’s lanardoes
and Solid Vast. Divist (SO3—22 .535 )
I trust that this istt.r adequately addgss... your concerns
on this subject. If you ha,. oths qv.stjo s concerning tto ui ,
I suggose that you call Carolyn larley (202.13 82..3217) ,
Sincerely Tours,
(4/
Marcia Villiii s
Director
Office of Solid Wast.
Inclosug’. ,
cc, Mike vns, Oregon D
Char].. Pindl.y, EPA legion X
WH—563(cB$cc$iO...3. 55,3$2_ 221 ? ,cC,, disk$,4oe 38
Controlled Corr.spond. . OSV—1S3
-------
,øIP4%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGI 9452.1986(01)
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
APR 2 8
o ,cE OP
sOLID WASYS AND SMI OINCY tSPONS
Mr. Jeffrey I.. Dauphin
Waste Systems Institute of Michigan, Inc.
470 Market, S.W.
Suite 100—A
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Dear Mr. Dauphin:
This letter responds to your request, dated April 1, 1986,
for clarification of the waste minimization certification
requirement for small quantity generators of hazardous waste.
The waste minimization certification requirement was created
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), signed
by the President on November 8, 1984. Section 3002(b) of HSW
requires that generators of hazardous waste regulated under Section
3002(a)(5) certify, on the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, that
they have in place a program to reduce the quantity and toxicity
of the hazardous waste they generate, to a degree determined by
the generator to be economically practicable and that the proposed
method of treatment, storage, and disposal is that practicable
method currently available which minimizes present and future
threats to human health and the environment. This statutory
provision does not apoly to qenerators of less than 1000 kg per
month.
The HSWA also required EPA to establish standards for
generators of 100—1000 kg per month. These standards were
promulgated on March 24, 1986. On the same day, EPA proposed
that the waste minimization certification requirement also
apply to 100—1000 kg/mo generators. If the Agency finalizes
this proposed requirement, the waste minimization certification
statement in item 16 of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest
will apply to 100—1000 kg/mo generators just as it applies to
generators of greater than 1000 kg/mo. I have enclosed copies
of both Federal Register notices, for your information.
The certification contained in item 16 of the manifest form
consists of two parts, the waste minimization certification and
the general certification of accuracy. Only one signature is
required.
The waste minimization certification requirements of HSWA
do not authorize EPA to interfere with or to intrude into the
production process by requiring standards for waste minimization;
-------
2
rather, it. specifically provides that the substantive determinations
of economically practicable and practicable methods currently
available are to be made by the generator in light of his own
particular circumstances. Thus, from an eriforcement,perspective,
the Agency will be concerned primarily with compliance with the
certification Signatory requirement. Each generator subject to
the waste minimization requirement should make a good faith effort
to minimize the amount and toxicity of waste generated and to
select a means of treatment, storage, or disposal most likely to
minimize the present and future threat to human health and the
environment (50 FR 28734). The legislative history of HSWA
makes clear that ujudgements made by the generator (for the
purpose of the waste minimization certification] are not subject
to external regulatory action (S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 1st
Sess. 67 (1983)).
The HSWA, however, require the EPA to submit a report to
Congress, by October 1, 1986, on the feasibility and desirability
of: (1) establishing standards of performance or of taking
additional action under the Act (RCRA) to require the generators
of hazardous waste to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity
of the hazardous waste they generate; and (2) establishing with
respect to hazardous wastes required management practices or other
requirements to assure such wastes are managed in ways that minimize
present and future threats to human health and the environment.
In addition, the report shall include any recoimsendations for
legislative changes which EPA determines are desirable and feasible
to implement the national policy of minimizing the generation and
the land disposal of hazardous waste by encouraging process
substitution, materials recovery, properly—conducted recycling
and reuse, and treatment.
The Agency supports all environmentally Sound strategies
for reducing the amount of hazardous waste which must be disposed
of, including waste exchanges. The Agency’s position on waste
exchanges, therefore, remains consistent with that expressed in
John Skinners’ March 1, 1985 letter to you.
I hope that this answers your questions about the waste
minimization certification requirement. Thank you for your
interest in the hazardous waste program.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
-------
9452.1986(02)
ocr 2O
.ar State 8azardous Wast. Dir.ctorg
On March 24. 1956. th. U.S. Eavironmantal Protection Agency
(CPA) promulgated final regulatj s fox small quantity qSn•rators
of between 100 and 1000 ki logxama of hazsrdou waste in a calen j.r
month (Si Federal Peqist.z 10146). Effective S*pte , 22. 1986.
this rule requires the.. generators to use the multi-part round-
trip Hazardous Waste Manifest (form 8700.22 and 22k) for all
oil—sit. shipment. of hazardous waste.
In a Pederal j ter notice accompanying th. March 24, 1986
fin 1 rule, the Agency explained that sinc. it had not •pecificau,y
addressed the issue of waste minimization in the proposed rule for
small quantity generators, it was requestjng public cosme on
whether these generators should bo required to certify to waste
a.thimj aticn on the Uniform Uazardaus a.t. Manifest. As explained
in the March 24. 1986 final rule, the rsquirem , that generators
of 100—1000 kg/no certify to vast. ai -i jgatjon on the manifest
u1d eutomsticaLlj go into effect en Sspteab.z 22, 1986, the date
these generators beca.. •ub3•ct to the Section 3002 generator
standards, unless the Agency acted to exempt them.
On September 22, 1906, the Administrator of EPA signed a final
rule ezplaa.njng its decisiom not to exempt small quantity gensrators
from the waste minimization rsqvir.m. (se. enclosed rule). In
response to C ent , th. Agency ha. instead aodjfj.d the waste
minimization statement on the manifest a. it applies to small
quantity 9enaratora to requir, only a good faith effort to mlnimige
baste generation and selection of what they believe to be the best
available and affordable treatment, storage, and disposal alternative.
In addition to modifying the manifest form to include the new
waste minimization langueg. for small quantity generators, EPA
has also modified th. form to include a technical correction to
the waste minimization statemant appljcakge to generators of
1000 kg/mo and a new OMS expiratjo dat . and form nuber. The
revised form La effective ismediately.
-------
Enclosed are camera—ready copies of the revised manifest form.
Caznera—ready copies are also being sent to the manifest coordinators
in those States which currently print and supply the manifest (see
enclosed list). Although your State may not print and supply the
form, we anticipate that many generators in your State, including
small quantity generators and private printing firma, will request
copies of the revis.d form.
If you have any questions about th. new manifest form or about
the waste minimization requirement, please contact Bob Azeirad on
(202) 382—4769 or Carolyn Barley on (202) 382—2217.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
irector
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
cci State arid Mgional Manifest Coordinators
bcc: George Garland, State Programs
-------
9452. 1986(03)
—
Mr. Robert ?izter
Assistant Environmental Manag.r
Ssw Waste Inc.
115 Jacobus Avenue
South Kearney, N•v Jersey 07032
D.ar Mr. Pixter.
Thank you for your letter of January 15, 1986, requesting
clarification of the term waste minimization as it appears in
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HWSA) of 1984. In
particular, your letter requests guidance as to whether the
following practice would be considered a waste minimization
program.
A commercial treatment, storage, and disposal
(TSD) facility accepts waste solvents and oils
from off—site, the TSD blends these wastes on—
site to meet certain specifications for use as
a fuel extender by off—site Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted industrial
furnaces. The wastes are subsequently recycled,
as fuel extenders and reused in an economically
beneficial manufacturing program.
The MS establishes a national policy for minimization of
hazardous waste, and requires that waste minimization considera-
tions be addressed in RCRA transport manifests, biennial reports,
and on—site TSD permits. The Agency has not developed guidance
on what constitutes a waste minimization program or a waste mini-
mization activity and, at this time, has no plans to do so. It
Is hoped that activities such as source reduction and recycling
will be explored by individual generators to reduce the volume or
quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste generated.
The reports that accompanied the HSWA spelled out Congress’
intent with regard to the waste minimization requirements in
HSW&. As the report states, both waste minimization requirements
for the transport manifest and biennial report refer to a certi-
fication by the generator that a program is in place to reduce
-------
2
the volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste to the
degree d t.rained by the generator to be economically practi ab1e,
and that the proposed method of treatment, storage or disposal
is that practicable method currently available to the generator
which minimizes present and future threats to human health and
the environment. While the requirement to make the waste minimi-
zation certification is mandatory, the nature of the criteria for
such certification and the determination of compliance with those
criteria an, to be made solely by the generator.
This makes it clear that Congress’ objectiv, for waste
minimization program certification is to •ncourage generators
to seek voluntarily ways or programs to reduce the quantity and
toxicity of generated waste. The reports further state that
rscycling pollutants, contained in effluents, emission., wastes,
or other pollution streams is on., but by no means the only, way
of implementing this national policy of waste minimization, A
fundamental premise of RCRA is and continues to be to encourage
the reuse of materials.
As the legislative history suggests and as the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has stated, generators that recycle wastes
on—site or send their waste off—sit, to be recycled an. engaging
in an activity which may b. considered waste minimization.
The Agency appreciates your concern with th. waste
minimization program definition. If you should have any further
qu.stione, please contact James R. Benlow, Manager of th. Treat-
ment, Recycling, and Reduction Program at (202) 382—7917.
Sincerely,
. ....
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
-------
9453.1986(05)
RCRA/SUp HOTLINE M0NTH y SUO(A
AUGUST 86
4. Releases £ un 90-Day Acc mi.ilation Tanks
Are releases of hazardous ste fran 90-day accunulation tanks (40 CFR
262.34) regulated z er RCRA?
Sudt releases are not generally covered by the RC A regulatjcr .
The generator is not subject to corrective action ur er Section
30 04(u) of R A iless the generator is engaged in other activities
r.hi uld require that he obtain a permit. Section 30 04(u) only
applies to permitted facilities. Section 300 8(h) a ninistratjve
orders only apply to facilities with interim status. Therefore,
the existing R A corrective action aut critjes do not apply to
releases fran 90-day acctriiletjon tanks unless other units at
the facility require interim status or a permit.
A leaking 90-day tank idt is not cleaned up could be ounsidered
en duiping under ard could be ered by Section 7003, the
imninent hazard provision of
EPA published an dvanoe !btice of Prop,eed Thileiaking ( NPR4) in
the July 14, 1986 Federal ReVister (51 FR 25487) requesting c iments
on the p ssibility Fj ufr permits for 90-day storage tanks.
Source: Dave Fa n (202) 382-4740
Reseaxdi: Betty Wilson
-------
r1a1 ENVIRQp MfpjT , PR0TECTI0p4A cy
9452.1987(01)
FEB 2 i 97
‘r. Phillip J. Sparta
Assistant Managing Director
nvironmental ¶echnole y Southeast
l l9 Albert Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Dear f”r. Spartat
This is in response to your letter of January 21. 1987
rec ardirta the particination of a wast.wat.r treatment unit in the
manif.st system.
Althouah you were previously thformsd that a generator of
agardou, waste may desiqnate a wast.water treatment unit on the
manif..t as a facility allowed to accept this waste, we now
believe the previous interpretation is incorrect. In particular,
under 40 C?R 264.1(g)(6) and 270.l(c)(2), the substantive
requirements of Part 264 and the permit requirements of Part 270
do not appis’ to owners or o erators of wastewater treatment units.
Th. interim status requirements of Part 265 also do not apply to
such units. (See 40 CFR 426S.1(c)(jO).)
!PA’s manifest system regulations (40 CPR 14262.20(b) and
263.21) require that a generator lend hazardous waste only to a
desicnated facility. As provid.d in 4260.10, a designated
facility must hay, an ! PA permit, interim status, or a p.rm.tt
from an authoriaed Stats, or must be a facility regulated under
th special provisions of 4261.6(c)(2). Because wast.water
treatnent facilities, other than publicly owned treatment works
(Pc TWs) that are permitted-.by rul. under 4270.60. nest none of
these conditions, they cannot be listed as a designated facility,
and therefore, they cannot receive haaardous waste from off-site.
I apoloai e for any nrohlems our i revious interpretation may
eve caused you. Please contact Michael Petruska or Carolyn Barley
of rvv staff at (2C 2) 475 — 51 if you have additional questions
on this “atter.
ç ie irector
t f’ice ,f
illi .’
lii Y tp
-------
9452.1987(02)
3O
Gregory Zak
Illinois !nvfron.ental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill toad
Springfield, TL 62706
Dear Mr. Zak:
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1987, in which you
request concurrence from !PA on Illinois’ decision not to allow
use of the continuation sheet (form 8700—22k) to the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest.
The instructions to the manifest (Appondiz to 40 Cfl Part 2$2)
state that th. continuation sheet must be used If sore than two
transporters are used in transporting the vests or if no space is
required for the DOT description and related information. However,
from my conversations with various States, I am aware that the the
use of sore than two transporters is rare. Further, since imple-
mentation of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest form in
September 1984, the DO? has simplified procedures for shipping
lab packs (SO FR 11700, March 25, 1985, enclosed) which in some
instances eliminates the need to list each sample on the manifest.
As a result, a continuation sheet is often unnecesary.
!PA view. Illinois’ decision not to allow the use of the
continuation sheet but rather to require an additional manifest
for any shipment which consists of more than two transporters or
more than four DOT proper shippinq names as being consistent with
the Federal program. Please call me on 202—382—2217 if you have
further questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Barley
!Ttc losure
-------
9452.1990(01)
11 RCRA/SUPERFIJND/OUST HOTLINE
L FEBRUARY
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
1990
1. Manifesting Requirements and EPA Identificaton Numbers
Two facilities, one a nuclear power plant and the other a conventional
coal burning power plant, are owned by the same company and occupy
adjacent tracts of land divided by a river. The company owns a dam on
the river that connects the two tracts. For safety reasons, the dam is not
utilized for the transport oPhazardous waste between the facilities. A
public highway forms the boundary of the properties along one edge.
Transport of hazardous waste between the facilities occurs via this public
highway. The two facilities currently share one EPA identification
number. Can the facilities continue to share one identification number or
must each have its own number? Is a manifest required to transport
hazardous waste between the facilities?
Each of the facilities will be required to obtain its own EPA
identificaton number. Due to the safety hazard associated with using
the dam to move wastes from one facility to the other, no effective
company-controlled connecting right-of-way exists. The facilities are
two individual sites. Hazardous wastes transported along the public
highway from one site to the other must be accompanied by a
manifest in accordance with 40 CFR 262.20, which states that a
generator who transports, or offers for transportation, hazardous
waste for off-site treatment, storage, or disposal must prepare a
manifest.
-------
9452.1991(01)
0 iE
4 .,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
q
4 pr, 0 d . ’
JUL 26 1991
Brian Engel
U.S. Pollution Control
515 West Greens Road, Suite 500 ‘) .CEOF
Houston, TX 77067 S )LID. ..Sl A D E%IERGE\Cv RESPONSE
Dear Mr. Engel:
Thank you for your letter of June 10, 1991, which requested
clarification on some of the instructions for completing the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. Specifically, you described a
situation in which waste is transfered from rail to highway on
its way to the designated facility. You asked whether an agent
of the generator, acting in the generator’s behalf, would be
allowed to choose the highway transporter from among a group of
pre-approved transporters at the point of transfer from rail to
highway. You proposed this procedure as an option to replace the
current practice in which the highway transporter chosen by the
generator and listed on the manifest is replaced by another pre-
approved transporter, thereby requiring that the manifest be
altered en route, making the document difficult to read.
Although your option has merit from the point of neatness
and legibility of the manifest, I do not believe that it fits in
with the functional purpose of the manifest which is to track the
movement of the waste from the point of generation to the point
of disposal. If the generator leaves the Transporter #2 block on
the manifest empty when the waste is transported from his site,
there would be no indication that the generator knew how the
waste would get from the rail to the facility. That could
presumably be addressed by the generator’s indication on the
manifest of a limited number by the rail transporter to the
esignated facility. We still however, consider the generator
responsible for knowing who is transporting the waste, so we
would require that the generator be notified before the waste was
transferred to one of the approved final transporters and that
the selection (and approval by the generator) is noted on the
manifest.
This procedure might better reflect the actual situation at
the time the generator signs the manifest than the current
requirements. It would, however, require at least as much space
on the manifest as the current procedure of putting down the most
likely transporter and then modifying the manifest if necessary,
and would require the same step of communication with the
generator before making the notation of the actual transporter on
the manifest. For that reason, we think the existing
requirements are sufficient.
Pnnred on Recycled Parer
-------
We appreciate your making a helpful suggestion. At some
point we would like to reexamine the manifest forms and a variety
of issues that arise in their use, but we are unable to commit
our resources to that at the moment, We will keep your
suggestion on file for reconsideration if we get the opportunity
to complete a reexamination of the manifest forms. For now, we
cannot approve the approach you recommend.
Sincerely,
K
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
2
-------
9452.1993(01)
I a
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JAN 28 O ICEOF
501.10 WASTE APdO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
3ames C. Ross
Logistics Manager
Sanyo Energy (U.S.A.) Corporation
2001 sanyo Avenue
San Diego, CA 92173
Dear Mr. Ross:
Thank you for your letter of January 4, 1993. In your
letter, you asked a number of questions regarding movements of
hazardous waste i... . .h i cadmium batteries from Mexico to Japan via
the United States.
‘Lou asked if hazardous waste generated in Mexico shipped
under a U.S. Customs bond through the United States to Japan is
subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Regardless of where hazardous waste is generated or its Customs
tariff classification, it is subject to RCRA and RCRA regulations
while within u.s. jurisdiction, namely, within U.S. borders.
With regard to imported hazardous waste, from the moment the
hazardous waste enters the U.S., it is subject to and must be in
compliance with all applicable provisions of the RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste program. This means that the U.S. importer for
the hazardous waste must possess an EPA identification number;
must use appropriate DOT packaging, labels, and markings for
hazardous waste shipments; must prepare a hazardous waste
manifest for use during transportation in the U.S.; must use a
transporter which also possesses an EPA identification number;
and must comply with other requirements found in 40 CFR Part 262.
Transporters transporting hazardous waste in the U.S. are subject
to 40 CFR Part 263.
If the shipments of hazardous waste are then exported from
the U.S. to Japan, then export provisions found at 40 CFR Part
262 Subpart E also apply. These include requirements to submit a
notification of intent to export to EPA; to attach an EPA
Acknowledgement of Consent to the shipment’s manifest once
consent is received from the importing country government: to
submit an annual report documenting the shipment; and other
subpart E requirements.
You also ask if the hazardous waste batteries would qualify
for an exemption from regulation found at 40 CFR Part
261.6(a)(3)(ii). Section 261.6(a) (3) (ii) states “The following
recyclable materials are not subject to regulation under parts
-------
262 to 266 or parts 268, 270 and 124 of this chapter, and are not
subject to the notification requirements of section 3010 of RCRA:
(ii) Used batteries (or used battery cells) returned to a battery
manufacturer for regeneration;...’. Unfortunately, your letter
does not provide sufficient information for such a determination
to be made, saying only that the batteries will be sent to Japan
for recycling, rather than being sent to a manufacturer for
regeneration, as stipulated in the exemption. However, based on
your tel p ton conversation with Angela Cracchiolo of my staff,
the operations to be conducted in Japan would include smelting of
the nickel cadmium batteries, an activity not within the scope of
the 261.6(a) (3) (ii) exemption. In addition, Part 262.11 requires
that the generator of a solid waste make the determination if
that waste is a hazardous waste.
The hazardous waste manifest for a shipment of hazardous
waste batteries going from Mexico to Japan via the U.S. would be
prepared showing the name and address of both the U.S. importer
and the foreign (Mexican) generator and the EPA identification
number of the U.S. importer in the generator block and the name
and site address of the foreign (Japanese) consignee in the
designated facility block.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please
contact Angela Cracchiolo of my staff at (202)260—4779. Thank
you for your interest in safe and effective management of
hazardous waste. -
Director
Sincerely,
of Solid Waste
-------
,tOST4 9452.1993(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
‘ 1j
APR 2 9 g93
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Stephen C. Okosisi
3281 S. Highland, Suite 807
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
Dear Mr. Okosisi,
Thank you for your letter dated January 21, 1993, concerning
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.
specifically, you requested clarification about how certain
hazardous waste manifest and biennial reporting requirements
apply to a ini . tu: .f several federal RCRA hazardous wastes with
different waste coaes. Let me first address your question aboqt
the hazardous waste manifest.
Information entered in Section J of the Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) is not required by federal law,
but may be required by state regulations. The federal RCRA
regulations require that a generator determine if the state to
which the waste is being sent supplies a manifest and requires
its use; if not, then the generator must check with the state in
which the generator is located. If neither state supplies a
manifest and requires its use, then the generator may obtain a
manifest from any source (40 CFR 262.20). If the manifest in
your specific situation is required by a state, you should
contact that state to determine the most appropriate way to enter
multiple waste codes on a single manifest. Also, federal RCRA
regulations do not require that RCRA waste codes be entered in
line ha of the manifest; however, a RCRA waste code may be
required in Lire ha if the waste code is part of the proper DOi
shipping name.
With respect to your question on biennial reporting, the
federal biennial reporting requirement is not contingent upon
1 Aside from how the manifest is filled out, it may not
appropriate to classify the mixture described in your letter (i
a mixture of DOOl waste and several U—listed wastes) as only DC.
based on your letter, the waste mixture carries all of the
listings, and is also DOOl if the mixture continues to exhibit tP t
characteristic. You should note that some regulatory requirement.
e.g., the Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions, are keyed to t’.
waste codes, and you must comply with all requirements m J.
applicable by the waste codes.
Pnnted on Ri y d P ef
-------
which waste codes happen to appear on the hazardous waste
manifest, but on which hazardous wastes are generated by the
reporter during the reporting period.
Please understand that the regulatory agency (i.e., EPA
Region or State) responsible for implementing the RCRA program in
the State where the generator is located should be contacted on
any RCRA requirements with which you may have questions. If you
have any questions on the information I have described in this
letter, please call Ross Elliott of my staff at (202)260—8551.
Thank you for interest in the safe management of hazardous waste.
Director
0 ice of Solid Waste
cc: Mr. Jeffrey Zelikson, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region IX
-------
S
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
L,Ro t 9452.1993(03)
OCT 20 I9 3
OfFICEOc
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Jeff R. Bowman, REA
Operations Manager
Environmental Dynamics
1916 Grandstand Drive
San Antonio, Texas 78238
Dear Mr. Bowman:
Thank you for your letter dated July 16, 1993, regarding the hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). I will also
take this opportunity to respond to the letter you attached from Mr. Andrew B. Wallace
dated March 31, 1993. I apologize for the delay in responding to both letters. In both
letters, specific questions were asked regarding the hazardous waste identification and
generator regulations, and I have attempted to answer each one based on the federal
RCRA regulations using the information you have provided. For convenience, I have
enumerated the answers to match the incoming questions.
1. Assuming that the waste you have described is a solid waste (as defined in 40
CFR 261.2), and that this waste does not meet the other definitions of ignitable in
40 CFR 261.21(a)(2) through (4), this waste does not appear to meet the
definition of ignitabuity in 40 CFR 261.21(a)(1). You are correct in asserting that
the absence of free liquids precludes the application of the ignitability
characteristic as defined in 261.21(a)(1). 1 However, you should be aware that
EPA has recently proposed amending SW-846 with respect to how the presence of
free liquids is determined when testing a waste for ignitability and corrosivity. I
have enclosed a copy of this proposed rule, dated August 311993, and encourage
you to comment on it if you wish. [ Note: this response is applicable to the
questions raised in the March 31, 1993 letter from Mr. Wallace.]
2. The relative proportions of the chemicals you described in the paint stripper add
‘I should also point out that although there may be instances where a solid waste does
not contain free liquids (and therefore would not be classified as DOOl under §261.2(a)(1)),
some type of flashpoint determination may still be required by waste management facilities
as a condition of accepting the waste.
Q v RecycI.d R.cycIabI.
Pdrn.d wItI SoyiC.nol. * ‘ p
contLflS It hut 30% fICbU$4 IISV
-------
up to only 90 percent. Assuming that the other 10 percent consists of inert
materials that do not contribute to the function of the product, the paint stripper
being disposed that you described would be classified as U080 if the methylene
chloride were the sole active ingredient of the product, or as U220 if the toluene
were the sole active ingredient. In each of these cases, the hazardous
characteristics of this waste would need to be evaluated in order to comply with
the Part 268 LDRs (see 40 CFR 262.11(c)). If both methylene chloride and
toluene are active ingredients, neither listing applies and the material would need
to be evaluated as to whether or not it exhibits any RCRA characteristic.
3. If the material described were used to strip paint, it would be classified as F002
and F005, due to the presence of at least 10 percent before use of each of these
chemicals. The hazardous characteristics of this waste would need to be
evaluated in order to comply with the Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) (see 40 CFR 262.11(c)). If this particular paint stripper contains any
amount of a solvent listed under F003 as well, that listing would also apply.
4. The federal RCRA regulations do not specifically address this situation. The
regulations in 40 CFR 262.20(d) describe the general situation where hazardous
waste shipped under a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest is redirected to an
alternate facility. Because you are asking about compliance with a State
hazardous waste manifest (the use of which is mandated by that State), I would
recommend contacting the RCRA-authorized State(s) where the alternate TSD
facilities are located, as well as the State in which the generator is located.
Where a State is not RCRA-authorized, the EPA Regional office would be the
appropriate contact for making situation-specific determinations such as these.
5. The federal RCRA regulations do not specifically address this situation. The
proper labelling and marking of containers is outlined in 40 CFR 262.31, 262.32,
and 262.34(a). I would suggest that you label and mark containers holding
hazardous waste clearly and in a manner that avoids any confusion.
6. I cannot make any generic determinations as to whether or not the situation you
described is a violation of RCRA. The federal RCRA regulations do not specify
the number of drums that may be open at any one time in a container storage
area. If a facility has a RCRA Part B storage permit, this permit might delineate
specific procedures tailored to that particular facility. Otherwise, generators must
comply with the requirement in 40 CFR 265.173(a) that containers remain closed
except when adding or removing hazardous waste.
7. See number 6 above.
8. The RCRA generator regulations do not preclude the consolidation (or bulking)
of several small containers into a larger container, provided the large container is
clearly labelled and marked, and the wastes are compatible. If you planned to
ship the large container containing the smaller containers, you would need to
-------
ensure that this configuration meets applicable State and federal DOT
requirements, and that the manifest identifies all applicable EPA hazardous waste
codes.
9. The generator must designate on the manifest all of the transporters that will be
used to transport hazardous waste. The federal RCRA regulations do not address
the situation where, for whatever reason, another transporter not identified on the
original manifest is needed to continue the transportation of the shipment. The
regulations in 40 CFR 263.20(d) describe the requirements for one transporter
delivering a manifested shipment to another transporter.
10. The regulation at 40 CFR 262.11(c) requires that generators must determine
whether or not any listed hazardous waste also exhibits a hazardous characteristic,
for purposes of compliance with the Part 268 LDRs . This is because the LDRs
require that if a listed waste also exhibits one or more hazardous characteristics,
the waste must be treated to meet the treatment standard for each of the waste
codes, with one exception. Where the Part 268 treatment standard for a listed
hazardous waste also addresses the characteristic(s) exhibited by that waste, the
treatment standard for the listed waste operates in lieu of the standard for the
relevant characteristic(s). I have enclosed a copy of some preamble language
from one of the final rules on LDRs (June 1, 1990 Federal Register ; 55 E
22659) that explains in more detail the overlap of listed and characteristic waste
codes.
With regard to how waste codes should be entered on the manifest, please note
that information in the section of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for
Waste Number (Section I) is not required by Federal law, but that States may
require one or more waste codes in this section. Of course, the RCRA waste
code(s) may be part of the proper U.S. DOT Shipping Description, and should be
entered in Line 11 if required by DOT. If you have additional questions on the
U.S. DOT regulations, please contact the DOT helpline at (202)366-4488.
11. See Number 10 above.
12. See Number 10 above.
13. The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest requires that the information required in
Item 11 of the manifest be entered for each waste , If additional space is needed,
use the appropriate continuation sheet.
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 Region 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.S.C. Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate
-------
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than federal regulatory requirements.
I hope that the answers I was able to provide will help clarify some or most of
your questions. In some cases I could not provide a complete answer; many of your
questions appear to be derived from specific circumstances at your facility or facilities, or
those of your clients. I would therefore recommend that to the extent any of your
questions are situation-specific, and particularly for the questions that I did not address
completely, that you contact the State agency authorized for the hazardous waste
program in the State where your facility, or your client’s facility, is located. Where a
State is not RCRA-authorized, the EPA Regional office would be the appropriate
contact for making situation-specific determinations such as these.
If you have any additional questions concerning the information I have provided,
please contact Ross Elliott of my staff at 202/260-8551. Thank you for your interest in
the safe management of hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
fL)Bruce Weddle
) Acting Director
V Office of Solid Waste
cc Mr. Andrew B. Wallace, Environmental Dynamics, Inc.
Enclosures (2)
-------
?0.A /& 1(o-OY/ q
siq, - -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ,t wd e
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
‘ ? ‘ ‘
4 L PRO1
9452.1996(01)
A OFFICE OF
‘ “ —“ 1996 SOUDWASTEANOEMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Stephen T. Smith
Koppers Industries, Inc.
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219—1800
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your letter of May 10, 1996 regarding the
clarification of requirements involving the counting of wood
preserving waters that are hazardous waste and the completion of
the Biennial Report as required under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. Specifically, you request that
the Biennial Report and instructions be corrected to comply with
the requirements of 40 CFR 261.5(c) (3) for determining generator
status and the requirements at 40 CFR 262.41 for the Biennial
Report.
You stated in your letter that hazardous wastewater from
wood preserving plants (listed as F032, F034, and F035) is
either returned to the preservative process for reuse or is
pretreated and discharged to a POTW. You refer to provisions at
40 CFR 261.5(c) (3) to support your assertion that these hazardous
waste waters are reused and are therefore not subject to the
quantity determination of part 262 and should not be reported on
the Biennial Report.
The provisions at 40 CFR 261.5(c) (3) pertain to making a
quantity determination and explain what must be counted when
determining generator category. These provisions state that
“when making the quantity determination of this part and 40 CFR
part 262, the generator must include all hazardous waste that it
generates, except hazardous waste that....is recycled, without
prior storage or accumulation, only in an on-site process subject
to regulation under 40 CFR 261.6(c) (2)...”
If the process you describe meets the conditions of 40 CFR
261.5(c) (3), i.e., the material is recycled without prior storage
or accumulation in an on-site process subject to regulation under
40 CFR 261.6(c) (2), then the waste is not subject to the quantity
Q j’ RecycledlRecyclable
Q < 9 Punted with SoylCanola Ink on paper that
cont nS at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
determination; nor is it required to be counted in determining
generator status. However, if the waste is stored or accumulated
prior to reuse, it is subject to the quantity determination and
must be counted when determining generator status. Should this
process not meet the conditions of 40 CFR 261.5(c) (3), it may
meet the conditions of 40 CFR 261.5(d) (3), which states- that “in
determining the quantity of hazardous waste generated, a
generator need not include spent materials that are generated,
reclaimed and subsequently re-used on site, so long as such spent
materials have been counted once.” (Emphasis added.)
I understand from my staff that they are currently working
with Pam Rogers at AWPI to set upa meeting with you to discuss
Biennial Report requirements pertaining to the counting of
hazardous wastewaters.
Thank you for your continued interest in this issue.
Sincerely,
(
, ( ( r
Micha4 Shapiro, Director
•, Of ficl of Solid Waste
-------
EtLE CtWN
# ‘ ° s? 4?k,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
I
JUN i c 9452.1996(02)
OFFICE OF
- SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Scott Kuhn, Manager
Corporate Compliance Communications
Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.
220 Outlet Pointe Boulevard
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
Dear Mr. Kuhn:
Thank you for your letter of June 6, 1996, in which you requested a clarification of an
apparent conflict between two sections of the hazardous waste regulations: the waste
characterization requirements in 40 CFR 262.11 and the LDR notification requirements in 40
CFR 268.9(a). This letter will also serve as a followupto a telephone conversation held on July
15, 1996, between you and Allen Maples, of my staff
Though you mention that a possible conflict exists between these two sections of the
regulations, your.question was more related to which waste code should be used on the RCRA
manifest. You referred to the situation where a waste stream has a specific listing code and also
exhibits a characteristic for one of the constituents which make up the waste code. To use your
example of wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations, this waste stream has
the listing code of F006, but is also characteristic for cadmium, which would have the
characteristic waste code of D006.
Your specific question was which of these waste codes should then appear n the RCRA
Manifest? For manifest purposes, it really does not matter which waste code is shown, the listing
waste code or the characteristic waste code. The RCRA manifc t is primarily a shipping and
transportation document and what is important is that the waste code selected most accurately
identify the waste for ’ emergency response purposes. The fore, the generator/shipper is in the
best position to decide which waste code to use. Since state regulations might differ, it would be
important to contact the State agency where the waste shipment is being sent.
With regard to how waste codes should be entered on the manifest; please note that
information in the section of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for Waste Number (section
I) is not required by EPA regulations, but that States might require one or more waste codes in
this section. The RCRA waste code(s) may be part of the proper U.S. DOT shipping description
and should be entered in Line 11, as required by DOT (see 40 CFR 172.203). If you have
additional questions about the U.S. DOT regulations, please contact the DOT helpline at (202)
366-4488.
R.cycIsdlRscyc abIs
Q Piinssd Ssyi nsIi on psj.r
55% lI IlJ flb
-------
Letter to Mr. Scott Kuhn Page Two
Thank you for your interest in the RCRA hazardous waste program. I hope that this letter
has helped to darif your questions. If you have any additional questions, please contact Allen
Maples, of my staff at (703) 308-8798.
Sincerely yours,
David Bussard, Director
HRwdous Waste
Idezitil cation Division
-------
Eli r rr n ,
[ iLL . -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV 1 2 i 9452.1996(03)
OFFICE OF
Ms. Catherine A. McCord, Manager SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Regulatory Programs and
Business Integration Division
Safety-Kleen Corporation
I000 North B:andall Road
Elgin, IL 60213-7857
I! s
Dear Ms McCord:
In May, 1996, you and Larry Davenport first met with my staff in the }T tii rdous Waste
Identification Division (HWID) to discuss the use of automated information technologies in the
barndous waste manifest system. During this meeting you indicated that Safety-Kleen Corp.
(Safety Kleen) had developed the capability to store manifest records electronically at its recycle
facility in Denton, Texas. Since Safety-Kleen may wish to implement this system on a national
basis, you asked HWID to claril r if this electronic record system complied with current Subtitle C
requirements for the use and retention of the Uniform Manifest. By this letter, I am pleased to
provide you with the requested clarification.
Based on the information provided to EPA staff by Safety-Kleen’s representatives, I
conclude that the automated manifest record system operated by the company at its Denton,
Texas recycle fhcility complies with current RCRA record retention and access requirements. -
This conclusion follows from our finding that the image files stored by Safety-Kleen’s. system
meet the requirements in our current maiiifest regulations for maintaining manifest copies that
bear the handwritten signatures of the generator and subsequent waste handlers. Safety-Kleen’s
automated system is able to reproduce high quality copies of manifests that include the images of
the original handwritten signatures. In addition, the Safety-Kleen image file system appears to
incorporate data integrity and security features which further ensure the trustworthiness of the
records and their general admissibility into evidence. Finally, we find that the indexing and
automated retrieval featUres included in the system satisf r RCRA statutory provisions vhich
require facilities to provide RCRA inspectors with reasonable access to their facilities and to their
hazardous waste records, including the ability to inspect and copy records. In the enclosure
included with this response, we explain this interpretation and our findings in greater detail.
I understand that you have pieviously received a consistent interpretation from officials in
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, which implements the authorized RCRA
hazardous waste program in the State of Texas. To the extent that Safety-Kleen expands its
() ) Recycled/Recyclable
Punted with SoyICanola ink on paper that
contains ii least 50% recycled fiber
-------
automated record system to facilities in other States, you must verif ’ with the appropriate State
agencies that the system will comply with each State’s manifest retention regulations and the
Rules of Evidence that.govern the admissibility of computer generated records in that State’s
Courts and agencies. Authorized States may implement RCRA programs that include
requirements more stringent than the Federal requirements, and not evexy State has adopted Rules
‘of Evidence that are as liberal as the Federal Rules insofar as admitting electronic copies of
documents into evidence.
This response is directed specifically at the system as configured in Denton and described
to EPA and 0MB staff by Safety-Kleen’s representatives at a meeting here on October 3, 1996.
However similar systems used by others could also meet our requirements, if they are designed
and operated in accordance with the guidance contained in this letter and the enclosure. In this -
regard, the generation and storage of image files that include handwritten signatures, the inclusion
of design and operating controls which ensure record accuracy, integrity and security, and the
inclusion of indexing and file retrieval features which ensure reasonable inspector access are the
key factors in this decision.
: Thank you for talcing the time to share with us information about your company’s
innovative efforts in adopting an automated approach to manifest record keeping. We believe that
systems such as these will demonstrate that automated information technologies can indeed
reduce record keeping burdens, while maldng access to the data more efficient and timely.
If you have any questions about this response, please contact Michele Anders, Chief of the :
Generator andRecycling Branch, on 703-308-8551, or Richard LaShier on 703-308-8796.
Sincerely yours,
/ — ( ..:.
/ - / • . •— J 1.
-
?vj ch ae Shapiro, Director
-‘Office.6f Solid Waste
Enclosure -.
cc: David Nielsen, OECA/RED3 q 6 A Ann Codi mg 1 , IIWID/CRB
Ann Stephanos, OECA/REDJ David Schwarz, OPPE 2/
George Wyeth, OGC. &7 Dell Billings, J OT/RSPA /O,4t,vj v - 7,4 r,e,
Palmer Kelly, OECA/OCE2aZ2A Nick Swanstrom, 0ECA/OCE j ? e -Cr
Rich L hi , HWID/GRB — ‘ j Chris Wotz, 0MB
David Updike, CIRMDj ’Qs w I
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
Tom Kennedy, ASTSWMO) Vr ,I’{ C i / / J ’) ,d’ 1 -
‘C ‘7 c )/
-------
OSW’s Interpretation and Findings Regarding
Safety-Kleen Corp.’s Automated Manifest Record Storage System
I. Issue : Does Safety-Kleen Corp.’s automated manifest record keeping system, which uses
a scanner and Personal Computer (PC) to generate and store electronically image
files of completed and signed manifests, comply with the current RCRA regulatory
requirements addressing the retention of signed manifest copies by waste handlers,
and the RCRA statutory requirement that hazardous waste facilities provide
RCRA inspectors with access to their records for inspection and copying?
U. Backv ound
In May, 1996, representatives from Safety-Kicen Corp. (Safety-Kleen) met with
management and staff from OSW’s }T ardous Waste Identification Division (HW ID) to discuss
the use of automated information technologies in the hazardous waste manifest system. During
this meeting, HWID was advised that Safety-Kleen had developed the capability to store manifest
records electronically at its recycle facility in Denton, Texas. Safety-Kicen expressed a desire to
proceed with implementing this capability on a national basis, and asked OSW to ciarii y if this
electronic record system complied with current Subtitle C requirements for the use and retention
of the h ardous waste manifest.
Subsequently, HWJD staff conducted a series of internal meetings on the topic of
electronic storage with staff from several interested EPA offices, including the Office of General
Counsel, the Office of Regulatoiy Enforcement, the Office of Criminal Enforcement, and the
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Since the RCRA manifest requirements touch upon
areas within the scope of the hazardous materials transportation laws, staff from the Department
of Transportation were also invited to participate in these discussions. These internal discussions
focused on the technical and legal issues presented by electronic record storage, considering both
the facts presented by Safety-Kleen and the other types of automated systems that are likely to be
encountered as information technologies are relied on increasingly to supplant paper record
systems. This disc ssion will continue as a part of the manifest revisions rulemaking that is now
underway in OSWER.
After several internal meetings, we invited Safety-Kleen’s representatives to again meet
with interested staff, to provide additional information on the design and operation of the Denton,
Texas record keeping system, and to answer staff questions on the security and accessibility of the
stored files. This meeting, attended by EPA and 0MB staff, occurred at EPA Headquarters on
October 3, 1996.
A. Safety Kleen’s Storaae System
At the October 3rd meeting, Safety-Kleen was represented by Ms. Catherine McCord, the
company’s manager for Regulatory Programs and Business Integration, and by Mr. Larry
1
-------
Davenport, the company’s vice president for Information Ser,ices. Ms. McCord and Mr..
Davenport provided much helpful information which clarified staff’s understanding of the features
and operation of the Denton, Texas automated storage system. Briefly, we understand these to be
the key features of the Denton system:
1. Upon receipt of a shipment at the Denton recycle facility, a hard copy of each
manifest is scanned, and the image file created by the scanner is saved to disk. The
manifest, when scanned, contains the handwritten signatures required under 40
CFR 262.23(a), and these signatures are captured as part of the image file copies.
2. Shortly after scanning the manifests, Safety-Kleen’s clerical staff enter some 20
elements of data about the shipment and the manifest into a system index. This
index enables Safety-Kleen personnel or RCRA inspectors to access the manifest
files by date of receipt, manifest number, facility name, or other descriptors.
3.. The index and manifest retrieval features of the system are Wmdows based
applications that support an intuitive, graphical interface with the user. The index
to the retrieval system is activated by “double-clicking” on the index icon that
appears on the desktop, and the search for specific manifests is activated by pull-
down menus and dialog boxes that prompt the user for the fields and data that
define the search parameters.
4. The system automatically displays a list of all manifests that respond to a specific
search request. The iser can then select any item from the displayed list with the
computer mouse, and the system will then display the image file of the manifest.
The output can be examined on the monitor, or printed as hard copy. Print-outs
from the system are typically of the same quality as photàcopies of the original
documents, and all handwritten signatures appear on the records.
5. Ax the end of each day, an additional copy of each manifest file scanned into the.
Denton storage system is tran mitted electronically to the company’s headquarters
in Elgin, fllinois.
B. The Federal Manifest Reaulations
The record retention requirements for hazardous waste generators are set forth at 40 CFR-
Part 262, Subpart D. Taken together, §262.40(a) and §262.23(a) require generators to retain
signed copies of completed manifests for a period of 3 years, and provide that the “signed”
manifest copies must bear the handwritten signatures of the generator, the transporters accepting
the waste for transportation, and the owner or operator of the designated facility, who certifies to
the receipt of the waste by signing the manifest. I note that there are similar provisions in the
Subtitle C regulations for transporters and treatment, storage and disposal facilities, which taken
together, require a “handwritten signature” to be obtained whenever there is a change in the
2
-------
custody of the waste, and require retention for 3 years of these signed copies among the records
of the regulated waste handlers. See 263.20(d)(I), 263.22(a), and 264.71.
C. Statutory Requirement for Access to Records
Section 3 007(a) of the RCRA statute provides that any person who generates, stores,
treats, transports, disposes ot or has handled hazardous wastes shall, upon the request of any
duly designated RCRA inspector, furnish information relating to hazardous wastes to the
inspector, and permit such a person at all reasonable times to have access to and to copy all
records relating to hazardous wastes.
Ill. Detailed Discussion
A. The Requirements for Copies Bearing Handwritten Signatures
As summarized above, the current Federal ni nifest regulations require the generator and
each subsequent handler involved with an off-site shipment of h , rdous waste to sign the
manifest “by hand,” and to keep in their flies for a 3-year period a copy of the manifest which
bears these signatures. The key regulatoiy compliance issue presented by Safety-Kleen’s system
is whether the electronically stored image files are created and maintained in such a manner that
they qualif r as “copies” bearing the necessaly “handwritten” signatures. We conclude that the
image files meet this standard, because:
(1) The handwritten signatures from the hard copy records are captured by the scanner,
incorporated into the stored image files, and reproduced accurately in the output
generated by the computer system. Safety-Kleen demonstrated to EPA that the output
displays signatures that look no different than the signatures that initially appeared on the
scanned bard copies, and the reproduced manifest copies (and signatures) are of the same
or better quality than those which are produced by photocopy machines or fax machines.
Significantly, this system does not attempt to substitute “digital signatures,” PIN
Numbers, or other electronic surro’gates for the original handwritten signatures.
(2) The image files appear to meet the standards included in the Federal Rules of
Evidence for the admission of copies and computer generated records into evidence in
judicial proceedings brought in the Federal courts. We believe that the law of evidence
provides the proper standard for determining whether these electronic documents (the
image files and any printouts generated by the system) are acceptable “copies” within the
meaning of our manifest retention regulations. The regulations require these mfinifest -
copies to be retained in order that they may be inspected by RCRA inspectors, and in a
proper case, admitted in evidence in RCRA enforcement proceedings or other proceedings
(e.g., CERCLA liability) where the information on the manifests may be considered
relevant. Thus, their acceptability as inspectable records and possible evidence should be
3
-------
• evaluated according to the law of evidence on the admissibility of computer generated
records.
A significant factor which distinguishes the admissibility of computer generated records
from other types of business records is the trustworthiness of these electronic records. In this
context, trustworthiness can be affected by the reliability of the hardware and software that make
up the computer system, and by the reliability and accuracy of the data entry and data processing
methods used by the operator. In addition, the trustworthiness felectronic records can be
enhanced by the presence of “computer secuñty” controls that are directed aI controlling
unauthorized access to the system and data, and at preventing inadvertent or intentio ial loss or
corruption of the data stored in these records.
Based on the features of the Safety-Kleen system that was explained to EPA and 0MB
staff; we are reasonably assured that the company’s electronic manifest records are accurate and
secure. This conclusion is supported by these facts: -. . .
• The scanning equipment and software installed by Safety-Kleen are extremely accurate.
Fewer than 1% of the manifests that are scanned present difficulties during scanning and
most of these can be corrected by obtaining a better copy of the manifest for scanning or
by sharpening the image quality before saving the image to di&
• Safety-Kleen is merely scanning the origiiial hard copies of completed manifests into its
computer system, and not entering new data manually. The quality of the image is verified
before the record is saved to disk, and the scanning of the paper forms provides minimal
opportunities for data entry errors or fbr alteration of records.
• The Denton facility transmits each night aback-up copy of the electronic manifest records
to corporate headquarters in Elgin, fllinois. Thus, in the event of a fire, flood, or other
accident involving the Denton site, the records of waste activity will be secured in Elgin.
Therefore, we believe that these materials would be admissible in evidence, so that they are
acceptable manifest “copies” bearing the waste handlers’ “handwritten signatures,” as required by
the RCRA regulations. - -
B. Reasonable Access to Records
The final factor which we considered in determining the acceptability of Safety-Kleen’s
automated records systemis the real world accessibility of the electronically stored manifest
records to RCRA inspectors. Section 3007 of the RCRA statute states that any person who
generates, stores, treats, disposes, transports, or otherwise handles hazardous wastes must permit
EPA or State enforcement personnel acceis at reasonable times to their facilities as well as to the
records relating to their h zardous wastes. Reasonable access to facility records includes the
right to inspect and to copy all such records. RCRA §3007(a). Therefore, in considering the
4
-------
merits of any electronic storage system, we must be satisfied that the system would not in any
significant way impede the access of RCRA inspectors to the manifest records. In other words,
would a RCRA inspector entering a facility with an automated record system enjoy a level of
access to individual manifests that is at least comparable to that which he or she would encounter
with respect to paper copies maintained in file drawers?
- We conclude that Safety-Kleen’s system provides adequate assurances of inspector access
to electronic manifest files. As the company demonstrated to us, the index and retrieval features
of the automated system are implemented from the Windowsm desktop, and do not require more
than rudimentary familiarity with the Wmdows operating system and its pull-down menus and
dialogue, boxes. The data elements that may be searched are suggested in a pull down menu, and
once a selection is made (e.g., thanifest #, date of receipt, facility name) the user is prompted for
the data that define the search request. The index and retrieval systems are very intuitive, and
lead one to a list’of responsive files, which if selected, generates the image of the manifest for
examination or printing. We believe that an inspector would only need a few minutes to become
familiar with the operation of this system. Once comfortable with the retrieval system, the
inspector would actually enjoy a superior level of access compared to paper files, since the index
feature now supports searches on about 20 data elements. Thus, an inspector should be able to
focus his or her inspection efforts much more efficiently with the automated system and target the
search as necessary.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that Safety-Kleen’s image file
storage system meets current RCRA requirements for retention of copies bearing the handwritten
signatures of waàt handlers, and for ensuring reasonable access by enforcement personnel to
Safety-Kleen’s manifest records for inspection and copying. This interpretation is directed
specifically at the system as configured in Denton, Texas and described to EPA and 0MB staff
by Safety-Kleen’s representatives at our meeting on October 3, 1996. However, similar systems
used by others could also meet RCRA requirements, if they are designed and operated in
accordance with the guidance contained in this interpretation. In this regard, the generation and
storage of image files that include handwritten signatures, the inclusion of design and operating
controls which ensure record accuracy, integrity and security (and thus admissibility of the records
in evidence), and the inclusion of indexing and file retrieval features which ensure reasonable
inspector access are the key factors in this decision.
Because this issue touches upon the use of innovative information technologies, and
involves regulations and interpretations that have national significance, we are distributing this
interpretation to the Regional Waste Management Division Directors and to the Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. We will also make this interpretation
available through the OSWER. Home Page on the Internet.
5
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9453—
PRE-TRANSPORTATION
REQUIREMENTS
Part 262 Subpart C
ATK1/11O4 l4 kp
-------
9453 • 1982 ( 01.)
AUG 3119821
u—Uay ACCuP. u1atiOfl ot ttazarUous PastS in tanks
EkuMi John It. bkthsier
Actir Director
ütt&co ot. ø d.W.st..(WI* b2J
TO , Thomas W. Dsvine
Air arid waste nanajSa•flt Liiv’isiOn. M 5g iDri ZV
- This is in response to your memorandt ot June 2 , 1982
re ardir the 90’0a 1 accumulation ot hazardous waste in tanks.
in your memo, you re jue5tsG hemdQUartSrs’ rationale for aU.ow
ir .n.rotor5 to acc uLst. hazardous waste in tanks under 40
CVK 264.34. ou poilitsa out tnat accu ilatL*ii.Lfl tanks is
virtually the sai . activity as •tor e in tanks, and b , Core
it s•O S incuruiisteflt to apply dittereflt standaras to the t
ictivities.
ec jon 464.34 allowsgefl.ratOr s who accumulate hazardous,
waste as a normal . art of tfleir sanutacturiflj or industrial
proceesss to do so tor aihort p.rioas of iiiis without obtmtflIr
a kUIA permit for stora .s or . 4 ua.Lityii gor int.rim status.
This ciistinction Detween accumulatiOn ma storage was mao.
tor ractical and aaministratiVe rsasoii$. BPA dsterain•0
tnat enerators should not be ouroonSu with the RCItA .ermittil i
roceos tor snort—term accumulation that is inciOsnt&L to their
Q&,eratione. We allow generatorS to accirulte hazardous
waste in ioth containers and tanks because we bolieve that it
euerators adhsr Co th• standards in Part 2b ubpart5 I
ana .1 thet they can •ai.ly accumulate hazardous waste for 9U
Udys or less without ‘tiaVin to ootatn a L.r! it. The require
ments of 6S.44 were ussi. ned to De consistent with both goals
of rdLievir çsnerators of IICRA perrtittiI j procodures appli c
aDje to storage tacilitlis wtiiLe ensurir j protection of h an
health and the environment luriri I accumulation.
keç ,arOLn juur comment that ‘an empty tank has not been
detin•d’. the preamble to the January ii. l 82 final rule on
u—Uay accumuLation (47 FIt 14S0) utves the tollCwtflii guioancea
‘A tank will e considered when it’s contints have
been drained to the fullest •*teftt possible. bince *afty:.t$I1 .
-------
IR••4L f%b CI9 not allow rut COr EtL aralnd,e OU tO LJarb e 5,
.creena or • dtOr&i, it s nut ecteu t t Luu at u e w t..
wiil always be remuve 3. As you bL Uab . thetu 13at be cases
wtsete a tafl* is never ComwititCM oia ty. e reco jntzs this
oD erI ut believe a deviation ttQS com istely em&ty ’ is a
atL3tICtQfY CO 1 Cc %iO• ti a real world ot Gay tO 0ay apsra
t ions.
Yin LLy. you stated in jour memo that t e reJr oLe to
in ne May A9,19d0 Lli said &‘.rt 4.4 rejutro: ient$
iLi Do c’1ue ’ as requireitents tot dccuruiation. The predar.Die
•tate that ‘Part 4 4 L D aaeflUeG vain to include the
dart 4b4 tinai stanoards tar tanks when they ire pro 19ated.’
I.e have no LseGi4te &.lans to amend bs.34. to incorporats
Part 4b4 ubpAZt I and J standards tar .tora e in containirs
and tanks. blowsver, we are r.—.viluating the . U-’day rule .ss’
part ot the X* 1 julatory Lm 1 act *naLysis (RIM. We intend to
comliets our anaiisis OL the Udiy rule, including an analysis
of stanGaras Lot accu u1atLOn in tanks, within 12 months.
è jease caLl y iLs or my stat t at .l82—47SS it you
nave rurther questions.
S
-------
9453.1984(01)
t4Y I 8 i984
ør. MicP a.l A. Verr!.
T,cPinica Sales Repres.,ntative
CEC S International
?. 21 tenrr)re Avenue
uffel , New York 14237
Cøar rr. Vprd .
Thomas Chariton o the Departo nt of Tr,ns?ortation ha l
fur ard. d a copy yor letter of AirIl 2. l9 4 to tie a nd %1l
‘ c to respo’d to your qu.stio’i reçardln, the spp1IcaDIlIt)
of fP ’s hazardous wiste ark1n require ent 1 262.32) to State
re ulated wastes.
PC ’s are not definea as nezardous wastes in 40 CF Part
261 • I 1.ntificat1on and Listing. therefore they ore not t , ect
to EP?’s park Inc re u1r.r’ent under S. ton 262.3?. ui the ot’Ier
han’I . States say have a regulatory proçrot whictt Is .or. strinbent
or broao.r in sco,e than the Federal program. Nany States hay .’
.* anded their un1vers of regulate i4Ite% to cover additional
v s s ect ,f1n,d as hizeri!Ous unbar the F.i4.ral pro re’. I ”
aødItion to re;ulatln; a broa r rer. e of wastes, sooe States
alse ?e4ulre that other re u1atIons %vCh as i”arklng requlrewent l
aly to State regulated wastes. 7n ,s, new York 5tate s,
re t Ir the’, containers o’ PC ’s te ar ee accord1n to £P4’s
requirv ients under 2b2.3Z ev n though the eLIteS art Sot InClUCeO
In tne Federal universe ef bazar’ious waste under *CRA.
If you Ptave questions regarding hew York State’s require-
sent; for hazardous wastes, I vou1 suggest that you write to
Mr. Morman I L Ilosenchuck, Director. Division of Solle Waste,
3 artoent of EnvIrorn enta% Conservation, 5 ) Wolf Albany,
hew YorI 12233.OC ] or call his at SIb—4b7 66’33. If you have
-------
2
ot ’er questlov’s on EPA ’s regulations, please write to s . at
the fel1owln address:
P.ri,lts and State Programs Dlvlilon (VN-563)
U.S. £nv1ronr ental Protection Açency
401 Street SW
Washington, DC •ZO46 i
As an alternat lv. source of help on quastlons of tr 1s tape ,
you .ay wish to call the PCKA/Sup rfund Hotline on 800-424—9346.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce I. W.dole
Acting Director
P.r.lts mo Stat. Prograss Division
(WH.563)
•1
cc Norman Noienchuck
Thomas Charlton
v’1-563/Clarley/08 MAY 84/382.4697/CD’s DIst 112 D.C 121
UwR1TTE : Sarley/S ’. —84/cd:Tho pson/S—11—84/cd:
bcc? Dan DerE1cs Bruce Weddl.Tbo pson:Barl.y:LeV7
-------
9453.1985(01)
RCRA/SUPERFTJND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUIOIARY
DECEMBER 84
6. A c npany ns several fscilities which generate waste solvents. The
c pany is considering using an outside contractor with a i cbile recycling
unit to go to each facility on a regular basis to recycle the waste solvents
on—site. The contractor would generate fra t the recycling process a useable
solvent product and still—bottc’sn wastes. The ocntractor would leave both
the product solvent and still—bott3n waste at the facility in which the
recycling took place. Under A, who is considered the generator of the
still-bott c wastes; the facility or the contractor with the nobile unit?
Also, would the generator be al1oi ed 90—day acct m lation of the still—bottan
wastes per 5262.34’
This situation where one person ms and operates a manufacturing unit
arid another person is used to recla m spent solvents and spent catalysts
is addressed in the tober 30, 3980 Federal (45 FR 72024). The
definition of generator in S260.lO is ... any person, by site, whose act
or process produces hazardous waste... Thus, both the rmer/operator of
the facility and the operator of the i bile recycling unit ld be
considered generators of the still—bottan hazardous wastes. I ver
• the Agency ... recaiiaerids that where two or i re parties are involved.
they should ni.itually agree to have one party perform the generator
responsibilities. Where this is dane, the Agency will look to that
designated party to perform the generator aties. If A does not ks
which party by imitual agre nt is appointed to carry out the generator
duties, the Agency will ... initially lock to the operator of th. unit
to fulfill the generator duties... (45 72020). The 90-day accumi—
lation period would apply in this case per 5262.34.
Sources Carolyn Barley (202) 382—2217
Research: Gordon vidsan
-------
9453.1985(02)
Dr. Alex Katona t4 i 2 I 5
Occidental Chemical Corporation
360 Rainbow Boulevard South
Box 728
Niagara Falls, New York 14302
Dear Dr. Katonhi:
Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1985, which
was referred to me by Dr. Bellin. In your letter, you
state that the Grand Island, NY Research and Development
L.aboratory Complex of Occidental Chemical Corporation
performs analytical work on samples that contain TCDD.
The laboratory, therefore, generates laboratory wastes
consisting of used rubber gloves, contaminated disposable
clothing, used disposable glassware, etc. that are
contaminated with TCDD at the ppt level. You requested
clarification of certain questions relating to RCRA
permitting requirements.
Before we respond to your specific questions, however,
we would like to clarify the scope of tne listing. In
particular, wastes resulting from laboratory operations
such as contaminated clothing, glassware, etc., are not
currently subject to the dioxin hazardous waste listing.
Unused portions of the specific EPA hazardous wastes that
are analyzed by a laboratory however, are EPA hazardous
waste and are subject to the new regulation. With this in
mind, the answers to your questions are as follows:
° Is the exclusion (40 CFR 262.34) from the RCRA
permitting requirements available for generators
who accumulate dioxin—containing hazardous waste on—
site for less than 90 days?
— Yes. Generators who store their wastes in either
a tank or a container and are able to ship their
waste off—site within 90 days can take advantage
of the requirements in 40 CFR 262.34 (i.e., they
do not need a RCRA permit).
* Although these wastes are not currently included in
the January 14, 1985 dioxin listing, we would suggest
that you manage them in a very careful manner ( i.e. ,
as if they were listed wastes).
-------
2
If we determine that we cannot reali5tiCall.y take
advantaçje nf the leso_th3fl_9U_da1 CCUmU1ati0I ti 0
exclusion tor dioxin—COfltaifl1fl ] wa3te, e will also
bo requtrec to subnit a Part A aç7lication tor
Irit . rc Status storaU e ot the other azaroous waste
that we generate in the laboratory co iex and which
we have been shipping to date without n2ed for an
Interin Status perc it?
— o. Any waste that you are aole to i? otL—Site
wit.nin 90 oaya that is stored in aitnor a tank or
a container can still take advantayc of he ro uire—
rients in 40 CFR 262.34. whether or not you need a
permit for any other part ot your operation.
I hope this answers your questions. If you need
further clarification, OU may wi5h to call. Dr. IJelLin at
(202) 382—4767.
Sincerely,
t4atthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identifi atiOfl Branch (WH—562a)
-------
9453. 198504.
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 85
4 • Hazardais Waste Fuel Marketers
Section 266.34 outlines the requirei nts of Hazardous Waste Fuel Marketers. This
section states that generators who market” fuel directly to burners are subject
to prohibitions under section 266.31(a), notification under 53010, applicable
storage r’equjL.w ts under 526234 arid A through L. of Parts 264 and 265, and
certain r.coc epjng arid reporting requir nentg.
A generator ships hazardazs waste fuel to a burner without the occurrence of a
monetary transaction, wiii the generator be considered a marketer under
Section 262.34?
Yes; the absence or presence of monetary transactions under Part 266 has no
bearing on a marketer’s status. The act of initiating a shipnent of ‘gazardous
waste fran a generator directly to a burner for legitimate energy recovery
constitutes marketing. A hazardous waste fuel. blender/pr aseor Initiating
a shi nen to a burner for energy recovery is also marketing hazardous waste
fuel.
Source: Bob Ho11 y (202) 382—7936
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACE 9453.1985(35)
Mr. Francis Torres—F.rnandez
Cepeda, Sanchez—Betances & Sure
Attorneys at Law
Suit. 700
Banco Central Building
Hato Ray, Puerto Rico 00917—1866
Dear Mr. Torres—Fernandezs
I am responding to your letter of November 2, 1985, in which
you raised the following two issuesi
1. Can a generator of hazardous wastes that operates a TSD
facility isolate from its waste stream a particular hazardous
waste and accumulate it on—site in a tank for a period not
exceeding 90 days and thus benefit from the provisions under
40 CFR 262.34, although in the past it handled that waste in
the same TSD unit it operates?
2. Can an operator who owns a tank or a container having interim
status use that same tank solely to accumulate hazardous vast.
under 40 CFR 262.34 vitlrut having to cc*nply with the RCRA
provisions other than those specified therein?
In both situations, the answ•r is yes’. In the first
situation we assume the tank used to accumulate the ‘isolated
waste stream was previously used for accumulating hazardous
waste for more than 90 days, but it will no longer be used for
that purpose. The applicant should check with the Regional Office
(or authorized State) to determine the closure requirements for
their facility.
Where facilities previously tiled a RCRA permit application
that included th. units that are now to be used for less than
90—day accumulation, ths applicant should notify the R.gionl Office
-------
(or authorized State) about the change in operation so the Agency
will not includ this activity in the permit. Also, the applicant
should make it clear to on—site personnel, via a notice or sign,
thiit these units can not be used for accuzulating hazardous waste
for more than 90 days and they must be operated in compliance with
the provisions of 40 CFR 262.34.
Please contact i.e if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Peter Cue rrere
Chief, Permits Branch
Permits and State Programs Division
cci Brry Tornick, Region I!, v/incoming
-------
9453.1985(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 85
Satellite Accunulation
3. Section 262. 34(c) codifies the satellite accunulation provision pr nulgated
the ce nber 20, 1984, Federal gister (49 FR 49568). This provision allows
a generator to accunulate up to 55 gaLlons orhazarc ous waste (or one quart
acutely hazarGous waste in containers at or near any point of generation
without a storage permit or interim status, and without canplyinc witn the
provisions of S262.34(a) and (b). Cbes this provision allow the generator
three days after the accunulation limit is exceeded to transport the excess
waste to tne designated 90-day storage area? ien G s the 90-day storage
period begin, the Gay the accunulation lunit is exceeded or the day the aste
arrives in the designatec 4262.34 storage area?
The satellite accunulation provision in 262.34(c) allows the generator three
days after the 55-gallon accunulation limit is exceeded to transport the
excess waste to the 5262.34(a) storage area. Section 262.34(c) states that
a generator who accunulates waste in excess of the accunulation limits umust,
with respect to the t nt of excess waste, canply within three days with
paragraph (a) of this section or other applicable provisions of this
chapter.N Section 262. 34(a) states that Na generator may accunulate
hazardous waste on—site for 90 days or less without a permit or interim
status provided that the requireients of 4262.34 (a)(l)—(4) are net.”
Thus, within three days of accunu]ating over 55 gallons, the generator is
required to canply with all applicable RA requirenents with regard to
that excess, including S262.34a. The 90-day storage period begins as
soon as the three day period has expired when the excess icunt ecanes
subject to the 5262.34(a) requirenents.
Source: C az Miller (202) 382—2220
-------
9453.1986(01)
April 16, 1986
Mr. W. Ernst Minor, Vice President
Government Affairs
Solid Tek Systems Incorporated
4412 Aicholtz Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Dear Mr. Minor:
Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1986, regarding
our regulatory program pertaining to the solidification/fixation
of containerized hazardous liquids.
You expressed concern about the permitting requirements
applicable to generators who use solidification or fixation to
treat hazardous waste which is accumulated on—site for 90 days or
less in conformance with 40 CFR §262.34. The current rules do
not require a permit for a generator who treats a waste when it
is in an accumulation tank or container in compliance with
§262.34. As the Agency has explained in the preamble to the
recent rule-making on small quantity generators, nothing in
§262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste in an
accumulation tank or container covered by §262.34 and Subparts J
or I of Part 265. See 40 Federal Register 10168 (March 24,
1986). Therefore, a generator is not required to have a permit
or interim status if the only on-site management the generator
performs is solidification/fixation (or other treatment) in an
accumulation tank or container during the period of accumulation.
You also inquired about a contradiction that you perceive in
our regulations. You stated that §262.10(b) allows a generator
to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste on—site and only
comply with specific sections of part 262. Therefore, you
believe that §262.10(b) may allow on-site solidification/fixation
without a permit. On the other hand, you point out that the
“Note” after §262.10(f) states that a generator who treats,
stores, or disposes of hazardous waste on-site must meet
applicable standards and permit requirements .
A generator who treats, stores, or disposes on-site must
comply with all applicable standards and permit requirements in
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266, and 270. Section 262.10(b) provides
that a generator who treats, stores, or disposes on—site must
only comply with certain of the generator ( Part 262 )
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
requirements. For example, such generators do not need to comply
with manifest requirements since the waste is not transported
off-site. Section 262.10(b) provides no exemption from our rules
other than certain of the Part 262 requirements. Therefore, the
statement contained in the “Note” after S262.10(f) is appropriate
and accurate.
A generator who treats, stores, or disposes on—site must
comply with all applicable standards and permit requirements in
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266, and 270. Section 262.10(b) provides
that a generator who treats, stores, or disposes on—site must
only comply with certain of the Generator ( Part 262 )
requirements. For example, such generators do not need to comply
with manifest requirements since the waste is not transported
off-site. Section 262.10(b) provides no exemption from our rules
other than certain of the Part 262 requirements. Therefore, the
statement contained in the “note” after §262.10(f) is appropriate
and accurate.
Finally, I would like to clarify when our containerized
hazardous liquids rule will be published. The rules will be
proposed this summer and then finalized about a year later.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact Paul Cassidy of my staff at (202) 382—4682.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9453.1986(02)
RCRA/SUp RFuND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU) (ARY
APRIL 86
2. nall Quantity Generator Accumulation
On March 24, 1985, EPA Dranulgated regulations allowinq a generator
to erate two djstj ct on—site accumulation areas for wastes
generated at different n nthly rates (51 FR 1014).
generator has two accumulation areas on—site. In one area, the
generator stores waste identified as nall quantity generator (SOG)
waste. According to S262.34(d), an SQG that generates betwaen 100
and 1000 kg. in a calendar nonth may store this waste on—site for up
to 180 days without a permit or interim status provided that the
Quantity of waste accumulated never exceeds 6000 kg. The SQG
waste can be stored for 270 days if it is transported 200 miles or
fore.
In another area at the sane site, the generator stores large quantity
generator (LOG) waste which was produced during the nonths the
generator exceeded the 1000 kgAtonth limit. A LOG may store this
waste on—site for up to 90 days without a permit or interim Status.
Must the generator count waste stored in his LOG accLinulatjon area
when determining if the 6000 kg. accumulation limit is exceeded in
(S262.34d)(l))?
Section 262.34(d) states that a generator who generates greater
than 100 kg. but less than 1000 kg. of hazardous waste in a
calendar rTcnth may accumulate hazardous waste on—site for 180
days or less without a permit or interim status provided that,
anong other reauir ientg, the Quantity of waste accumulated on—
site never exceeds 6000 kg. This provisjan applies only to waste
streama produced during calendar fonths when less than 1000 kg is
generated. If re than 1000 kg is generated, it is fully
regulated as large Quantity generator waste. The 6000 kg cap
for the SOG waste strean applies to all waste accumulated on—site.
“On—site” means all contiguous property (S260.10). The definition
does not refer to “units” or “accumulation areas”. Therefore,
the generator must count all waste, including both SQG and L G
that is on—site, in order to determine canpliance with S262.34(d)(1).
Source: Bob Axelrad (202) 382—5218
Maureen 9nith (202) 382—7703
Research: Ingrid sencrantz
-------
. ø “-i:
9453.1986(03)
f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
1 19
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: On-site Treatment
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Off ice of Solid Waste
TO: Harry seraydarian, Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division,
Region IX
The purpose of this memo is to respond to your April 9,
1986, request for clarification of a recent statement with
respect to permitting of treatment activities occurring in a
generator’s accumulation tanks or containers.
As noted in your memo, the preamble to the final small
quantity generator regulations promulgated on March 24, 1986,
states that “... no permitting would be required if a generator
chooses to treat their hazardous waste in the generator’s
accumulation tanks or containers in conformance with the
requirements of Section 262.34 and J or I of Part 265.” This
interpretation is applicable to all generators subject to Section
262. 34.
This statement is based upon a legal interpretation of what
the existing rules allow at this point in time rather than a
deliberate and significant shift in Agency policy with respect
to accumulation or treatment. The preamble discussion continues,
“Nothing in Section 262.34 precludes a generator from tredting
waste when it is in an accumulation tank or container covered by
that provision (emphasis added).” The interpretation is
predicated on the fact that the Agency has allowed certain types
of storage to occur at generation sites (i.e., accumulation for
periods of 90, 180, or 270 days, depending on generator type)
without the requirement for permitting or interim status. Since
the Agency has never developed standards specific to treatment
in tanks and containers, the same technical standards applicable
to such storage (i.e., Subpart I or J of Part 265) would also
be applicable to treatment.
-------
—2—
In choosing to communicate this Legal interpretation
in the small quantity generator final rule, OSW sought to
avoid forcing small firms to stop conducting beneficial
treatment of small quantities of hazardous waste in their
accumulation tanks and containers by requiring them tg
either cease treatment or expend significant resources to
obtain a RCRA permit. We do not believe that allowing
some treatment to occur while wastes are being accurLulated
prior to subsequent management, in full compliance with
applicable tank or container standards, is currently
prohibited under the existing regulatory scheme.
With respect to the limits of treatment which may
occur without a permit on—site, this legal interpretation
only applies to treatment occurring in a generator’s own
accumulation tanks or containers subject to. and in compliance
with, Section 262.34. This means that the tank or container
in which treatment occurs must be appropriately marked
with the date the accumulation period began, the tank or
container must be completely emptied every 90 days (or
180/270 days for generators of 100—1000 kg/mo), and must
be operated in strict compliance with Subparts I or J of
Part 265. Any amendments tO these Subparts which may be
promulgated in the future would also apply. Treatment in
other than tanks or containers (e.g., incineration, land
treatment or treatment in surface impoundments) would
continue to require a permit.
We would expect that generators that treat hazardous
waste on-site in tanks or containers and who have obtained
interim status, a full permit. or have a Part B application
pending mig’ tt wish to exit the permit process on the basis
of this interpretation. Since such on—site treatment
without a permit has never been legally precluded under
RCR.A, those who no wish to avail themselves of this inter-
pretation may do so, provided they comply with all applicable
rules respecting withdrawal of permit applications. If
however, a unit that now qualifies for Section 262.34 has,
in the past, been subject to regulation because it did not
qualify for the Section 262.34 exemptiOn. the Region should
determine whether the unit has residual obligations under
Part 264 or 265 (e.g., closure requirements). In ad dition,
the fact that such a unit was once under interim status
provides a basis for action under Section 30O8(h), where
appropriate.
However, we would caution these generators. as well as
those who may wish to alter their accumulation practices
in order to conduct treatment without a permit 1 not to
rely upon the continued existence of this legal interpretation
in making process changes requiring substantial capital
outlays. specifically. OSW is now considering publication
-------
—3-
of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that would seek
comment on a number of issues related to the 90/180/270 day
accumulation provisions. Should the Agency decide at some
time in the future to either modify the 90 day accumulation
rule in some manner or to write specific standards for
treatment, the obligations of generators with respect to
tteatment in accumulation tanks could change.
cc; Regional Division Directors
Eileen Claussen
Bruce Weddle
Jack Lehman
-------
9453.1986(04)
July 25, 1986
Kevin A. Lehner
RMT, Inc.
Suite 124
1406 East Washington Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Dear Mr. Lehner:
Thank you for your letter of April 4, 1986, requesting
clarification of the Agency’s recent statement with respect to
permitting of treatment activities occurring in a generator’s
accumulation tanks or containers.
As noted in your letter, the preamble to the final small
quantity generator regulations promulgated on March 24, 1986,
states that “... no permitting would be required if a generator
chooses to treat their hazardous waste in the generator s
accumulation tanks or containers in conformance with the
requirements of Section 262.34 and J or I of Part 265.” Although
this statement did appear in the small quantity generator
regulations, it is applicable to all generators who accumulate
waste in compliance with Section 262.34.
The following information may help to place this
interpretation in context and assist you in advising your clients
as to the most appropriate course of action. First, you should
be aware that this statement is based upon an interpretation of
what the existing rules allow at this point in time rather than a
deliberate and significant shift in Agency policy with respect to
accumulation or treatment. As the preamble states, “Nothing in
Section 262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste when it
is in an accumulation tank or container covered by that
provision.” The interpretation is predicated on the fact that
the Agency has allowed certain types of storage to occur at
generation sites (i.e., accumulation for periods of 90, 180, or
270 days, depending on generator type) without the requirement
for permitting or interim status. Since the Agency has never
developed standards specific to treatment, the same technical
standards applicable to such storage (i.e., Subpart I or J of
Part 265) would also be applicable to treatment.
Thus, we do not believe that allowing treatment to occur
while wastes are being accumulated prior to subsequent
management, in full compliance with all §262.34 requirements,
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
including applicable tank or container standards, is currently
prohibited under the existing regulatory scheme.
Since the term “accumulation” is not defined in the
regulations, the Agency would not distinguish between
accumulation for handling other than treatment and accumulation
for the sole purpose of on-site treatment. Thus, each of your
process descriptions do not appear to be subject to permitting at
this time, provided all of the Section 262.34 requirements are
met.
With respect to the limits of treatment which may occur
without a permit on-site, this interpretation only applies to
treatment occurring in a generator’s accumulation tanks or
containers subject to, and in compliance with, Section 262.34.
This means that the tank or container in which treatment occurs
must be appropriately marked with the date the accumulation
period began, the tank or container must be completely emptied
every 90 days (or 180/270 days for generators of 100—1000 kg/mo),
and must be operated in strict compliance with Subparts I or J of
Part 265. Treatment in other than tanks or containers (e.g.,
incineration, land treatment or treatment in surface
impoundments) would continue to require a permit.
We would expect that generators that treat hazardous waste
on-site in tanks or containers and who have obtained interim
status, a full permit, or have a Part B application pending might
wish to exit the permit process on the basis of this
interpretation. Since such on-site treatment without a permit
has never been precluded under RCRA, those who now wish to avail
themselves of this exemption may do so, provided they comply with
all applicable rules respecting withdrawal of permit
applications. Specifically, these facilities will need to comply
with Part 264 or 265 facility closure requirements unless they
can demonstrate that their treatment tank or container has always
been operated in strict conformance with the requirements of
Section 262.34. In addition, these generators would also be
subject to Section 3008(h) corrective action provisions.
Finally, we would also caution those generators who may wish
to alter their accumulation practices in order to conduct
treatment without a permit, not to rely upon the continued
existence of this exemption, particularly where making process
changes requiring substantial capital outlays may be involved.
Specifically, EPA has recently published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking that discusses eliminating the accumulation
exemption for large quantity generators. Should the Agency
decide at some time in the future to either modify the
accumulation rule in some manner or to write specific standards
for treatment, the obligations of generators with respect to
treatment in accumulation tanks could change.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—3—
If I can be of any further assistance, or if you have
additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9453.1986(06)
- RCRA/STJPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU)OthRY
NOVEMBER 86
3. Prohibition on Storage of Restricted Wastes
The land disposal restrictions rule for listed solvents and dioxin wastes
was prom.zlgated in the November 7, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 40572).
40 CFR 268 Subpart E establishes prohibitions on storage of restricted
hazardous wastes. The wastes restricted as of November 8, 1986 are
those meeting the FOOl through F005 listings under S261.31 except for
wastes generated by a smell quantity generator of 100 — 1000 kg/no, or
a RCA response action or corrective action required under R( A, or
a solvent -water mixture or sludge, solid, or soil containing less than
one percent total FOOl through F005 constituents listed in Table WE
of S268.41 (51 FR 40642). According to S268.50(a)(]j, generators who
store hazardous waste solely for the purpose of acQanulation of quantities
as necessary to facilitate pr er recovery, treatment, or disposal
beyond the 90—day limit set in S262.34(a) mey qualify for interim
status under S270.70 and tmist apply for a permit. Section 268.50(a)
does not mention the possibility of obtaining a 30-day extension due
to extenuating circumetances, as provided in S262.34(b). Does this
mean that the tion of obtaining a 30—day extension no longer exists
for generators storing restricted wastes?
No, the generator mey still qualify for an extension under
S262.34(b) if the waste ni.ist r in on—site for more than
90 days because of unforeseen, ten orary, and uncontrollable
circumetances. The n land disposal restrictions regula-
tions do not delete or amend S262.34(b), bat rather impose n
restrictions on storage that apply in addition to the requirements
in S262.34. Section 262.34 specifies the circumetances under
which a generator can store hazardous wastes without interim
status or a permit, while S268.50 requires that storage of
prohibited wastes during that time nust be for the specific
purpose stated above. In addition, according to S270.10(e)(1)(ii),
the generator has thirty days from the date he first becomes
subject to Part 265 standards to submit a Part A permit
application, so it is conceivable that a generator may obtain
an ext3nsion and still apply for a permit. The final decision
to grant an extension under S262.34(b) on a case—by-case basis
still rests with the Regional Administrator.
Source: Mitch Kidwel]. (202) 382—4805
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
9453.1986(07)
DEC 5 86
M . Janet L. Weller
Cleary, Gott]jeb, Steen and aamilton
1752 N Street, N.y.
DC 20035
Dear Me. Weller:
Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1986, requestjn
an interpretatjo of the activities allowed under 40 CFR 262.34.
In your letter, you refer to the preamble in the
March 24, 1986 final reRulatjons for emafl quantity generators
which states that no permit would be required if a generator
chooses to treat its hazardous waste in a tank or container that
Is fully in comvljance with all of the requirements imposed by
*262.34. You are correct in noting that this interpretation
applje3 to all generators subject to 262.34.
Encloged for your information is a memo which further
clarIfj the scope and limitations of this Lnter!retatjon, If
you have any further questions on this iseue, please feel free to
contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, at (202) 382—4769 or
Maureen 5’ ith in the Office of General Counsel at (202)
382—7703.
N ilijams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9453.1986(08)
Mr. 3. Alex Barber
Di rector
r lvision of WaRte Manaaefneflt
Co,nmonwqalt’ ef Kentucky
Denartii ent for Env1roni efltal Protection
Port Poone Plara
15 Pejily Road
Prankfort, Kentucky 40601
Dear Mr. Rarbers
My aoolonies for the delay In gettino back to you on your
letter of Minuet 27, 198 , eoncernlnfi the treatment of hazardous
waste In a enerator’fi accuu’ulatiOFl tanks and containers.
As you know, the Aqency stated In the preambl. to the final
sMall cuantity cienerator reaulatione In the March 24, 1986,
Pedersl ønister that treaP ’ønt could occur In a aeneratot’S
aceu” ul tlOfl tanks and containers without a peri it, nrov lderl the
treatrlønt was perforii’eci strictly in accor’ianca wIth 40 CPR 262.34.
While T can ap’,r.clate the points you raise in your letter with
r.qDect to consistencY of interpretation, I believe that this
policy discussion was, and r.iiaina, appror riate for several
reasons.
First, while it a nears on the surcace to be a aior shift
in oolicy, it reoresent* a lonq—standii’ta opinion of our Office of
Genera] Counsol that consistency dictates that treatment and
storaae which is reciulated identicallY at permitted facilities
also be rec,ulated Identically at aeneratlon aitee. At this tiMe,
we dr not have special tr.at,ent standards in the reaulations for
aiw treatnent activities except for Incinerator .. Thus, when we
perMit treatment facilities, or permit storage facilities, the
identical standards apply. If the storacie or treatment occurs In
a tank, the tank standards muet be met. If the activity occurs in
a container, the container standards apply. It is true that
additional permit recyuirements, Includina financial responsibility
and corrective action, are imnosed at t th treatment and atoracie
facilities where perinittinci is recnsirsd and I fully saree that
this appropriate.
-------
—2—
While we have differentiated in the reau1 tions between long
term etoraf,e and accumulation at generation sites, they ar.
nevertheless at their core identical activities. We have chosen
to exempt from permittlrw recuirementa (as well as associated
financial responsibility and corrective action provisions) storage
(i.e., accumulation) which occurs at generation sit•s for less
90 days (or 180 or 270 days in the eas. of smell guantity
nenerators). Since the regulations do not Impose additional
standard’ for treatment when it occurs in a storage facility.
there is no basis for regulating treatment at an exempt storage
facility.
Whether or not the 5262.34 exemption from permittinc for
storav]e, as well as treatment, is appropriate Is an issue which
we are now hecinning to re—examine. As you know, we puhlished
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on July 14, 19’36, which
sought Comment on various aspects of the exemption. Should we
change the 5262.34 regulations for on—site accumulation, it
would of course affect the status of treatment as well. Similarly.
If we develop treatment standards for additional activities
which we believe warrant special standards, these activities
would also lose their exemption from permitting.
We ultimately chose to co unicate this leoal interpretation
in the small auantity generator regulations because we believe
that It is essential that treatment not be unduly tliscoureaed
under our regulations, particularly at a time when disoosal
options are being severely limited under a variety of statutory
and regulatory provisions. In particular, we were concerned that
a substantial amount of treatment was occurring at generator
sites which were unregulated prior to the September 22. 1986
effective date for small quantity qenerator regulations. It was
important to clearly state the Agency’s position on this matter.
As a practical matter, althouah this policy will allow
some treatment which has been carried out without a permit up
to this point to continue, we believe lt will have little or
no imoact at permitted or Interim status treatment facilities.
while permitted or interim status treatment units at generator
sites may now become strictly accumulation units and thue
exit the permit process, we would assume that these tanks or
containers have not been operated strictly in accordance with
the accumulation provisions in the past (eq.. emntied every
90 days) and thus hay, been legitimately and appropriatel! brought
into the oermit syst•m. Purth.rmorS, exiting the permit
process muSt be accomplished strictly in •ccordanc with the
procedures already estahllshetl (e.a., In compliance with the
closure rules).
-------
A ain, let me assure you that I understand your mi .aivi
with respect to thi . discussion. However, 1 must also point out
ehst It 1. our Position that this is and has been the leqal
situation with respect to trsat .nt in accumulation tanks and
container, since Uts 5262.34 provisIon, wer. promul at.d,
I hooe that this has h.lp.6 to clarify our position on this
Issue. If you wish to discus. th. issu. in more utah, Dleame
feel free to contect Maureen S’ii lth in the Office of General
Counsel at (202) 382—7703 or Rob Axeirad, of my staff, at (202)
382—4769.
Sincerely,
/
Marcia William,
Direct.,r
ff Ice of Solid Waste
-------
so SE%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
9453.1987(01)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Brent C. Bradford
Executive Secretary
Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 16690
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116—0690
Dear Mr. Bradford:
Robert Duprey, Director of the Waste Management Division
in Region VIII, forwarded your letter of January 8, 1987 to
this Office. This letter contains our response to the
questions you raised regarding issues relating to the Federal
regulations for satellite accumulation under 40 CFR 262.34(c).
1. What is the intent of the Federal regulation with respect
to the total amount (volume) of hazardous waste at each
satellite accumulation area ?
A generator may accumulate as much as 55 gallons of
hazardous waste, or one quart of acutely hazardous waste, in
containers at or near any point of generation where the waste
initially accumulates and which is under the control of the
operator of the process. EPA believes that only one waste would
normally be accumulated at each satellite area, and that the
exempted accumulation should be limited to 55 gallons.
Although the total amount of hazardous waste that may be
accumulated at any one satellite area is limited to 55 gallons,
EPA intentionally did not limit the total number of satellite
areas at a generator’s facility nor specify the size of the
containers to be used for accumulation (though we believe
many facilities will use 55—gallon drums).
-------
—2—
2. Does the Federal regulation limit the number of containers
that can be placed at a satellite accumulation area ?
The Federal regulations do not limit the number of containers
that can be placed at a satellite accumulation area; rather, the
regulations limit the total gallons accumulated to 55.
3. As described in the Utah proposed interpretation, will Utah
be equivalent to the Federal regulations if the State allows
more than 55 gallons of hazardous waste to be accumulated in
more than one drum..., but require personnel training, preparedness
and prevention and contingency plans ?
No, a “satellite accumulation area” is limited to a total
accumulation of 55 gallons, not 165 gallons as proposed.
4. Is Utah’s interpretation of “three days” to mean three “working”
days equivalent to EPA’s intent ?
Yes.
5. Will Utah be equivalent to EPA if we require that the date
be placed on the full drum ?
Yes, if a facility uses 55—gallon drums, then the date
excess accumulation began must be clearly marked on the drum.
I trust that the above discussion answers your questions and
concerns relating to the Federal satellite accumulation require-
ments. If not, Chet Oszman of my staff (202—382—4499) is willing
to provide clarification as needed.
Sincerely,
SL4- aiu , £ Om yyL -’
Susan E. Bromm
Acting Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Kent Gray, State of Utah
Robert Duprey, Region VIII
Patricia Brechlin, Region VIII
Chester Oszman, PSPD
-------
SZ
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ REGION VIII
999 18th STREET—SUITE 500
DENVER. COLORADO 80202-2405
JAN 2 3 1987
Ref: 8HWt4-WM
MEMORANDUM :
TO: Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Pe .9s S ate Programs Division (WH—563)
FROM: ,- bert Duprey, Director
Waste Management Division
SUBJECT: Satellite Accumulation in the State of Utah
The State of Utah has requested information from EPA Region VIII
concerning the interpretation of the regulations on Satellite Accumulation.
We are forwarding this request dated January 8, 1987, to you.
Please contact Ms. Patricia Brechlin of my staff at FTS 564—1507 if you
have any questions pertaining to this matter.
End osure
cc: I(ent Gray
-------
I.
1JTAN /
Norman H. Bange er
Gc vc’ -vr
, \ / Suzanne Dandoy. M D.. M.P.H
E cutiw Di ecor
January 8, 1987
538—6170
Robert Duprey
EPA Region VIII
One Denver Place, Suite 1300
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202—2413
Dear Mr. Duprey:
The Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee recently adopted regulations
on Satellite Accumulation. These Satellite Accumulation regulations were
adopted verbatim to the federal language. See 40 C.F.R. 262.34(c).
The ambiguity in both the January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1984 Federal
Register preambles and in the final rule make it very difficult to produce a
solid interpretation of these Satellite Accumulation regulations.
The Committee now is in the position of having regulations in—place that
are open to several interpretations and thus present problems with
enforceability.
To deal with this problem, Utah is now considering clarifications to these
regulations.
The following points of interpretation have been determined:
1. Two different types of satellite accumulation areas are proposed to
be recognized:
Type A: A low volume, slow accumulation point of generation which
produces only one waste stream, and thus will utilize only one
55—gallon drum (as the accumulation container).
Type B: A point of generation which produces multiple low volume,
slow accumulation waste streams. Thus, more than one 55—gallon drum
will be utilized, one for each waste stream. This multi—drum
satellite accumulation area will be limited_to a three drum maximum
(165 gallons). ,/— :: N\ \
‘ - •‘ (! -‘
_lJ
-‘I - —
Jr IiiJg 7
1
Kenneth L Ajkema DirectOr • Du s’on of Enwonmental Health
288 Noriri 1460 Wesi • P0 Boc 16690 • Sali Lake Cl U h 8411(,-0690 • I8O!J 538-612i
-------
2. Type A satellite accumulation areas will be subject only to the
requirements as stated in 40 C.F.R. 262.34(c). Type B satellite
accumulation areas will require generator compliance with all personnel
training, contingency plans, and preparedness and prevention regulations
at each Type B satellite accumulation area.
3. The date that will be placed on the drum will be the date the drum is
full. It is this full drum that will be managed, not the “excess
accumulation”.
4. The generator must move the drum off—site or to central storage
within three “working days” of the date that is placed on the drum.
5. The 90—day storage clock begins with the date which is placed on the
drum.
6. Generators who utilize Satellite Accumulation areas must have a list
available to all inspectors which identifies where hazardous waste is
produced and the type of hazardous waste produced at each satellite
accumulation area.
The Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee is concerned with several
points and requests a response to the following questions:
1. What is the intent of the federal regulation with respect to the
total amount ( volume ) of hazardous waste at each satellite accumulation
area?
2. Does the federal regulation limit the number of containers that can
be placed at a satellite accumulation area?
3. As described in items 1 and 2 of the Utah proposal, will Utah be
equivalent to the federal regulations if we allow more than 55 gallons of
hazardous waste to be accumulated in more than one drum at a Type B
satellite accumulation area, but require personnel training, preparedness
and prevention and contingency plans?
4. Is Utah’s interpretation of “three days” to mean three “working” days
equivalent to EPA’s intent? See 49 FR 12/20/84 page 49569.
5. Will Utah be equivalent to EPA, if we require that the date be placed
on the full drum? (ie. On which container is the date to be placed?)
Utah requests assistance from EPA on this issue. Please review the Utah
proposal on satallite accumulation as outlined in this letter and provide the
information by January 21, 1987. The Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee
proposes to deal with this issue at it’s meeting scheduled for February 4,
1987.
The Committee is interested in responding to industry concerns regarding
their ability to handle hazardous wastes under this rule.
-------
Before preparing your response, please call Kent Cray of this office to
make sure that industries’ concerns are adequately understood.
Questions or comments should be directed to Kent Gray of this office.
C,
Sincerely
Executive Secretary
Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee
cc: Brian Buck, Chairperson; Solid and Hazardous Waste Subcommittee
Lou Johnson, EPA Region VIII
Jim Rakers, EPA Region VIII
Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee Members
AIIW:dt
9830U
-------
%0 .
I .©, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC 9453.1987(02)
WASHINGTON D.C. 20410
“ t 1 Ø t
o ice oc
SOLID WASTI AND EME OENCY mCSPONSE
25
Kathryn T. Ailford
NL Treating Chemicals
NL Industries, Inc.
17402 Wallisville Road
Houston, TX 77049
Dear Ms. Aliford,
Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1987. Your
question concerning on—site treatment by a generator is covered
by 40 CFR c262.34, the 90—day generator rule. You are correct
in your assessment of the rule. That is, a generator who otherwise
meet. the requirements of 40 CPR 262.34 need not obtain a RCRA
hazardous waste permit to conduct treatment in a tank system. In
your specific situation, you are well within the 90—day time
limit, and as long as you meet the other requirements of c262.34,
you should have no regulatory problem. in setting up your treatment
system.
If you have further questions, call Mike Petruska of my
staff at (202) 382—4761.
Sincerely,
MC P A 4 _ LJJ A (
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453.1987(03)
July 1, 1987
Bernard E. Cox, Jr., Chief
Hazardous Waste Branch
Land Division
Alabama D.E.M.
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Dear Mr. Cox:
This is in response to your letter of June 11, 1987,
requesting clarification of EPA’S policies concerning the
regulatory status of on-site treatment by generators under 40 CFR
§262.34. The following addresses, first, EPA’S general policy in
this area, and then the specific container—related examples you
provided.
1. General policy . Although you appear to believe that EPA
has amended its interpretation of the hazardous waste rules in
March 1986, EPA actually discussed the relationships between
storage treatment, and disposal in the preamble of the
January 12, 1981 Federal Register . (See 46 Federal Register
2806—2808). In particular, EPA noted that treatment can occur
either at a disposal or a storage facility and that the conduct
of treatment does not affect a facility’s regulatory status.
(Id. at 2808 .)V Nothing in §262.34, or in preambles
specifically related to the section (often called the “90 day
generator” rule) preclude treatment. EPA believes that treatment
activities should similarly not affect the regulatory status of
90—day generators.
Of course, EPA’s most important consideration is protection
of human health and the environment. In discussing treatment at
storage facilities, EPA noted that the general requirement of
§264.17, which applies to all storage facilities, addresses
hazards posed by ignitable, incompatible, or reactive wastes.
(See 46 Federal Register 2806; January 12, 1981.) EPA concluded,
therefore, that the most serious hazards likely to be posed
during treatment would be addressed under these provisions.
(Id.) Ninety-day generators similarly must comply with special
11 We view this preamble discussion as more definitive than
the statements and guidance you quote from 1980.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
requirements for ignitable, reactive, or incompatible waste under
Subparts I and J of Part 265 (referenced by §262.34).
Finally, EPA notes that treatment often renders waste less
or nonhazardous, or more amenable for further treatment,
recycling, etc. The hazard posed by waste shipped off—site can
thereby be reduced, and recycling can be promoted. A requirement
to obtain a permit for any on-site treatment would very likely
discourage such practices.
2. Treatment in containers . Although nothing in §262.34
specifically precludes treatment in containers, 90—day generators
are subject to the container management standards of Part 265,
Subpart I. One provision of Subpart I (S265.173(a)) requires
that containers be kept closed during storage, except when adding
or removing waste. Other sections of Subpart I provide that
containers must be handled to prevent leaks or ruptures
(S265.l73(b)), and address hazards pose by incompatible,
reactive, or ignitable waste (SS265.172, 265.176, and 265.177).
These requirements limit the extent that treatment could occur in
containers. The examples you provided (burning in open drums or
tanks) would be considered open burning under S260.10, and as
such, would generally be recognized as a method of disposal.
Disposal does change a facility’s regulatory status, and is not
allowed under §262.34. Further, open burning (except for certain
explosive wastes) is prohibited under §265.382. Finally, if
there are cases of treatment that do not appear to be adequately
regulated under §262.34, EPA can take action to mitigate an
imminent hazard under RCRA Section 7003.
Please feel free to contact Michael Petruska at 475-6676 if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: James Scarbrough, Chief
Region IV Residuals Management Branch
Hazardous Waste
Division Directors, Regions I-X
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9453.1987(04)
July 14, 1987
Michael C. Weisberg
MCW, Inco., Consulting Engineers
101 Laughing Cow Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Dear Mr. Weisberg:
This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1987, in which
you request an interpretation of how the EPA hazardous waste
regulations apply to a generator recycling hazardous waste on-
site. First, from the information you provided, we start with
the premise that the generator has a spent liquid ink waste that
exhibits the characteristic of ignitability. The answers to your
specific questions are as follows:
(1) A generator who complies with the special accumulation
provisions of 40 CFR §262.34 may treat his waste on—
site in his accumulation tanks or containers without
obtaining a permit or having interim status. Among
other things, the rules require that the waste remain
in the accumulation/treatment vessel for a maximum of
90 days. Further, a company may market treatment
equipment to waste generators (or anyone else) without
a permit or any approval from EPA. EPA only regulates
those persons who actually manage hazardous waste.
(2) When a characteristic hazardous waste is treated so
that it no longer exhibits any characteristic, the
resultant waste is no longer considered hazardous.
(3) You may recycle waste at your customers’ sites if you
so wish. Generators of waste (your customers) are
responsible for complying with 40 CFR Part 262. In
addition, if they store waste in tanks or containers
for more than 90 days (or store it in any other type of
unit for any length of time), they would need to get a
storage permit.
However, as you point out, EPA does not currently
regulate the actual process of reclamation, so the
distillation activity you describe would not lead to
additional requirements for a waste generator.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska, of my staff, at (202) 475—6676.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY - 9453.1987(05)
AUG I 2 1987
Honorable Lane Evans
House of Representative.
Washington, D.C. 2051S
Dear Mr. Evans,
This letter is in response to your recent inquiry regarding
the concerns of Illinois State Representative Richard A.
Mautino. The issue he raises involves the temporary storage
of hazardous *ast. by manufacturers pending disposal at a per-
mitted treatment or disposal facility.
Under regulations implementing the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), generators of hazardous waste may
accumulate waste on—site for 90 days or less without a permit
provided that the wastes are handled in a protective manner.
(40 CFR 264.34) Th... regulations further provide that a
30—day extension of this 90—day period may be granted if the
wastes rer ain on—sit.e due to unforeseen, temporary, and
uncontrollable circumstances. (4OCFR 264.34(b))
Th. provision allowing for a 30—day extension hac. not
been eliminated from the Federal regulat ions, contrary to
Representative Mautino’s understanding. This Federal provision,
which has also been adopted in the Illinois State program,
would provide the flexibility that Mr. Mautino recommended.
Mr. Mautino suggests that a hazardous waste generator should
be granted an additional 30—day extension in certain cases,
e.g., if th• generator’s special waste hauler went out of
business or if a landfill closed, and the generator would
need extra tia to find other haulers or an alternate landfill.
Sot.h Federal and state regulations would allow this extension.
if th. state found that it was necessary because of unforeseen,
temporary, and uncontrolled circumstances.
-------
Illinois, as a State authorized to administer their own
hazardous waste program in lieu of th. pederal. program. may
grant a 30—day extension when it deems appropriate without
obtaining clearance from the U.S. nvirorwt.ntel Protection
Agency.
I hop. this information will prov, useful to you. If I
can be of any further assistance, pleas. let me know.
Sincerely,
7. Winston Porter
Assistant Adsninstrator
-------
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4J It,uu, , 9453.1987(07)
N 1 I 7 IBT
IOLI WAITE AND tMI GtNCY t
Gary Smith
Burns and Levinson
Counsellors at Law
50 Milk Street
Boston, ) 02109
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1987,
regarding labeling of steel drums.
The hazardous waste regulations under EPA’s Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act do not require a shipper to provide
documentation listing all previous contents of a steel drum used
for transportation of used automotive parts. EPA’S regulations for
preparation of hazardous waste for transport, found in 40 CFR Part
262, subpart C, require only that the generator comply with the
applicable packaging, labeling, marking and placarding requirements
under Department of Transportation (DOT) regulation (49 CFR Parts
172—179). In addition, there is no EF requirement to list all
previously contained materials on the Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest. Furthermore, if the used automobile cores sent for
remanufacture are not hazardous wastes, EPA would not regulate
their transportation at all.
In summary, nothing in EPA’s hazardous waste regulations
supports the claims in the flyers concerning documentation of past
materials held in steel drums. If such a documentation requirement
exists, it may be the result of a state or local ordinance.
Sincerel
Will
i rector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
53.1987(o9)
DEC C .987
Eric J. Dougherty
8409 H. Morveri Road
Parkvilj.e, MD 21234
Dear Mr. Dougherty:
This is in response to your November 13, 1987 letter to
Robert Scarberry concerning land disposal of solvents. The answers
to your questions are as follows. -
First, you are correct that industrial wastewater discharges
subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) are excluded from the hazard-
ous waste regulations, and it does not matter how the wastewater
was generated. You should note, however, that only the discharge
is excluded. If hazardous wastewaters are collected, stored,
treated, or disposed of prior to discharge, this prior management
is subject to the hazardous waste regulations (including the land
disposal restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268).
Second, EPA does not have groundwater discharge guidelines
per Se. Facilities that have RCRA interim status or that seek a
RCRA hazardous waste facility permit are subject to a number of
requirements designed to protect groundwater in 40 CFR Parts 264,
265, 266 and 268,, as well as the corrective action provisions of
RCRA Sections 3004(u) and 3008(h). Facilities that generate
hazardous waste but which are exempt from interim status and
permitting requirements under the accumulation provisions of 40 CFR
Section 262.34 (this is likely the case for the automotive mainten-
ance facilities you asked about) are subject to container and tank
management standards designed to prevent releases to groundwater.
When releases do occur, EPA or the appropriate State agency can
take enforcement action under RCRA Sections 3008(a) and 7003 to
require the facility owner or operator to stop the discharge and to
clean—up contaminated soil and groundwater.
-------
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael Petruska at 9202) 475—8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453. 1988(32 )
RCRA/SUPERFU}JD HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARy
JANUARY 88
2. “ Lab Packs” at Generator Sites
Is a permit required for a service company (under
contractual agreement to manage a generator’s hazardous
waste) to come onto a generator’s site and re—package small
containers of hazardous waste into large containers with
absorbents?
A generator may accumulate wastes pursuant to Section
262.34, and nothing in Section 262.34 precludes a
generator from treating waste when it is in an
accumulation tank or container provided that the
performance standards under Subparts I and J of Part
265 are met (51 FR 10168), and provided that the
treatment is not thermal treatment or incineration
which are subject to Part 265 Subpart P and 0
respectively. Further, the addition of absorbent
material to waste in a container or the addition of
waste to a container holding absorbent material also is
exempt from permitting in accordance with Section
265.1(c)(13). Because a service company may act on
behalf of the generator. a permit would not be required
for a service company to re-containerize the wastes
and/or add absorbent material prior to shipping of f-
site. The Agency’s current policy on treatment at a
generator facility is that treatment often renders
waste less hazardous or at least easier to transport or
more amenable for recovery. For these reasons, EPA
considers that such treatment is not only allowable
under S262.34, but treatment is consistent with sound
waste management (memo, dated 12/15/87, from Marcia
Williams to Robert Greaves).
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475—8551
Research: Bob Adamson
-------
‘ VINuNM $TAL PI CTION AGENCY
9453.1988(03)
2-4 88
K.G. Wiman FE 25 99
Chief, Office of Engineering
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard (G-ECV-5B)
Washington, DC 20593
Dear Mr. Wiman:’
This is in response to your letter of September 23 1987,
concerning the RCRA regulations and the generation of ATON
batteries. As you noted, my office recently issued an interpre-
tive memo to EPA Region X concerning generation of these
batteries. As discussed below, we do not view the memo as a
departure from past EPA policy, and for that reason, it did not
occur to my staff to consult with the Coast Guard.
The definition of generator for the purposes of RCRA is by
site, rather than by central facility. A site may include each
vessel that isa point of waste generation. EPA dealt with a
situation analogous to yours when it promulgated its small quantity
generator regulations on March 24, 1986. In the preamble to that
rule, we clarified that off—shore drilling facilities are separate
generation points, and as such are subject to the 40 CFR Part 262
generator requirements. (See 51 10162.) Also, when EPA amended
the hazardous waste regulations to exempt waste generated in
product or raw material tanks and vessels, EPA used examples of
units that would be regulated absent the exemption that included
vessels (i.e., water craft). (See 45 FR 72025; October 30, 1987.)
Therefore, we have always considered waste generation at-sea as
potentially sub3ect to regulation, and the July 30, 1987 memo to
Region X correctly interprets current EPA regulations.
Since thè .July 30, 1987. memo was sent from OSW to Region X, I
understand that our staffs and staff from the U.S. Navy have met
and discussed this issue. From that discussion, there are three
points that I would like to clarify. First, if a buoy is brought
onto a ship and the ATON battery is removed, the ship can be
considered the generation site (instead of the buoy.) This may
help reduce paperwork for you, as each servicing vessel could
-------
—2—
comply with 40 CFR Part 262 instead of each buoy. Second, so
long as the spent batteries remain on-site, Le. , on board the
ship, the 90—day accumulation provision of 40 CTR 262.34 would
allow Storage of the batteries if the regulatory conditions are
met. Third, while it is generally true that a £a jjty must
have a RCRA permit or interim status to receive ous waste
from off—site, please note that 40 CFR Section does
allow storage of hazardous waste in for
10 days or less at transfer facilities without A mut or
interim status. Your shore bases may be able to operate under
this “10—day rule” in lieu of becoming RcRA storage facilities.
Also, as a result of that meeting, my staff has concluded
that EPA should re-evaluate the exemption in Section 261.4(c)
for product and raw material vessels to determine whether it
Should be expanded to cover other vessels. At this meeting we
also discussed resource limitations that would affect the
timing of a formal reevaluation of the exemption. One way to
expedite this evaluation and possible rulemaking would be for
the Coast Guard to provide staff support for the project, i.e. ,
perhaps a three day per week detail over several months. If
this were possible, we could begin this effort much sooner.
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475—9888. Also, please feel
free to contact Mike on whether a detail would be feasible.
Sincerely,
Jeffery D. Denit
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
——
-------
9 453.1989(on
RCRA/5UpERF D HOTLINE MONTHLY Su)gq.& y
APRIL 89
2. Generator Standards Applicable to Transporters
Are transporters eligible for the Section 262.34 accumulation time provision
when they mix wastes?
No. The accumulation time provision only applies to generators. Mixing
two or more wastes does not generate a new waste or make the transporter a
generator. Therefore, transporters are not eligible for the accumulation time.
The transporter may hold the waste pursuant to Section 263.12 for ten days or
less at a transfer facility. Storage periods of greater than ten days will require
the facility to apply for a permit or interim status.
Source: Emily Roth (202) 3824777
Research: Joe Nixon (202) 488-1487
-------
9453.1989(03)
RCRA/SUpERFUND HOTLINE MONTHI y SU D1ARY
AUGUST 89
2. Generator Satellite Accumulation/Counting Requirements
A generator accumulates hazardous waste in a satellite accumulation area
pursuant to 40 CFR Section 262.34(c) standards. The generator also generates
other RCRA hazardous waste elsewhere on-site. When determining
generator status, must a generator count the waste collecting in the satellite
accumulation area or count it once it enters the generator storage area?
To determine their generator status, generators must count all hazardous
waste generated at their facility in a calendar month. Wastes not included
in the monthly determination are identified in Section 261.5(c). These are
wastes either not subject to regulation or subject to only the notification
and reporting requirements in Sections 262.11, 262.12, 262.40(c) and 262.41.
Wastes stored in the satellite accumulation area are subject to certain
container standards (e.g., Sections 265.171, 265.172, and 265.173(a)). These
regulations are not among those listed in 261.5(c). Therefore, wastes in the
satellite accumulation must be included in the generator’s monthly waste
quantity determination.
Source: Emily Roth (202)3824777
Research: Gwen Herron
-------
,.IO Spa,.,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEI 9453.1989(04)
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
3rcICE F
SOLID WASE AND EM GE Cv a:s;
Mr. Eric E. Boyd
Sid].e ’ & Austin
One First National Plaza
Chicago, IL 60603
Dear Mr. Boyd:
This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1989 in
which you requested clarification of the regulations that apply
to still bottoms generated and removed from a recycling unit.
Specifically, you inquired as to when the waste accumulation
time begins in an on-site solvent recycling operation. The
accumulation time for still bottoms resulting from the recycling
of spent solvent begins when the still bottoms are removed from
the distillation unit. The recycling unit is exempt from
regulation, therefore, the still bottoms are considered to be a
nevl 9enerated waste eligible for accumulation under the
provisions of 40 CFR Section 262.34. They are also a “derived
from” waste and carry the same EPA waste code as the spent
solvent from which they were derived (40 CFR 261.3(c) (2) (i)).
The spent solvent which is rec ’cled by your client is a
hazardous waste subject to regulation. The generator must
determine his generator status, i.e. conditionally exempt
generator (40 CFR Section 261.5), small quantity generator (40
CFR Section 262.34(d-f)), or large quantity generator (40 CFR
Section 262.34(a—b)), based on the total amount of hazardous
waste he generates in a calendar month, which includes the total
amount of spent solvent before recycling. The accumulation time
for the spent solvent under the provisions of 40 CFR Section
262.34 is 90 days, or 180 days if your client is a small
quantity generator of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of
hazardous waste in a month.
If we can. be of any further assistance, please contact
Emily Roth at (202) 382—4777.
Syl tia K. T.o ce
Diiector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
WUTED S TU ENY1iOI ENTfL PROTECTION A !NCY • 1989(07)
I,
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: “Satellite” Accumulation
FROM: Sylvia K. Lovrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Ulirich, Associate Division Director
Office of RCRA
Waste Management Division (5I -l3)
In response to your memorandum of June 13, 1989, we have
addressed the questions posed by Ohio EPA regarding our
requirements of 40 CFR Section 262.34(c) concerning satellite
accumulation.
Specifically, in the attachment to your memorandum, Ohio EPA
asks if roll-off boxes meet the definition of containers and may
be used at satellite accumulation areas. It is our view that if
the roll-off boxes meet the definition of container found in
Section 260.10 and are managed in accordance with the applicable
container requirements of Sections 265.171, 265.172, and
265.173(a), they may be utilized in satellite accumulation.
Section 260.10 defines “container” a. “any portable device
in which a material is stored, transported, treated, disposed of
or otherwise handled.” A roll-off box is a portable device. The
container requirements include: (1) that the container be in
good condition (i.e., not leaking), (2) that the container be of
a material, or lined with a material, which is compatible with
th. waste, and, (3) that the container be closed during storage,
except to or remove waste.
The other requirement under Section 262.34(c) (1) states
that the iner be marked with the words “Hazardous Waste” or
other words that identify the contents. This is the extent of
the physical requirements for satellite accumulation containers.
Therefore, as long as the quantity limits and time limits for
excess quantities are met, the roll—off box may be classified as
a satellite accumulation container.
-------
However, for containers used in off—site shipment of
hazardousste, the Department of Transportation (DOT) packaging
specific for the hazard class must be met. DOT regulations
governing transportation of hazardous materials are found in
49 CFR Pa 171 through 177.
Ohio EPA has also raised a concern about the ability of a
generator to determine when the 55 gallon quantity limit for
satellite accumulation of hazardous waste (or one quart of acute
hazardous waste), is exceeded if roll-off boxes are used. The
dimensions, or capacity, of the roll-off boxes are not mentioned
in the Ohio EPA attachment. Under our regulations any type of
container may be used as a satellite accumulation device provided
it meets the Section 260.10 definition for container, and is used
in accordance with the above—mentioned container provisions of
Part 265. We ask that Ohio EPA inform us if they find that the
use of roll—off boxes of various volumes and capacities
contributes to a generator’s inability to quantify his waste.
In addition to answering these questions, we offer the
following observation. It appears that the Ohio EPA has a
thorough understanding of the Section 262.34 requirements and
provides an accurate interpretation of the regulations. However’
you should note that, upon removal from an accumulation storage
area, hazardous waste may also be managed in an on-site permitted
unit (45 76624, November 19, 1980).
If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please
do not hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact Emily
Roth at (202) 382—4777.
-------
9453.1989(08)
,i O
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4,
OFFICE OF
& I 0 SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
T.R. Kirk, Environmental Scientist
Fehr-Graham & Associates
660 W. Stephenson St.
Preeport, Illinois 61032
Dear Mr. Kirk:
This is in response to your letter of July 6, 1989,
requesting a clarification of 40 CFR Section 262.34(c), the
“satellite accumulation” provision. Section 262.34(c) (1) states
that, provided certain requirements are met, “a generator may
accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart
of acutely hazardous waste listed in Section 261.33(e) in
containers at or near any point of generation where wastes
initially accumulate, which is under the control of the operator
of the process generating the waste . .. “ Your question concerns
whether the 55 gallon limit on hazardous waste applies to the
total quantity of hazardous waste accumulated at the satellite
location, or if it applies to each waste stream accumulated at
the satellite location.
The 55 gallon limit applies to the total of all the non-
acutely hazardous waste accumulated at a satellite accumulation
area. In the enclosed g j Ei .ti notice of December 20,
1984 (49 49568) EPA explicitly states that the 55 gallon limit
on non-acutely hazardous waste applies to each satellite
accumulation area.
Although the total amount of hazardous waste that may be
- accumulated at any one satellite area is limited to 55 gallons,
EPA intentionally did not limit the total number of satellite
areas at a generator’s facility nor specify the size of the
containers to be used for accumulation. A case-by-case analysis
is necessary to dstermine whether a generator is accumulating
more than 55 gallons of waste at one satellite area, or whether a
generator has more than one satellite area. An example of a
situation that would not be in compliance with the regulations is
-------
given in th. enclosed g j notice Ofl Page 49569,
column 3. The appropriate State or EPA Regional office would
make these case-by—case determinations.
If you have any further questions regarding this letter, you
may contact Emily Roth of my staff at (202) 382-4777.
Enclosure
-------
RCRA/SUpERFUND HOTLINE stn !i y 9453.1990(01)
APRIL 1990
I. SIGNIFICANT OUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—APRIL 1990
A. RCRA
1. Satellite Accumulation Standards for Small Ouantity Generators
Cart small quantity generators establish satellite accumulation areas
according to 40 CFR 262.34(c) for their li ,ardous waste?
Yes, according to the March 24, 1986 Federal Register (51 EE 10146)
“100-1000 kg/mo generators may accumulate up to 55 gallons of non-
acutely hazardous waste in satellite areas without meeting the storage
requirements being promulgated today, so long as the requirements
of Section 262.34 (c) are met.” (51 ER 10162) All generators subject to
40 CFR 262.34 may develop satellite accumulation areas for hazardous
waste according to 40 CFR 262.34(c) provisions.
Source: Emily Roth, 05W (202) 3824777
Research: Cynthia Hess
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9453.1990(02)
JULY 1990
I. SIGNIFICANT OUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—TULY 1990
RCRA
1. Adding Absorbent to Waste Containers
40 CFR Sections 264.1(g)(10) and 265.1(c)U3) exempt the following activity
from permitting requirements: “(t)he addition of absorbent material to
waste in a contajner...or the addition of waste to absorbent material in a
container, provided that these actions occur at the time waste is first placed
in the container; and sections 264.17(b), 264.171, and 264.172 are complied
with.” To qualify for this exemption, must a generator add absorbent to his
waste the first time the waste is containerized, or may he treat or store the
waste in other units before performing absorption in a specified container?
This exemption applies solely to the activity of adding absorbent to
waste in a specific container. Treating or storing the waste in other
tanks or containers before absorbent is added would not cause a
generator to lose this exemption. Such treatment or storage,
however, is not included in the exemption, and therefore must either
be permitted activity or conform with the generator accumulation
requirements of 40 CFR Section 262.34. According to 51 EE 10168:
“(n)othing in Section 262.34 predudes a generator from treating waste
when it is in an accumulation tank or container covered by that
provision.” Therefore, a generator following all applicable
requirements of Section 262.34 could treat his waste in one container
before adding absorbent in another.
Sources: Alessi Otte, 0 5W (202) 382-4654
Bill Kline, OSW (202) 475-9614
Research: Ken Sandier
-------
9453.1990(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1990
Clarification of Section 262.34(a) Accumulation Time for Excess of
55-Gallon Limit in Satellite Accumulation Areas
The owner/operator of a manufacturing company maintains a
generator satellite accumulation area pursuant to Section 262.34(c). The
operator has exceeded the 55-gallon accumulation limit and according
to Section 262.34(c)(2), has three days to remove this waste from the
satellite area and manage it either in a 90-day storage area as a large
quantity generator in compliance with Section 262.34(a), manage the
waste at an on-site permitted unit, or ship the waste off-site. Does the
90-day accumulation time for large quantity generators in Section
262.34(a) begin at the time the 55-gallon limit is exceeded or after the
three-day transition period in Section 262.34(c)?
Clarification of Section 262.34(a) Accumulation Time for Excess of
55-Gallon Limit in Satellite Accumulation Areas (Cont’d)
The owner/operator has up to a 93-day accumulation time for the
excess waste generated at the satellite accumulation area (90-day
clock in Section 262.34(a), plus up to three days for waste transfer).
The March 24, 1986 Federal Register . which clarifies small quantity
generator provisions, states “.. as soon as the 55-gallon limit has
been exceeded in any satellite area, any excess waste is subject to all
applicable RCRA requirements within three days. This means that
the 180/270 day on site accumulation provision for 100-1000 kg/mo.
generators applies to any excess waste three days after the 55-gallon
limit has been exceeded.” (51 E.g, 10162). If the generator chose to
remove the waste from the satellite area before the three-day
transfer provision expired, he would subject the waste to the 90-day
clock provisions. For example, if the above operator chose to move
his excess waste from the satellite area after just one day, the 90-day
accumulation time in Section 262.34 would begin as the waste
entered the 90-day accumulation area, not after three days. The
generator has chosen not to utilize the other two days that were
available for transfer.
Source: Emily Roth, OSW (202) 382-4627
Research: Mic LeBel, CRC
-------
9453.1991(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTUL 1 Y SUNMARY
JUNE 1991
2. Withdrawal of an Interim Status Part A Permit Application
A generator is treating hazardous waste that exhibits a toxicity characteristic on-site
in its 90-day accumulation tanks. Prior to the effective date of the Toxicity
Characteristic rule, he/she filed a Part A application for 40 CFR Part 265 Interim
Status. The generator subsequently discovered that a permit is not required for
treatment in accumulation tanks provided that the tanks are operated strictly in
compliance with all applicable standards referenced in 40 CFR 262.34. (51 FR 10168)
What procedures should be followed for the Part A permit application to be
withdrawn? Would the generator be subject to interim status standards until the
application is withdrawn?
In an internal 1983 memorandum, EPA clarified the protective filer
procedures for withdrawal of a Part A application. The memorandum stated
that filings for facilities which have not been regulated under interim status
standards should be returned to the owner or operator, preferably after EPA
has (1) obtained written confirmation that the facility was not subject to the
permitting requirements, and (2) possibly conducted an investigation to
verify the data.
Such a facility is not subject to the Part 265 standards until the application is
withdrawn. Section 3005(e) of RCRA states that the interim status standards
apply to any person who owns or operates a facility required to have a permit
under that section. If the facility, in fact, has not managed hazardous waste in
a manner that would subject it to regulations, then the Part 265 standards
would not be applicable, even if a Part A permit application had been
mistakenly submitted (as in the case of protective filers). Thus, the generator
would not have to operate or close in accordance with interim status
standards.
Source: Wayne Roepe/OSW (202) 475-7245
Research: Amy Norgren
-------
9453. 1991(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEP 2 0 1991
Mr. Thomas McCarley
Hazardous Technical Information Services
Directorate of Technical Operations
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense General Supply Center
Richmond, Virginia 23297—5000
Dear Mr. McCarley:
This letter is in response to a July 24, 1991 inquiry from
Mr. Allen J. Osborne of your office about the treatment of
hazardous wastes by large quantity generators under the Resource
conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Mr. Osborne cited a March 24, 1986 Federal Re ister notice
(51 FR 10168) which promulgated final regulations for generators
of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month
(small quantity generators). In that notice, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) stated that generators could treat
hazardous wastes on—site in accumulation tanks or containers
without a RCRA permit if the treatment were in conformance with
the requirements of 40 CFR Part 262.34 (accumulation time), and
with Subparts I and 3 of 40 CFR Part 265 (standards for
containers and tank systems). Mr. Osborne apparently desired
clarification that large quantity generators were included in
this statement. He also asked which kinds of hazardous wastes
could be treated by different categories of generators.
The Agency has not restricted treatment of any hazardous
waste to large or small quantity generators. However, all
generators who choose to treat their wastes in accumulation tanks
or containers must comply strictly with the requirements of 40
CTh Part 262.34 and with Subparts I and 3 of 40 CFR Part 265.
For example, the tank or container in which the treatment occurs
must be marked with the’ date the accumulation period began. The
tank or container must be completely emptied every 90 days (or
every 180 or 270 days for small quantity generators). If these
requirements are met, no RCRA permit is required for large or
small quantity generators. Treatment other than that conducted
in tanks or containers (e.g., incineration, land treatment, or
treatment in surface impoundments) would continue to require a
permit.
-------
In addition, 40 CFR Part 268.7(a) (4) states that generators
who treat wastes in accumulation tanks or containers to meet
applicable land disposal restrictions (LDRs) must prepare a waste
analysis plan. Treatment of hazardous waste must also not
violate the dilution prohibition standards of 40 CFR 268.3.
The interpretation in this letter reflects the Federal
regulations governing hazardous waste. States with authorized
RCRA programs may impose more stringent requirements.
I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have
any further questions, please contact Mitch Kidwell of my staff
at (202) 260-4 .e-.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
2
-------
9453.1992(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
J12t
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. John D’Aloia Jr.
311 West Alma St.
St. Marys, KS 66536
Dear Mr. D’Aloia:
Thank you for your letter to Rajni D. Joglekar dated June 12, 1992. In your
letter you ask whether our 1986 policy allowing generators to treat wastes in
accumulation containers or tanks without interim status or a permits continues to be in
effect.
In your letter you quote from the preambles of two Federal Register notices, the
first from the May 20, 1992 notice regarding the listing determination of used oil and
the second from the March 24, 1986 notice modifying standards for small quantity
generators. Your first citation pertains to the definition of treatment:
it should be noted that mixing characteristic hazardous waste with another
material to render the waste nonhazardous constitutes treatment of hazardous
waste subject to applicable standards [ emphasis added] under 40 CFR parts
264-265 and 270, and the notification requirements of section 3010 of RCRA
(Footnote 5, 57 Federal Register 28528-9 (May 20, 1992)).
Your second citation pertains to the Part 264 and 265 facility standard issues under
the small quantity generators rule:
merefore, generators of 100-1000 kg/mo are not required to obtain interim
status and a RCRA permit if the only on-site management which they perform Is
treatment in an accumulation tank or container that is exempt from permitting
during periods of accumulation (180 or 270 days)... (51 Federal Register
10168, (March 24, 1986)).
Our position on whether hazardous waste generators may treat hazardous
wastes on-site in accumulation tanks or containers without having to have either a
permit or interim status has not changed. These generators may conduct such
treatment provided that accumulation tanks or containers conform to standards in
Subparts I or J of Part 265.
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
The footnote to the used oil rule that you cited states that when a characteriStiC
waste s mixed with another material to render it nonhazardous, that activity constitutes
treatment of that waste. This footnote also states that such activity is subject to
uapplicable requirements under 40 CFR Parts 264, 265 and 270 which may or may
not require interim status or permitting. To reiterate, when a generator is treating
hazardous waste on-site in accumulation tanks or containers conforming in Subparts I
or J of Part 265, permitting and interim status are inapplicable.
However, please be aware that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section
6926) that 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 EPA Region that the state is located in
administers the program and is the appropriate contact for any case-specific
de erminatiOfls. Please also note that under Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section
6929) at states retain authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than federal regulatory requirements.
If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Paul
Borst of my staff at (202) 260-8551.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosure
-------
‘ 10168’ Federal Regjster I VoL 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
- the Agency has decided to
- manifest requirements on these
. erators. except in the case of certain
seclamation agreements. The existence
of a State.. pproved collection center
does not. on its own. provide assurance
that the waste would be transported or
handled properly pnor to or during
trarsportation to such. facility, or
indeed, that the shipment would ever
reach such. facility. Consequently.
development of some recordkeeping and
transportation requirements would be
needed which would offset any potential
savings of such an exemption. -
£ Port 264/283 Facility Standard Issues
The requirements for facilities that
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste are contained in Parts 254 and 285
of the hazardous waste regulations. The
Part 265 standards are applicable to
facilities under Interim status, a
condition which allows • facility to
continue operating until it receives a full
RCRA permiL (See HSWA section
CO5(e)j. The Part 284 standards
establish the minimum standards to be
incorporated into a full RCRA permit by
.EPA or. Slate with an EPA authonzed
huardous waste program.
-lion 281.3(b) previously exempted
tore of 300-1000 kg/mo of
•dous waste from the facility
requirements of Parts 264 sod 285 that
cover the oniite ueatment, storage, or’
disposal of hazardous waste, provided
the facility is at least approved by a
State to manage municipal or Industrial
(non.hazardous) solid waste and no
more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste
were accumulated at any time. Under
the rules promulgated today. this
exemption will continue to apply only to
generators of less than 100 kg/mo of
hazardous waste. Generators of 100—
1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste will be
subject to full regulation under Parts 284
and 285 if they accumulate hazardous
waste On -iite for greater than 180 (or
270) days. exceed the 8000 kg
accumulation 1inu engage in waste
treatment in other than tanks, or manage
their waste in surface impoundments,
waste piles, landfill., or land treatment
facilities. In addition, those Slate.
approved municipal or industrial waste
facilities that manage wastes only from
generators of 100..1800 kg/mo will also
no longer be exempted from the Part 264
and 285 permit requirements. In the
proposed rule, the Agency requested
‘rnmenta concerning the application of
ururorm Part 254 and 265
urrements to generators of 200-1000
ag/mo and to the treatment, storage, arid
thsposal facilities that accept waste
from the generators
1. Activities Requiring Permits
Under today’s final rules. 100-1000 kg!
em generators will be required to obtain
• permit if they treat or dispose of
hazardous waste on’site (except for
treatment In tanks or containers during
the 180/270 day accumulation period in
conformance with Subparts J or I of Part
255, respectively) or accumulate
hazardous waste on-site In tanks or
containers for more than 180 (or 270)
-days.
A number of c6mmenters agreed witL
the need to manage wastes from
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo at fully
permitted facilities. They argued that no
specinl exemptions or requirements
should be applied to the management of’
waste from these 3enerators because the
characteristics of the waste, not the
source of the waste, poses the threat to
human health and the environment.
Two commenters opposed the
requirement for generator. uf lOO-I0O0
kg/mo who accumulate waste on-site for
longer than 180 (or 270) days to obtain
RCRA’perrnit, and argued that the
accumulation time limit before
permitting is required should be
extended. One of the commenters also
maintained that deterinirung the
maximum quantity of hazardous waste
that may be accumulated at a non-
permitted facility should be based on
the degree of hazard posed by the waste
end the generator’s capacity to transport
the waste off-site. The EPA disagrees
with both of these positions. As iroted In
Unit lII.C.4.a. of today a preamble, the
HSWA of 1984 clearly limit Agency
discretion In this matter. The Agency
carries a heavy burden In extending the
time limits established under section
3001(d)(8). and except for emergency
circumstances, the Agency doe. 001
believe there to be sufficient
Justification for extending the limits
Congress has estsbllshed.
Another commenter opposed any
permitting requirement due to the —
economic burden that would be placed
on a small number of generators. While
some generators of 100-1000 kg/mo may
be burdened financiaUy_by the
requirements promulgated today.
Congress has already Judged that
outside of the accumulation limit.
allowed for In Section 3001(d)(6),
disposal of wastes from these generators
at permitted facilities is necessary to
protect human health and the
environment. In addition, since the rules
allow generators to manage their
hazardous wastes off-site, they are able
to avoid the cost of acquiring a RCRA
permit, If they so choose.
Several commenters suggested
exemptions from the RCRA permitting
requirements or reduced permit
requirements for on-site waste
treat e t. Some commenters stated that
there is a need to encourage on site
treatment to reduce the amount of
wastes sent off-site and that the
permitting requirements may hamper the
sbillty of generators to treat wastes at
their facilities. -
The Agency disagrees that on-site
treatment should be encouraged by
ezempifug those generators of 100-1000
L ’...o fro. the RCRA permitting
requirements. To the extent that these
generators are conducting the same
treatmentlstorage or treatment/disposal
as other pennitte facilities, their on-site
treatment activitie, pose a potential risk
to human health and the environment.
Therefore. reduced or eliminated
permitting requirements would be
inappropriate.
Of course, no permitting would be
required if. generator chooses to treat
their hazardous waste in the generator’s
accumulation tanks or containers in
conformance with the requirements of
I 262.34 and Subparts J or I of Purt 285.
Nothing in 202.34 precludes a
generator from treating waste when It is
In an accumulation tank or container
covered by that provision. Under the
existing Subtitle C system. EPA has
established standards for tanks and
containers which apply to both the
storage and treatment of hazardous
- waste. These requirements are designed
to ensure that the integrity of the tank or
container is not breached. Thus, the
same itondards apply to a tank or a
container, regardiess of whether
treatment or storage is occurring. Since
the same standards apply to treatment
In tanks as applies to storage in tanks.
and since EPA allows for limited on-site
storage without the need for a permit or
interim status (90 days for over 1000 kg/
mo generators and 180/270 days for mo-
1000 kg/mo generators), the Agency
believes that treatment in accumulaiion
tanks or containar-s is permissible undrr
the existing rules, provided the tanks nv
coiitainers are operated strictly in
compliance with all applicable
standards1 Therefore, generators of io u.
1000 kg/mo are not required to obt,un
_lnterim status and a RCRA permit f ii . .
only on-site management which l b . 1
perform Is treatment in en accumu lj, , . ,. ..
tank or Container that Is exempt 1:. , ,
permitting during periods of
accumulation (180 or 270 daysfl
Two commenters suggested Th 5 ,
mechanism should be created Iii idil., ,
RCRA permits to the circumstsn r, if
individual (scilities. For example- a,..
comxnenter specifically asked fur a
simplified and streamlined permit i . . 1
the incinerati3n ,f spent PdinI spr 3
-------
21528 Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 98 I Wednesday, May 20, 1992 I Rules and Regulations
accordingly. unless the filter will be
reclaimed.
IV. Final Listing Determination
A. General
EPA regulations. based on RCRA
sections 1004(5) and 3001. at 40 CFR
281 .11 set forth the technical criteria to
determine whether a solid waste should
be listed a a hazardous waste. EPA
used the technical criteria In 40 CFR
281.11 (a)(l) and (a)(3) In making today’s
used oil listing determinations.
Subsection (a)(1) of 40 CFR 201.11
allows the Administrator to list a waste
as hazardous If the waste exhibits any
of the characteristics of hazardous
waste. According to 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3).
a waste shall be listed as hazardous If It
“contains any of the toxic constituents
listed in appendix VIII and. after
considering the following factors, the
Administrator concludes that the waste
Is capable of posing a substantial
present or potential hazard to human
health or th environment when
improperly treated. stored, transported
or disposed of. or otherwise managed.
• “ The factors to be considered in
making this determination include
toxicity. fate and transport. mobility and
persistence. and bioaccumulation
potential of the constitutents in the
waste. as well as plausible
mismanagement scenarios (40 CFR
261.11(a)(3)( vii)) and other federal and
state regulatory actions with respect to
the waste (40 CFR 261. ’11(a)(3)(x)).
In making a listing determination for
used oil destined for disposal. EPA gave
considerable attention to the current
federal regulations governing used oils.
EPA evaluated the technical criteria for
listing in light of the current regulatory
structure controlling the management of
used oils and concluded that any
plausible mismanagement of used oil
that is destined for disposal is
addressed by current requirements.
As implied in Option Three of 1991
Supplemental Notice. EPA preserved its
ability to maintain the status quo if the
Agencys analysis of existing regulations
showed that actions have been taken to
control the mismanagement of used oil.
EPA finds that the current regulatory
structure controlling the management of
used oil destined for disposal provides
adequate controls so that used oil will
not pose a substantial threat to human
health or the environment.
Current regulations governing the
management of used oils destined for
disposal include: Those of EPA and the
U.S Coast Guard for oil discharges into
navigable waters; U.S. Department of
Transportation requirements; EPA
regulations for polychlonnated
biphenyls (PCBs) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act, hazardous
waste characteristics applying to used
oil that Is disposed under RCRA.
underground storage tank requirements
(UST) under RCRA Underground
Injection Control (UIC) permits under
the Safe Drinking Water Act; Spill
Prevention. Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) plans and
National Pollutant Discharge
Iimination System (NPDES) storm
water regulations under the Clean
Water Act; and the phase down of lead
In gasoline under the Clean Air Act. In
combination. application of these
controls Imposed by EPA and other
federal agencies prevent the
mismanagement of used oil to such an
extent that used oil destined for disposal
Is unlikely to pose a substantial present
or potential hazard to human health and
ne environment.
EPA also recognizes that several
states regulate used oil as a hazardous
waste. and some states regulate it as a
special waste. Several states ban the
disposal of used oil in municipal solid
waste landfills (MSWLFs). A used oil
handler must comply with all state
requirements applicable to used oil in
his/her state. in addition to any Federal
requirements that apply.
B. No List Determination for Used Oil
Destined for Disposal
In making the no list determination for
used oil that is destined for disposal.
EPA used the technical criteria
discussed in Section IV.A.
and, in fact, did not meet the criteria for
listing since they did not contain
constituents of concern (constituents of
the TC) at levels that could pose a risk
to human health and the environment.
The phase down of lead In gasoline
under the Clean Air Act has resulted in
subsequent reduction in lead
concentrations in used oil. In addition,
in accordance with the Clean Air
Amendments. additional phase downs
are scheduled to occur. thus further
reducing the lead concentration. The
lowered lead concentrations In used oil
reduce the potential for harm to human
health and the environment from
mismanagement.
2. Regulations Governing the Plausible
Mismanagement of Used Oil Destined
for Disposal
Regulatory programs currently in
place control used oil generators.
transporters. collectors and recyclers.
Since 1985. EPA has promulgated
several regulatory programs that
directly affect the management of used
oil destined for disposal (e.g.. the TC,
the UST program. the MSWLF rule, the
NPDES Storm Water program. and the
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). Also.
several other regulatory programs that
were in place even prior to 1985
continue to control some used oil
management practices (e.g.. U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
shipping and handling requirements).
After assessing the extent and potential
success of current regulatory programs
and their effect on the disposal of used
oil. the Agency believes that the existing
network of regulations provides
protection from plausible disposal
mismanagement scenerios. as discussed
below.
a. Overview of RCRA subtitle C
regulations applicable to used oil
destined for disposal. Used oils
exhibiting one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste and
which are destined for disposal continue
to be regulated as hazardous wastes in
accordance with all applicable subtitle
C regulations, except when stored in
RCRA subtitle I underground storage
tanks as discussed In subsection b. oF
this section. Mixtures of used oils and
listed hazardous wastes are listed
hazardous wastes, and used oil mixed
with a characteristic hazardous waste
must be managed as a hazardous waste
If it still exhibits a characteristic. 8 Such
1. Toxicity of Used Oil
In the 1991 Supplemental Notice. EPA
proposed to expand the basis for listing
gasoline-powered engine crankcase
used oil to reflect the presence of three
toxic polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs): Benzo(a)pyrefle.
benzo(b)fluoranthene. and
benzo(k)fluoranthefle. EPA based this
expansion on the analysis of two
samples of automotive crankcase used
oil analyzed for benzo(k)fluoranthene
and four samples of automotive
crankcase used oil analyzed for
benzo(a)pyrene and
benzo(b)fluoraritherie. With respect to
the presence of PANs in used oil. EPA
believes that the current regulatory
structure can control the
mismanagement of recycled used oil
containing toxic PANs.
Based on the 1989/90 sampling and
analysis effort the Agency tentatively
determined that a high proportion of r • It should be noted thet mixing cbsractertst,c
used oils from gasoline-powered engine i hizardous wilts with mother material to render
the waste nonhaxardous constitutes treatment of
exhibited the TC for lead and benzene. waste .ubpect to
Other categories of used oil did not so cm ns 264-2 55 and 270, and the
exhibit the TC in such a high proportion corniiu.d
$
-------
Federal Register f”Vol. 57. No. 98 I Wednesday. May 20, 1992 I Rules and Regulations
21529
mixtures must be managed In
ccordance with all applicable subtitle
regulations. Those generators
.lentified in 40 CFR 262.34’ and storers
of hazardous used oil destined for
disposal are subject to the tank system
requirements at subpart J of parts 264
and 265. Used oils are also subject to the
corrective action requirements of RCRA
subtitle C. lncludin8 sections 3004(u) and
3008(h). which apply to solid waste
management unit. at RCRA treatment.
storage. or disposal facilities.
Further, If used oil exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste and is
destined for disposal. facilities that store
such used oil are subject to the tank
system requirements at 40 CFR parts 264
or 265. subparts J. These requirements
are designed to prevent ground water
- contamination and other releases to the
environment and include requirements
for daily inspection, tank integrity, and
secondary containment. If used oil
destined for disposal exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste is
stored for greater than 90 days. the
facility must be permitted under RCRA
as a hazardous waste storage facility.
It is important to note that used oils
exhibiting the characteristic of EP
toxicity (prior to its revision) currently
are prohibited from land disposal unless
they meet the applicable treatment
standards. Treatment standards for
these wastes were promulgated with the
Third Third rulemaking on June 1. 1990
(55 FR 22520) Used oils exhibiting the
new IC, but not the characteristic of EP
toxicity are not currently prohibited
from land disposal. even if the
constituent causing the waste to exhibit
the IC is also controlled by the EP. LDR
treatment standards for the newly
identified TC wastes (including the 26
newly listed organic constituents) are
scheduled to be promulgated by April
1993. Used oil which is mixed with a
listed hazardous waste must meet the
LDR standard for the listed waste.
b. Applicability of RCRA subtitle!
regulations to used oil destined for
disposal. For USIa located at permitted
hazardous waste facilities subject to
section 3004(u) of RCRA. the subtitle C
corrective action statutory authorities
supersede subtitle I corrective action
requirements to avoid overlap in
regulatory authority (see 40 CFR 280.60).
For facilities without a final HSWA
permit. subtitle I corrective action
(notification requIrements of section 3010 of RCRA
I For ez.inpie. mIxutg spent mineral spirits used ass
) solvent (exhibiting the charactenstic of igrutabihty
or toxicity) with used oil 10 render the mineral
spirits nonhatardous constitutes treatment
This regulation identifies regulated generators
by quantit) of waste generated duration of time
accumulated
standards will apply to releases from all
petroleum and hazardous substance
USIa. UST corrective actions underway
at a facility having Interim status under
RCRA subtitle C may be subject to
review by permit writers during the
development of the final HSWA permit.
These ongoing corrective action
activities may be Incorporated into the
facility’s final RCRA permIt (53 FR
37176).
As discussed In the September1991
supplemental proposal. EPA presumes
that used oil stored In underground
storage tanks Is destined for recycling
and currently exempt from subtitle C (40
CFR 261 .6(a)(3)(lii)): thus such tanks are
subject to subtitle I. The Agency
continues to believe that the subtitle I
standards are sufficient to protect
human health and the environment from
the potential releases of used oil from
USTs. In conclusic .. the Agency
continues to view subtitle I as
applicable to used oil, with the
exceptions noted in the preceding
paragraph where RCRA subtitle C
authority is in place.
c. Applicabihty of RCRA subtitleD
regulations to used oil destined for
disposaL Nonhazardous used oil may be
disposed of in an industrial solid waste
landfill or a MSWLF. EPA recently
promulgated final disposal criteria for
MSWLFs (October 9. 1991, 56 FR 50978).
The revised criteria were promulgated at
40 CFR part 258 and included location
restrictions. faciltiy design and
operating criteria, ground-water
monitoring requirements. corrective
action requirements. financial assurance
requirements. and closure and post-
closure care requirements. in addition.
many states have design and operating
requirements governing industrial non-
hazardous waste landfills.
d. CERCL.4 reportoble quontilites
(RQs) and used oil destined from
disposal. Any waste identified as a
hazardous waste (either by listing or by
characteristic) under RCRA generally
becomes a hazardous substance under
CkRCLA. Such designation subjects the
hazardous waste to the section 103
reporting requirements for releases
equal to or exceeding the assigned
reportable quantity (RQ) of that
hazardous substance. In addition.
constituents in the used oil that are not
defined as hazardous waste under
RCRA may be designated hazardous
substances under CERCLA (see 40 CFR
part 302). Therefore. in accordance with
I 302.6(b) concerning mixtures or
solutions, immediate notification Is
required when an RQ or more of any of
the hazardous substances are released.
e. Toxic Substances Control Act
regulations and used oil destined for
disposaL Section 6(e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA)
mandates that EPA control the
manufacture (Including Import). use.
processing. distribution In commerce.
and disposal of PCBs. Because of the
potential hazards posed by the
uncontrolled use and disposal of PCBs.
EPA has established a comprehensive
program to control PCSs from
manufacture to disposal. A primary use
of PcBs. a viscous oil, was as an
Insulating material for electrical
equipment (dielectric). PCBs were
almost always mixed with mineral oil.
silicone, or other oily materials when
used as Insulating material. TSCA
regulations prohibit the use of waste oils
(including used oils) containing PCBs for
dust suppression. Prohibited uses
include, but are not limited to. use in
road oiling, use in general dust control.
use as a pesticide or herbicide carrier.
and use as a rust preventative on pipes
(40 CTh 761.20(d)). Used oil applied for
dust suppression must meet the
requirements of both RCRA and TSCA. 7
Further, a release of 1 pound of PCBs
Into the environment must be reported
Immediately to the National Response
Center In accordance with section 103(c)
of CERCLA. Further, under the TSCA
PCB Spill Cleanup Policy, any spill of
material containing 50 ppm or greater
PCBs Into sewers. drinking water.
surface water. grazing lands. or
vegetable gardens must be reported
immediately (40 CFR part 761. subpart
C). If a used oil contains PCBs. the most
stringent, applicable reporting
requirement must be followed.
f Clean Water Act reguoltions and
used oil destined for disposal. In
addition to the UST requirements
discussed above, the storage of used oil
at many petroleum-related storage
facilities Is subject to SPCC regulations.’
Under section 311(j)(i)(c) of the Clean
Water Act. EPA established the SPCC
program (38 FR 34165. December 11.
1973) to protect surface waters and
adjoining shorelines from petroleum and
Congress banned the use of any hazardous
waste as a dust suppressant under RCRA S 3004(1)
Therefore. as noted above, any used oil that
exhibits ons or more of the chuacteristlcs (other
than the characteristic of ignitablilty) of hazardous
waste is banned from use as a dust suppressant
a The SPCC regulations (40 ‘R US) currently
apply to on.ahore and off.ahore non.transportation
related facilities that have the potential to discharge
oil Into navigable waterways and have underground
storage tank capacities greater than 42.000 gallons
or abovegrouiid storage tank capadties of more
than 550 gallons in a single tank or an aggregate of
greater than 1.3 gallons
-------
9453.1993(01)
EO ?4?f
[ ILL UW I
I w UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I L
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FEB 23 1993
Mr. D. B. Redington
Director, Regulatory Management
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63167
Dear Mr. Redington,
Thank you for your letter dated December 15, 1992, concerning the hazardous
waste storage regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
In your letter, you requested a clarification of the satellite accumulation provisions for
hazardous waste generators (40 CFR 262.34(c)(1)), particularly for the types of wastes
you described as being “generated from diverse sources throughout a facility.”
We have a policy of allowing EPA Regions, and states authorized to implement
the RCRA hazardous waste program, to answer site-specific inquiries about the
hazardous waste regulations. However, the types of wastes you described in your letter
(e.g., post-consumer items such as used nickel-cadmium batteries that exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste), are the same types of wastes that are under
consideration in an ongoing rulemaking effort within the Office of Solid Waste (OSW).
Therefore, we feel it would be appropriate for us to provide you with some clarification
regarding these “universal wastes” and the satellite accumulation provision under the
existing generator requirements.
Based on your description of how and where these waste types are generated, it is
evident that the phrase “at or near the point of generation where wastes initially
accumulate”’, requires clarification. We agree that there may be circumstances where
certain hazardous wastes, which by their mode of use are generated in small amounts
throughout a facility or part of a facility, could be accumulated under the reduced
requirements described at §262.34(c)(1), provided that the conditions of this regulation
are met. For like wastes generated from many individual locations (e.g., nickel-cadmium
batteries), we would interpret the “at or near the point of generation...” language to
include a specific satellite area designated by the generator that facilitates the
1 Defines the satellite accumulation “area”.
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
2
accumulation of this material prior to moving it to a designated hazardous waste storage
area. A generator should be able to define the locations of waste generation being
served by a satellite accumulation area (within a generator facility or part of a facility).
This is to ensure that a determination can be made as to when the 55-gallon limit has
been reached for a particular satellite area.
The condition that wastes accumulated under the satellite provision “be under the
control of the operator of the process generating the waste” is still applicable. However,
we would view this condition as being satisfied for certain “universal wastes” provided the
generator demonstrates that the personnel responsible for generating and/or
accumulating the waste have adequate control over the temporary storage of these
wastes . The EPA recognizes that for many of these “universal wastes,” the person who
first takes an item out of service (e.g., an employee who replaces a dead battery used in
a calculator) may not be the same person responsible for the accumulation of all of these
wastes; rather, another worker may have the responsibility of overseeing the temporary
storage of maintenance-related wastes. Alternatively, a maintenance worker who
replaces mercury thermostats throughout a factory might also be assigned responsibility
for the location at which the accumulated used thermostats are temporarily stored.
I would like to emphasize that the satellite accumulation provision was intended
to accommodate situations where relatively small amounts of hazardous waste are
unavoidably accumulated throughout a facility prior to placing them in designated
hazardous waste storage areas; the goal is that this temporary accumulation is performed
responsibly and safely, with adequate oversight and control. I would also note that we
have not defined the term “universal waste” in this letter 2 , but have instead used some
examples of these wastes to clarify the satellite accumulation provision. The applicability
of the satellite accumulation provision will always depend upon a generator’s particular
set of circumstances, which are site-specific; therefore, any questions regarding specific
wastes at specific facilities are best answered by the agency implementing the RCRA
program for that particular facility.
Lastly, as was mentioned above, EPA is developing standards to streamline the
regulatory requirements for some of these types of “universal wastes” to facilitate the
separation of these materials from the municipal waste stream, and to encourage proper
treatment and/or recycling. This rule was recently published, and we have enclosed a
2 The term is at this point, as you described, an “emerging term.”
-------
3
copy of it for your convenience. We would encourage you to read it and submit to us
any comments you may have. If you have any questions on this rulemaking effort, or on
any other issue discussed in this letter, please call Charlotte Mooney or Ross Elliott of
my staff at (202) 260-8551. Thank you for your interest in the responsible management
of hazardous waste.
E iyector
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: EPA Regional Waste Management
Division Directors, I-X
-------
9453.1993(02)
,u
-
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
r A 23ISS 3
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Ron Jones
Environmental consulting
15 Hollow Road
Watertown, CT 06795
Dear Mr. Jones:
Your January 25th, 1993 letter to Wendy Grieder inquiring
whether a characteristically hazardous sludge defined using the
TCLP is subject to Federal RCRA export regulations under 262.53
when exported for the purpose of being reclaimed was referred to my
office.
Your letter makes specific reference to a recoverable metal—
bearing baghouse dust or filter cake which qualifies for an
exemption from the definition of solid waste under 261.2 and
inquires as to whether such secondary materials are subject to RCRA
hazardous waste export regulations. A characteristic sludge being
reclaimed does not meet the definition of a solid waste under
261.2(c) (3), and therefore may not be considered a hazardous waste.
Since 262.53 applies only to wastes that meet the RCRA definition
of hazardous waste, it does not apply to characteristic sludges
being reclaimed.
Finally, you asked that we take note of the reference to
recycling under 262.53(a)(Vi). This reference applies to wastes
that are defined as hazardous wastes under RCRA and are therefore
subject to regulation under 262.53 and that are being exported for
recycling operations. It does not refer to characteristic sludges
being reclaimed or other secondary materials exempt from the
definition of solid waste.
Thank you for your interest in hazardous waste export and
recycling regulations under RCRA. If you have any further
questions, please contact Denise Wright of my staff at 260—3519.
Director
Pnntedon Recycled Paper
-------
- HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
September 1994
9453.1994(01)
2. ContaInment BuHdingS as
Generator Accumulation Units
On August 18, 1992 (57 E& 37194), EPA
promulgated regulaiior s for zreaz,ne,U and
storage of hazardous waste in Conzazn,MZU
bwldings. Section 26234(a) allows large
quaMity generarors to use coiuauufle hr
buddings as hazardous waste accw udation
units wuhotU obtaining a perma or interim
status. May small quaiuuy generators
(generators of 100-1,000 kg.per month of
hazardous waste) accunudate hazardous
waste in coniai,ijnelU buildings and srill be
eligible for the reduced requirements of 40
CFR §26234(d)?
A small quantity generator may not
accumulate hazardous waste in containment
buildings and remain eligible for the reduced
requirements of §262.34(d). The provisions
for small quantity generators in §262.34(d)
and (e) allow accumulation of hazardous
waste for 180 (or 270) days provided that the
generator complies with the specific
requirements of § 262 .34(d)(1)-(5). The
reduced requirements in §262.34(d) limit
small quantity generators to accumulation in
containers and tanks. Only those generators
who comply with the requirements of
§262.34(a) may use containment buildings as
accumulation units without obtaining a permit
or interim status. A small quantity generator
who chooses to accumulate hazardous waste
in containment buildings does not meet the
conditions of §262.34(d). Therefore, in order
to use containment buildings as accumulation
units without a permit or interim status, the
small quantity generator must comply with the
more stringent requirements in §262.34(a).
These include the personnel training
requirements of §265.16; the contingency plan
requirements of Part 265, Subpart D; and the
closure requirements of §*265. 111 and
265.114. These regulations also limit a
generator’s on-site accumulation without a
permit or interim status to a maximum of 90
-
days.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9454 - RECORD
KEEPING AND
REPORTING
Part 262 Subpart D
ATK1/1 104t25 kp
-------
9454.1984(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 84
4. Do generators in interim authorized States send biennial
reports to the State and/or the Region?
In interim authorized States, the State program is
operating in lieu of the Federal program (271.121(b)).
The Phase I program under 271.128 covers generator and
interim status facility reporting requirements. Hence,
the State report (which may be a biennial, annual, or
even quarterly report) is sent to the authorized State
and not to the Region. However, since North Dakota’s
Phase I authorization does not include reporting,
generators in North Dakota must send a biennial report
to Region 8.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9454.1986(01)
RCRA/SUPERFTJND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 86
2. Hazardous Waste Fuel Brokers
A waste broker makes purchase arrangen nts betwaen generators and burners of
hazardous wastes fuel. Although the broker never physicaUy possesses the waste
ror stores it on his prcpsrty, he does it tenporarily and handles all billir
and invoices. generator ships the waste directly to the burner. Is the
broker a marketer of hazardous waste fuel, even though he never possesses it?
Sections 3010(a)(3) and 30 04(q)(l)(c) of M, as at n ed, require marketers
or distributors of hazardous waste fuel to notify the EPA of hazardo. . s waste
fuel activities (see S266.34(b) and 50 FR 49204). Because the broker does
- the waste at one point, he is responsible for the waste fuel urtr j the
tima he s it. C mership, rather than physical possession, is the cr itertor
used in deternunin if one is a marketer because it is possible to possess
or handle the waste without ownir it. For exanple, transporters
possess a waste during transportation but do not actually n it at any t u .
Therefore, the broker in this situation is a marketer or distrthur.or of the
waste fuel and imist cuiçly with aLl applicable marketer requir nts set
forth in S266.34 (50 FR 49204).
-------
9454.1986(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 86
3. pecificatlon Used Oil Fuel
The final rule for the burning and marketing of used oil fuel was p. blished
n ti ver oer 29, 1985 Federal 1 ister (50 FR 49164). The preano le
(ex nple 3.A. on page 49199) explains that a .rketer who blends off—speci-
fication used oil fuel, to maet specifications must only keep records of the
facility to Which the specification fuel is first sent. at hapçens if
the first facility to receive the specLficat o fuel, does not burn it,
but markets it to sa one else? Is that subsequent marketer regulated?
The marketer who first clai . ns that the used oil fuel maets specification
must keep records of the analysis (or other information) and records of
each shi nt including the naiie and address of the receiving facility,
the shipi nt date, and the quantity shipped, ac rdirç to 40 R 266.43
(b)(6). The marketer (as burner) who receives the specification used
oil fuel ship ent is not regulated by Part 266 Subpart E, per 5266.43(a)
(2). He is not required to notify EPA of his waste as—fuel activities,
analyze the oil, or keep records. If, h ver, the subsequent marketer
mixes the specification used oil with off—specification used oil or
with hazardous waste, he becaT s subject to regulation as a marketer of
used oil or hazardous waste fuel.
Source: b I’bllcway (202) 382—7936
-------
9454.1986( 05)
LE 3 1986
r ’C AlD t
$L 3JECTt State/Regional ai.n ia1 R.ports
rrcM, Marcia hilliam., Director
O f e of Colid ast.
TO, £eavid Stringhaai, Chi.f
Solid Waste branch, sgic V
This is in rearonse to your July 29 Jen randuia recon n,
that t) e aodition l itez ts r.quircd for inc1u ion in 1 5 State
EierLnial Program Reports be detayec3 until 1987. hhil. I .ii
syr pathetic to your concerns about alr.acy strained State ana
I’erjional work 1oa s, it is r ’ desire to maintain the requir unenta
tiaat were added to the State Program reportir 9 form. for 1985.
I would like to note initially that we carefully considered
btate and Regioz 1 werkloacis in assessing the ne d foi cn a ea
in the State 2iennial Proçram Reports for 1985. As you are well
aware, tht information provided to us in the 19 23 reports proveJ
to be insufficient to enabl. us to prepare a national .uwu ary
report. Considerable attention høs already been directeu at
EPA’s fai1i re to produc. a 1983 report, particularly iro key
members of Congress. The General Accounting Office is currently
comrletinc an extensive investigation into the causes of this
system breakdown and our actions to improve the system for l9 .S
and beyond. I sri personally co itt•d, as are Memters of my
staff, to ensuring the production of a national report su&rzari&ing
the information develop.d through th. biennial reporting çrocess
in 1 5. As noted in my July 3 crorandw , tz . r.quizeii.er t. adds I
to the 1985 State reporting forms are designed to help produce
this national aumnary report.
Wote also that tne number of itess actually added to th
State rs orting forms for 1985 has been reduced fron the nuu ber
of items specified in wy July 3 r e ren wD. ?wo itei . that were
listed as additional reporting requirements in w menorandur (the
quantity of hasarcious waste shippeo off-site by each gwerator
and th. quantity received frow of site by each facility) were
deleted froz the 19,.5 State reporting form, that accoa anieu ity
-------
gt morandum and will. not be required for the 1985 reportia j cycle.
me decisi0 net to r.çuire these it.ma for l9 5 was due, in
larç . i.asüre, to our c n dssire te m.tnimigs the additional work—
lc d imposed by our chang.. to the State reportinç form..
We do not s the additional it.ws required for the 19E5
Sti’ite rvgram reports to be unduly bur ensox., nor do we see
t’ en is posinq significant .diitionaL work loads on State or
i gional personxiel responsible for ccapletirig the reports.
recifical .1Y. the quantity generated by sach generator and thc
cn. .ar tity misnegeG by •ècli facility .rc ite s that ioul lavi to
lie calculated anyway in order to report the total quantity of
hasardLnl* waste a.iietated in each State in l9bS.
All that we are asking is that these already ca1culat .c
quantities be rovid.d to us as part of the listi, of g.nLrators
anc facilitieb. For States sz .ployirt autorzat.d data nana9.r.ent
3:’stems, this requir.meut poses virtually nu additio al L.urøen on
re ortirtg personnel. For states that co .pL.ts the repurts i ianua11y,
the only adcitional burden inrossi is that associated with sir .Le
transcription of a sinGle previously calculated figure for each
generator and facility.
Finally, R.yional staff preparing reports for unauthorissi
States will t.e usinc the FOCUS Diennial 9eport Data Entry and
Petrieval &yets . This software syste1 was dcve1o eo usin
headquertsrs contractor support and is currently being expanded
to auwmaticelly cunçlote this section (incividual quantity
çencratsd and managed) and other sections of the &tatc biennial
?royrer’ reports. Cor.pletinc these first two auoitiortal iteas
usinc the Focus syst.r will, therefore, pos. no adc itionol workload
on the regions.
Moreover, th. value of these first two ad3itional reporti1t9
r.quirencnte is sibstantial. 1rovision of ficures for the
quantities generated and sianag. by individual generaturs and
facilities i1l .nsbl. us to evaluate the accuracy of the Stat.-
total —quantity enerated figures already reported unuer a separate
itezr.. Our understanding, based uj on t.lerhone conversations with
T.e ior al Project Oftic.rs (including Re ion V’s FPu), is that
tne Igione will not be able to provide assistance in reviewing
an evaluating the accuracy and quality of the Stat. Prcigrar
Perorts. These additional reporting iter s will enabic hea& uarters
per.otu el to ensure the accuracy of the State—by—State quantities.
ithout this ninitial quality control check, our ability to }zoduce
a reliable national suizaary report would be severely hamp.re’i,
as evidenced by the 1983 problem.. \
In addition to their role in QA/ . C efforts, these two itega
will help in carrying out our planneC survey ot hatarucus waste
generators in 19.7. 3y o&taina .ng quantities for each ;enwrat r
-------
ft’Or the bL.iinial report, we will •lLa.i at. th. need far a •ar..cLsç
• gv.y to dIf2ne the ç.n.rator isivers., savis conhtderabi. ti
and r•.ourc•s for £PA as well as •lLgi atL.ç reporting burden.
or ttic r.çulit.d cem&unity.
be s.con two new items, Lists of n —r.c,ul.ts Inc nor —
rs ’ortinç generator, and facilities, &rs essential in order to
assess ccrnliar.ce wit)1 th tisnalal r.portircj roqu. rei.sr ta.
ithou% these additional lists, vs are ur at.Le to d.ten ins whether
t. . cuai.tltics r o:ted through the process rc;rcsent all of tue
quantities that we r.q lats or wh.th.r they represent a ere
ccnv.n tencc •owpl. (a • .z ile of ts oee w).o totind it cenveilerit
to report). The inability to ma) . such an asssuMeot was unv of
tb v’s or rsuons we wets unable to produc. a credible l9E 3
national report.
I4scussi3ns wit, .udy £tone, of your oftice, have led us to
ccncluds tiat the second !..rt of sad of these lists, the liatg cf
1son —re?ortin faciliLl.g aa J ç. erotozs , can be deuuced froL the
first two Lists, th. lists of reporting gencratcrs and
(already required) an t ’e lists of g.nsratcrs and taciLit es
reporting non—reguiatec statue (newly roquired). Tha, tie
third list need not 1. •uL’ tttei , if Etat.e and i egicns ar•
ccnfortable with officially d. .iqnatanq entities as non—reporters
(a potential coc’pUmnc. violoticn) if t ii ore (1) listed on
as f12 —3l —!S me (2) not included on either of the first
t o lists. $s,ions mo .U.tss will soon be advi..ó of tuis
option in a L.nniaL eiort. update kecorar3un.
Lu adcittcn, we ore now Pre arir for I egLor al t. strlt.uti r.
co çuter lists of all RWLt E generator. ar1 facilities (as cf
l2 — 3 l u ), by stats. ne•e Lasts will aLlcv convenient d..iç—
naiio& of r.T.ortina, non—repoxtinç. an non—re lated stntus,
and they mould help ease any additional rc7urtirl3 buroen ix l—
poeco ) y the nw r.quirs ent..
I hci e tisse points seive to s*plair our o.e tar thess
addittonel ites. and o3r r.asone for tsllevin9 the rsportin,
t,ur1.n they is o.e is both •liqLt ard justified. it you hays
any .dcitional question• oncerg’3i , th e .. or t.lated Datts s ,
heaR. 00 not bestitat. to ccntect Frarcine JsccLt (2O2 —3L2—47 l)
or 4ike urns (202—245—3155) ireetly.
cs PC A Rranct Chiefs.
I—IV . VI—X
-------
UNITE TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO GENCY
9454.1987(01)
JUL 2 I 987
Ms. Irene Ginsberg
Apartment 1—C
235 Fort Washington Avenue
New York, New York 10032
Dear Ms. Ginsberg:
This is in response to your letter dated June 29, 1987,
regarding the promoting of source reduction. In 1976, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) iBsued a policy
statement outlining its preferred hazardous waste management
strategy (41 FR 35050, August 18, 1976). That strategy,
wnich favors source reduction and recycling over treatment
and land disposal, has remained intact over the past decade
despite comprehensive statutory amendments and substantial
expansion of the hazardous waste program.
Source reduction is generally preferable to treatment
because of the following:
• Few treatment technologies are 100 percent efficient.
• Compliance with regulations under the various
environmental programs will never be perfect, even
witn the most stringent enforcement programs.
• In many instances, there is currently insufficient
capacity to treat all of the hazardous waste
streams generated in the United States.
• Source reduction encourages a more wholistic approach
to designing manufacturing processes that do not
generate hazardous wastes.
However, it is impractical to assume that all waste can be
eliminated by source reduction. For example, certain products
simply cannot be manufactured without producing hazardous
wastes. Excessive waste minimization requirements could
remove products from the market. Further, wastes produced
oy a given process may be comparatively easy to treat or
destroy, yet quite difficult to minimize through source
— , - - — ___e___ fl —
.u.s.
-------
The reduction of waste has long been a goal of the EPA.
Our report to Congress issued last October on the minimization
of hazardous waste fully considered many options do promote
waste minimization. In the report, EPA has a specific definition
for waste minimization, which supports the use of both source
teduction and recycling (in descending order of preference).
i. nclosed please find a copy of this report’s Ehecutive Summary.
.rJe are now in the process of acting on many of the recommenda-
tions presented in the report, including programs aimed at
data collection and technology transfer.
If you have any questions on the enclosed materials, you
should contact James Berlow, Chief of the Office of Solid Waste’s
Treatment Technology Section, on (202)382—7917.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
. .nclosure
-------
‘OS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
\ . d
9454. 1994(01)
MAY - 9 199
OFFICE OF
SOLO WASTE AND ENERG icy
RESPONsE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Recordiceeping Requirements for Small Quantity
Generators Subject to Land Disposal trictions
FROM: Michael Shapiro,
Off ice of Solid Waste
TO: Karen V. Brown
Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Thank you for your memorandum of March 23 on the Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program. Your memorandum makes two
points: (1) Small quantity generators should not be subject to
the LDR notification requirements; and (2) EPA should provide
outreach material on notification requirements directed to small
quantity generators.
On the first point, you suggest that the threshold for
exempting small quantity generators (SQGs) from LDR requirements
that are set out in the regulations at 40 CFR 268.1(e) (1) should
be the generation of 1000 kg/month of hazardous wastes, “thereby
exempting all SQGs from the subject Notification Requirements.”
Due to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), however, no legal means exist for the Agency to
exempt such SQGs from the LDRs. The only relief available for
small entities is the existing small quantity generator and
conditionally exempt small quantity generator exemptions found in
40 CFR.262.1.1—12, and 261.5, respectively. These exemptions
basically prescribe the generation of 100 kilograms per calendar
month of hazardous waste as the limit below which one is exempted
from complying with most of the RCRA hazardous waste require-
ments. The 100 kilogram per month limit is specified in RCRA
section 3001(d). This limit has been the threshold for LDR
compliance since November 1986, when the LDR program was first
implemented.
/.7 7 RcycIedIR.cyelabt.
-------
It is also suggested in your memorandum that the LDR
Notification will be redundant once the Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest iS revised. However, the revised Manifest will not
include some of the information required by the LDR program that
is essential to implementing the LDR requirements. For example,
generators of multisource leachate must indentify what chemical
constituents are in their waste; also, generators must certify
that the waste as generated meets the treatment standards when
such a situation exists.
It is further suggested that treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs), rather than generators, assign
Htreatment codes” to wastes. While we understand your desire,
Wastecode determinations are based on information that is
available to the generator, not necessarily to TSDFs, although
generators can seek advice from others to help make the
determinations. In addition, a requirement of RCRA in general
and the LDR program in particular is proper tracking of hazardous
wastes from the point of generation to the point of ultimate
disposal. (See RCRA Section 3002(a) (5).)
We are aware of the need to streamline the LDR notification
requirements whenever possible in order to lessen the paperwork
burden for all members of the regulated community. In our most
recent LDR proposed rule (“Phase II”) published in the Federal
Register on September 14, 1993, and in the drafts of the final
Phase II rule provided to our workgroup member, Mr. James Malcolm
of your staff, we have included streamlining measures. For
example, the LDRs will rio longer require individual constituent
treatment standards to be noted on LDR notifications. Also we
provided an easy-to-read paperwork requirement summary table as
an appendix to our regulations that we believe will help SQGs, as
well as the rest of the regulated community, comply with LDR
paperwork requirements. Furthermore, we plan to make additional
streamlining changes in future LDR rulemakings.
On the second main point, that of providing outreach
materials on LDR notifications to SQGs, I agree that such
materials would be very useful. Thus, my staff is currently
preparing a brochure on the LDR paperwork requirements targeted
to SQGS. We hope to have the brochure available for distribution
when the Phase II final rule is promulgated in July of this year.
-------
2. BiennIal Reporting for Wastes
Treated In Exempt Units
In February 1993, a site generated 2000
kg of hazardous waste, of which 1,500 kg was
a spent solvent class qied as FOOl and 500 kg
was characteristically ignitable (DUO!). The
FCY.)1 was accumulated on-size in accordance
with the §262.34 generator standards and
then shipped off-site for disposal. The DUO!
was piped directly to a wasrewarer treatment
unit for subsequent discharge under a Clean
Water Ac : pennir ( 27O.1(cX2Xv)).
In order to determine RCRA hazardous
waste generator status, and applicable
regulations, the site’s owner/operator must
count hazardous waste generated i.’ every
calendar month. For example, a site which
generates greater than 1,0(10 kg of hazardous
waste in a calendar month is deemed large
quantity and is subject to full generator
standards, whereas a site which generates less
than /00 kg is subject to the reduced
regulatory requirements of 261J. In
determining generator status, the sire must
count all wastes that are subject to the
substantive standards related to storage,
transportation, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous wastes (51 L 10153; March 24,
1986).
In this situation, the FOOl was subject to
substantive regulation under §262.34.
therefore, the site counted the 1,500 kg in
determining their generator status. The
generator or owner/operator did nor,
however, count the 500 kg of DUO! wastes,
because this waste was not subject to
substantive regulation (51 E& 10152; March
24, 1986). Therefore, in February, the sire
was classified as a large quanmy generator
for the month and subjecr to all of the
standards of Parr 262, including the biennial
reporting requirements of 262.4I. The
Bzen,ual Report reqwres a description of the
characteristics and quantity of hazardous
waste generated during the reporting year.
Must the site’s Bieniua l Report address only
wastes which are counted toward the
generation rate, or must other wastes
generated at the site, such as the DOW, also
be included?
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
June1994 9454.1994(02)
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9455 — SPECIAL
CONDITIONS
Part 262 Subpart E
ATKI/1104a6 kp
-------
9455.1982(01)
JUL 71982
SURJtCT: !nterprPtnttofl of Far-mr - - •
Bruce 1eddl./.c/
Deouty ! i rector
State Prooran S and Pesot,rr.’ co s rv Division ( ‘H- 3)
TO: David A. Wagoner
Director, Air ant 4 I4azardot,S Manage °nt !)ivfslon
Region V I I
I am writino In r sronse to John Franke’s May 25 ‘e o
to Rita Lavefle concerning the a ppl1cab1l1tY of 4fl CF’ 2 2. 1
to the University of ‘lebraska’s (Lincoln) resl’arch farnfv A
activity. The farms which the University of Nebraska use to
conduct research ualiy the University for the farmer exerptlofl,
because a farmer is a person who raises crops or livestock.
5 ct1on N of the 3002 9 ckground Document includes a detailed
discussion of the farmer exervptloll and the Agency’s rationale
for e cemptinfl farmers fro m th. CRA requlations (copy ettached).
FarftePS have a vested Interest In their crop. land and
have su”icfent amounts of lend onto which rinsate or wash—down
wate7 may be aüolled. For these reasons we beltevø that the
quantity and eløare• of risk associated wfth a sin4 le capi’,pr’s
o eratlon Is minimal and deserves conditi .Onal exerpt !o..fl, Finally,
farmers qenerall) aenerete g’ .ll j titIe OfPwI tY containers
and unused solutionS relative to the size Oc their eratiofl.
In evaluating t e tiniversity of HehrasI’ ’ 5 •arm or far s,
it is clear that their oo,ratlon meets the lntc’nt of the farrvor
exemotion activity. Alt$’ ouqh the word “re’earrh is used to d.S-
cribe the University farina, this Is an instituclonal word lndlcatfnq
tPøfr orlinary farming triteret is the investlilatlon of orowth and
yield information rather than production !!.! Se. Thus, the words
research farm” do not orec’ude thefl !ron irFTn’I but d.lfnat’ an
intoret or activity. However, to be eliqible for the ‘armer
-------
1.2)
exemotion. a far ier must also disDose of his hazardnus ste
nestfcftips from his own uce on his own ornr)erty In accr r 1ance
with the dlspGsal Instructions on the lah’l (40 CFR 262.51).
I hope this answers your qu st1ons on this patter. If
you have any other questions, please contact me or Polt Hill
on FTS—382—4753.
WH—563/RHI 11—JTho,!?spon/23 JUNE 82/Roif’s Dlsk#II Doe.#22/
#516 Controlled Correspondence
Revised: Bruce Weddle/06 JULY 82
-------
9455. 1985(01)
June 25, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: Harry Seraydarian
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
EPA Region IX
FROM: John H. Skinner
Director, Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
SUBJECT: Determining Who Assumes Generator Responsibilities for
Importations of Hazardous Waste
With respect to the importation of hazardous waste, you have
asked who should assume generator responsibilities: the
transporter or the United States facility arranging for the
importation of the hazardous waste.
Under current regulations “any person” who “imports”
hazardous waste must comply with the generator requirements of 40
CFR Part 262. 40 CFR SS262.50(c), 262.50(d); see also
§S262.10(c), 263.10(c). This broad language suggests that more
than one party may be an “importer” in a given situation. In the
situation you describe, both the transporter and the Untied
States facility arranging for the importation would be persons
who “import” hazardous waste. Where more than one person falls
within the scope of this language, all of the parties, as
contributors to the importation of hazardous waste, should be
held jointly and severally liable for compliance with the
generator requirements of Part 262.
Through mutual agreement, however, one of the parties may
assume and perform the generator duties on behalf of all the
parties. In fact, EPA encourages such agreements. Where such an
agreement exists the Agency will look to the designated party to
perform the generator responsibilities. EPA, however, reserves
the right to enforce against any of the parties if the
requirements of Part 262 are not adequately met providing such
enforcement is equitable and in the public interest.
In EPA’s view, the party in the best position to assume the
generator responsibilities should normally take on these
responsibilities on behalf of other parties. In fact, EPA will
initially look to such a party where no party has been designated
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
—2—
or EPA is unaware of such designation. Under the specific
factual situation you describe, it appears that the Untied States
facility arranging for the importation of hazardous waste may be
in the best position to assume the generator responsibilities.
For a discussion of some relevant factors to consider in
determining which party is in the best position to assume the
generator responsibilities, see 45 F.R. 72024, 72025
(October 30, 1980) where an analogous situation is addressed.
You have also expressed some concern about the possibility
of unmanifested or improperly manifested shipments occurring
where the facility arranging for the importation is also the
treatment, storage and disposal facility. Under such
circumstances, the same facility must comply with both 40 CFR
Parts 262 and 264 or 265 (for the receipt of waste from off—site
sources). The fact that the facility receiving the waste must
also assume generator responsibilities, thereby eliminating the
presence of an independent treatment, storage and disposal
facility to help assure compliance with the manifest
requirements, should be of no greater concern than for shipments
between sites owned by the same company.
cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions 1—Vill and X
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9455.1986(01)
RCRA/SUpERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 86
2. rt of Hazardous Waste
A generat plans to send an Unlisted, characteristic - zo to
a reclwiation facility in Mexico. H do the new hazar s waste ex rt
regulations, effectj Novenber 8, 1986, apply to the exp, t of this
recyclable material?
The hazardous waste exprt r ulati are in 40 CFR Part 262,
Sub .rt E. vised ex rt regu1atj , effctj Novenber 8, 1986,
require notification of the Aóninistrator consent fran the
receiving Country, sgmciaj. manifesting Roce res, recordkeepjng,
exceftjon re x rting aid su nittal to EPA of an annual re rt for
the ex rt of nost hazardous wastes. (See sectj 262.52—262.57,
zam lgate€j in the August 8, 1986 Federal ! !r, 51 FR 28664.)
According to S261.2(c)(3), Table 1, Chàjjcteristic by— oduc
are not defined as so lid wastes, aid thus riot hazar 1 wastes,
when destined for reclanation. Therefore, the tharacterjstic
by— oduct is not subject to Part 262, Sub rt E, because it
is riot a hazardous waste. The harden of roof, h ever, is on
the ex rter to d nonstrate and doognent that the material to be
recycled is not a solid wa ste ($261.2(f)). The exprter should
be able to dsnonstrate that there is a kn n market or dis sjtjon
for the material. A co of a recycling contract, records
describing the Mexican reclanation facility, arx1/or evidence that
the facility has a license or ap oval the Mexican goverT1
would also supp)rt the ex rter’g claUn that the recyclable material
is not a solid waste (see 51 FR 28670).
Source: Carolyn Barley (202) 382—2217
search: Jennifer Brock
-------
19 9455.1987(01)
Honorable Wes Watkins
House of Representatives
Washington -, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Watkins:
Thank you for your May 5, 1987 letter on behalf of your
constituent Mr. Joe Bonar regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) hazardous waste export rule.
Section 3017 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA) prohibits the export of hazardous waste unless
persons exporting such waste provide notification to the EPA.
The government of the country receiving the waste has to -
consent to accept the waste. The final rule implementing
these statutory provisions was published on August 8, 1986
(copy enclosed) and became effective on November 8, 1986.
In developing the export rule, the Agency decided that
wastes which were regulated domestically should also be
regulated internationally. The rationale and purpose underlying
the domestic manifest requirements are similar to international
notification and consent requirements. The domestic manifest
notifies persons receiving or handling the waste of the nature
of the materials being dealt with and affords those persons
the opportunity to reject the waste or, if accepted, provides
sufficient information to ensure proper handling of the
waste. -.
Under EPA’S domestic regulatory scheme, hazardous wastes
are generally subject to the manifest, but certain wastes
sent for recycling are exempt from the manifest requirement.
Such an exemption applies to persons who send batteries for
recycling. Thus, spent batteries sent to a foreign country
for recycling would be exempt from the requirements to file a
notification and receive written consent from the receiving
country. However, the exemption only applies if the batteries
are uncracked.
-------
—2—
Notirication, however, is required for exporting lead
battery plates and groups (as well, a. other hazardous wastes
requiring a manitest for domestic shipment). Notification
and consent can cover a period of up to 12 months. Thus, a
60 day waiting period for approval to export applies only
for the first shipment ratner than each shipment of waste.
While Ek A anticipates a maximum of 60 day. to obtain written
consent from the receiving country, we believe that this time
frame can be substantially shortened as we gain experience in
obtaining written consents from receiving countries. Further,
Section 3017 provides that an international agreement with a
receiving country can take priority over the written consent
provision of EPA’s export rule. While bilateral agreeinent
have been negotiated for only two countries (Canada and
Mexico). other countries may also want to develop bilateral
agreements with the U.S., particularly if a country wants to
expedite movements of hazardous waste between the two
countries.
I hope this explanation of EPA ’s export rule is helpful.
If you have any questions about the export requirements,
please contact Ms. Carolyn Barley at 202—382—2217.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGOCy
9455.1987(02)
JUN I 5 1987
Emanuel Bodner
Bodner Metal & Iron Corp.
3660 Schalk.r Drive
Houston, Texas 77026
Dear Mr. Bodners
This letter is in response to your letter of May 26, 1987,
to clarify the responsibilities of Bodner Metal & Iron Corp.
when transporting electric arc furnace (EAF) dust (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. J(061) to Mexico.
Please note carefully the two enclosed docunents. The
Federal Register notice (51 FR 28664, August 8, 1986) is the
Agency’s final rule on export of hazardous wastes. Essentially,
the export of hazardous waste is prohibit.d unless the require-
ments outlined in the rule are met. The second document is an
Agreement of Cooperation (also called a bilateral agreement)
between the U.S. and Mexico which defines terms and specifies
conaitions for transport of pesticides and hazardous waste
between the countries.
Please be reminded that legal liability for a hazardous
waste does not end when a hazardous waste exits the United
States, and that hazardous wastes exported to Loreign countries
must be manifested and handled in accordanc. with the terms of
consent from the receiving country.
If you have any other questions, please contact me at
(202) 382—4783.
Sincerely.
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permit. and State Permits Division
-------
9455.1989(01)
, iO S? 4 ,
1’ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Si ,?
JJ 27 1989
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Peter Bronner
Inversora Murten S.A.
237 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10017
Dear Mr. Bronner:
This letter is in response to your facsimile of November 13,
1988, your telephone conversations with Wendy Grieder of the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of International
Activities, and your telephone conversation with Emily Roth of my
staff. In regard to the petroleum waste that you wish to export
to South America, the export requirements of RCRA as found in 40
CFR Part 262, Subpart E, apply to all petroleum wastes that meet
the definition of hazardous waste. Generators of solid waste
must determine if their waste is hazardous waste according to 40
CFR Part 261. If the petroleum waste is not hazardous according
to 40 CFR Part 261, there are no requirements under U.S. law.
However, there may be other restrictions that apply, such as
regulations in both the receiving country and any transit
countries regarding the transboundary movement of such waste, or
as you mention, the ban on the export of PCB containing oils as
found in 40 CFR 761.20(c). Therefore, you should contact any
country that the petroleum wastes will be exported to or through,
to determine what requirements, if any, may be imposed.
If you have any further questions regarding this letter, you
may contact Emily Roth at (202) 382-4777, or for questions
regarding the reglatory status of the petroleum waste you may
contact Ben Smith of my staff at (202) 382—4791.
Sincere y
Matt Straus, Deputy Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
9455/1991(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
F 51991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Thomas E. Linson
Hazardous Waste Management Branch Chief
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
105 South Meridian Street
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206—6015
Dear Mr. Linson:
This letter responds to your January 4, 1991 request for a
regulatory interpretation regarding the export of hazardous
wastes utilized for precious metals reclamation. Specifically,
you question whether Federal regulations require compliance with
40 CFR Part 262 Subpart E (which regulates hazardous waste
exports) when a precious metal—bearing sludge is exported for
reclamation. You request this interpretation because the export
requirements of Part 262 Subpart E are not specifically
referenced in either section 261.6(a) (2) or 266.70. However, as
Mr. Glenn Sternard of Us. EPA’s Region V office has indicated,
the preamble to the August 8, 1986 rulemaking (51 FR 28664),
which promulgated the export requirements for hazardous wastes,
implies that the export requirements do, in fact, apply to any
generator required to prepare a manifest under Subpart B of Part
262.
Mr. Sternard is correct. The export requirements of Part
262 subpart E are applicable for precious metal-bearing sludges
that are exported for reclamation. EPA agrees that a specific
reference to Part 262 Subpart E in section 266.70 would clarify
this requirement and we will keep this in mind during any future
‘rule changes. As the preamble to the August 8, 1986 rulemaking
discusses in depth (while not specifically referring to hazardous
wastes used for precious metals recovery), the determining factor
in applying the export requirements is whether or not the
transportation of a particular hazardous waste requires a
hazardous waste manifest. (Indeed, the preamble actually
explains the Agency’s position that the export requirements
applies only to hazardous wastes which require a manifest, rather
than to any hazardous waste, which is how some of the commenters
on the proposal to this rulemaking interpreted Section 3017 of
RCRA.)
Therefore, in the absence of any specific exemption from the
export requirements £ or a hazardous waste that requires a
manifest, the export requirements apply. Hazardous wastes which
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
2
are Subject to Part 266 Subpart F are not specifically exempt
from the export requirements.
I hope this clarifies the applicability of the export
requirements for the situation you must resolve. If you have any
further questions, you may contact Mike Petruska, Chief of the
Regulatory Development Branch, at (202) 475-8551.
S7rj
Sylvi K. ran
Dire dtor
Office of Solid Waste
-------
,IO “ ‘l!.
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9455.1991(02)
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
+ 4 ..o—
MAY I 6 1991
OFFICE OP
Mark I. Schulz SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
President
Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Industries
757 N. Eldridge
Houston, Texas 77079
Dear Mr. Schulz:
This responds to your Februaiy 22, 1991 letter to David Bussard requesting a
determination regarding the regulatory status of pharmaceutical products that are
returned by the dispensers of these products to the manufacturers, wholesalers, or to a
third-party service company that will facilitate the processing, crediting, and, if needed,
appropriate disposal of the returned products. Currently, such products are returned
directly to the manufacturer or wholesaler, who credits the dispenser for the products
and determinqs whether the products are to be reused, reclaimed, or appropriately
disposed. BFI Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (BFI-Pharm) intends to provide this reverse
distribution service to the pharmaceutical industry.
As I understand your letter, pharmaceutical products may be returned for many
reasons, including, among others: 1) an oversupply at the dispenser, 2) expiration of the
recommended shelf life, 3) a recall has been initiated by the manufacturer, 4) the
product was received as a result of a shipping error, and 5) the product has been
damaged. You state that, in general, the dispensers of the pharmaceutical products do
not know whether the returned products will be reused, reclaimed, sold overseas, or
disposed (i.e., they are not able to determine whether these materials are solid wastes).
Because the dispensers receive credit for the returned products (either because the
products actually have real value to manufacturer or because such credits are part of a
ompetitive marketing approach), the products have a monetary value to the dispensers
and they would not normally assume such materials to be wastes.
Under our current regulations, such returned products are not considered solid
wastes until a determination is made to discard these materials. The returned products
themselves (being “commercial chemical products” under our classification system) are
considered more product-like than waste-like (until a determination is made to dispose
of them) because recycling by use/reuse is generally a viable option. If the underlying
assumption is that the returned products will be recycled, until the manufacturer or
wholesaler determines otherwise (assuming that this determination is beyond the ability
of the dispenser), then those products managed within the reverse distribution system
are not solid wastes until the manufacturer or wholesaler makes the determination to
dispose of them. This view is based on our understanding that the system is established
as a means to facilitate the recycling of reusable pharmaceutical products, rather than a
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
2
waste management system. We will be interested to learn if your data, which will be
computerized, will support this assumption. At the current time there does not appear
to be any reason for EPA to change its policy regarding this type of reverse distribution
system simply because a third-party service company is involved rather than the
manufacturers themselves.
I would like briefly to bring to your attention two issues that bear generally upon
reverse distribution systems, although neither appear to be of concern in the BFI-Pharm
situation. First, EPA does not intend for hazardous waste brokers to use a reverse
distribution system to relieve generators of the responsibility for making determinations
about the discarding of materials as wastes. It remain c the generator’s responsibility to
properly identify secondary materials. Second, a reverse distribution system cannot be
used as a waste management service to customers/generators without the applicable
regulatory controls on waste management being in place. Of course, as I discussed
above with respect to the BFI-Pharm situation, to the extent that the materials involved
are unused commercial products with a reasonable expectation of being recycled in some
way when returned, the materials are not considered as wastes until a determination has
been made to discard them.
This interpretation is based on the current set of Federal RCRA regulations.
However, as you know, authorized States may regulate or interpret the regulations
differently, and State requirements are the applicable standards in authorized States.
You should contact the appropriate State regulatory agencies for a more definitive
regulatory determination for their respective jurisdictions.
I hope this has sufficiently answered your questions. Should you have any further
questions regarding EPA’s policies, you may contact David Bussard at (202) 382-4637.
Sincerely,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9455.1991(03)
itO 3P4j
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC I 0 1991
OFcICE OP
SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Jack Whalen
Hamanna Alloys Corporation
441 Lexington Avenue
New York, N Y 10017
Dear Mr. Whalen:
Thank you for your letter of October 31, 1991 to Mike
Petruska in which you inquired about the regulation of recovered
lead and lead alloys from used batteries and Other suitable
sources, and the export of these components to other countries.
There are potentially numerous regulations applicable to recovery
of lead and lead alloys from batteries, depending on the
particular situation. Based on your letter I will list the major
ones here; however, please note that this list may not be
exhaustive: 40 CFR Parts 124, 260.10, 260.30(c), 261.1(c) (6),
261.2(c), 261.3(a) (2) Ci), 261.6(a) (3) (iv), 261.22, 262.34, 263,
264.1(g) (6), 265.1(c) (10), 266 Subpart G, 266.80(a),
266.80(b)(1)—(4), 268.7(a) (4), and 270. Because analysis of the
appropriate regulatory scheme is material—specific, I cannot
address lead and lead alloy recovery from “other suitable
sources.”
Hazardous waste export regulations are found at 40 CFR Part
262 Subpart E. The governmental notification process is
generally as follows. The exporter notifies EPA’S Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement in writing of his/her intent to
export. This notification must contain certain information (see
the regulations cited above). EPA then sends the written
notification to the U.S. State Department, which then cables it
to the government of the receiving country. The receiving
country then cables the State Department with its consent or
rejection, and includes conditions for acceptance, if any. The
State Department forwards the cable to EPA, and EPA forwards it
to the exporter. Upon the exporter’s receipt, this document is
called the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent (AOC). The exporter
must attach a copy of the AOC to the manifest accompanying the
shipment, and must forward a copy to the U.S. Customs Service (a
manifest may be obtained from your state if it has its own, or
from any source if it does not). Transit countries, if any, are
also notified within this process; however, if a transit country
refuses the shipment it is the exporter’s responsibility to make
other arrangements.
Pnnted en Recycled Paper
-------
2
Under the terms of separate bilateral agreements with Canada
and Mexico, this process is slightly different. For exports to
Canada, EPA deals directly with its counterpart, Environment
Canada, and the U.S. State Department and other diplomatic
entities do not become involved. The consent process is “tacit”
instead of written; that is, Canada has 30 days to accept or
refuse a shipment after which, if no acknowledgement is made, the
shipment may commence. For exports to Mexico, EPA deals directly
with its counterpart, SEDUE, but copies of all relevant documents
are forwarded to the State Department and normal diplomatic
entities.
As you may be aware, President Bush signed the Basel
Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes on
March 22, 1990. This may have additional implications for
hazardous waste exports depending on whether the U.S. formally
ratifies Basel, and on what form the implementing legislation
takes.
Sincerely,
E4 ’JL1LI&’ 42
D vid Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosure
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
December 1994
9455. 1994(01)
RCRA 4
1. NotIfication Requirements for
Exported Wastes
In addition to other requirements, a
prunary exporter of hazardous waste must
comply with the special requirements of 40
CFR Pan 262, Subpart E, including providhzg
nonficanon of inte,u to export to EPA’s Office
of E, forceme,u and Compliance Assurance 60
days prior to the inuiai shipment ( 262 .53 (a)),
and originaang the hazardous waste maiufesr
(s 262J4). If a waste is not regulated as a
hazardous waste in the United Stares but is
subject to Canadian regulations, must the
exporter noab ’ EPA of the intent to e.xporr? If
the waste Li a hazardous waste but exempt
from regulation in the United States, must the
exporter still notzfr EPA?
Part 262, Subpart E applies only to wastes
which are subject to Part 262, Subpart B
manifest requirements (see also 51 E 28664;
August 8, 1986). For example, if the waste
intended for export is a solid waste according
to §261.3 but is not rcgtibited as a hazardous
waste subject to manifest requirements, the
exporter would not be required to notify EPA
of the intent to export. Wastes which axe
hazardous but exempt from manifest
requirements would also be exempt from Part
262. Subpart E. For example, scrap metal
( 26l.6(a)(3)(jji)) and lead-acid batteries
( 261.6(a)(2)(jv)) sent for reclamation are
exempt from Subtitle C hazardous waste
regulations (including the manifest
requirements), and would therefore not be
subject to Subpart E export requirements.
Although exporters may be exempt from the
requirement to notify EPA, they are advised to
check with their Canadian counterparts for
any applicable regulations (for example,
Canadian manifest requirements) before the
waste crosses the border.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
FILE COPY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
“ J. J.c.
F’ ii 9455.1995(01)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. James A. Lassner
Investment Recovery Manager
40 Rector Street
New York, NY 10006
Dear Mr. Lassner,
In your January 26, 1995 letter to Mike hapiro, you asked
whether a vessel transporting a RCRA regulated hazardous waste
requires an EPA identification number for transport between the U.S.
and Belgium.
The answer to your question is no. An EPA identification number
is not required once a waste shipment is outside of U.S. jurisdiction.
For a complete description of RCRA waste export requirements, please
refer to the code of federal regulations 1 specifically 40 CFR Part
262, Subpart E—Exports of Hazardous Waste.
If you have any additional questions, please contact Denise
Wright of my staff at (202) 260—3519.
Sincerely,
: ZZs d
Michael Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
Pnnted o ’ Recycled Paper
-------
Via D .
January 26, 1995
tl.S. EPA
Office Of Solid Waste
401 14 Street SW
Washington, p.c. 20460
ATTN: Mr. Michael Shapiro
RI: RIQURBT 101 WRITTEN
RZB PON8I
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
As per the advice of Chris and Cara of the EPA RCRA Hotline,
we would appreciate a written response to the following question:
FACTS: U.S. Generator of an EPA F006/D006 Waste has received
permission from the EPA to ship the waste to Belgium .
The Generator must use an EPA Licensed Waste Mauler for
the In land Portion (from Plant to Port) of the
shipment.
QUESTION: Does the sea going contajnerljne/vegsel transporting
the waste material from the U.S. Port to the Port of
Antwerp require an EPA I . D. Number?
Thank you in advance for your prompt response.
If OU should have any questions, please contact the
undersigned.
Very truly yours,
AIILON METALS INC
Ja ee • ssner
Lnveatme Recovery Manager
JAL/lb
(3.S\JJ- O
•- - .742. - )
FAX (212J 227:4028
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
March 1995
RCRA.
2. Export Requirements for
Transportation Through Transit
Countries
A facility generates hazardous waste in
Alaska. Thegenerator arranges so send the
hazardous waste so a d sposa!facility in
Californsa. In the process of transportation,
the hazardous waste will pass through
Canadian rerrico y. Will the facility be
required so comply with any of the eapon
regulations found under Part 262, Subpart E?
In this scenario, RCRA export regulations do
not apply. The regulations for exports of
hazardous waste in Part 262, Subpart E apply
to y person who meets the definition of a
pritnazy exporter. Primary exporter is defined
under §262.51 as generally, any person
required to initiate a hazardous waste manifest
which designates a treatment, storage, or
disposal facili y in a Teceiv ng country.
Receiving country is subsequently defined
under §262.51 as “a foreign country to which
a hazardous waste is sent for the purpose of
neaunent, storage or disposal (except short-
term storage incidental to transportation)”. In
the above scenario, there are no treaunent,
storage, or disposal facilities in a receiving
country that are designated on the manifest,
rather, the waste simply passes through a
foreign country. RCR.A does not require that
transit countries be notified.
9455.1995 (02)
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9456 - IMPORTS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Part 262 Subpart F
A.T Kearney 1/359012 cr
-------
9456.1986(01)
RCRA/SUPERF D HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 86
9. Export of Recyclable Materials
Are generators and trartsp rters of recyclable materials used for peci .is
metals recovery subject to the exprt regulations that were p.iblished on
August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664)?
yes, exporters of recyclable materials used for ecicus metals
recovery are subject to the ex rt regulations in 40 CFR 262.50.
Subpart E of Part 262(S262.50) requires “p iniary exçcrters” to canply
with the exgrt requirements. A ximezy ex rter, as defined in
40 CFR 262.50, is any parson who is required to originate a manifest for
a shipnent of hazardous waste in accordance with 40 CFR Part 262,
Subpart B, or equivalent State rovision which spacifies a treatment,
storage, or dis al facility in a receiving country as the facility
to which the hazardous waste will be sent. A çx itnary ex orter also
includes any intermediary arranging for the exp rt.
Generators of recyclable materials used for recious metals recovery
1ti . st epare a manifest in accordance with Part 262 Subpart B par
S266.70(b)(2). If a generator ex rts his wastes for ecious metals
recovery, he meets the definition of a “ rimary expxter” and is subject
to the ex rt requi i nts in Subpart E—Ex xxt.s of Hazardous Waste.
These ex rts requir rents include:
(a) written notification to EPA of intent to ex rt 60 days p:ior
to the initial ship ent in a 12 n nth pariod;
(b) ex rting only after recei of an Ackn iledge nt of Consent;
Cc) attaching the Acknc*riledgenent of Consent to the manifest which
is prepared in accordance with spacial manifest requir t nts
of S262.54;
(d) filing exce ion rerr,rts, if needed;
Ce) filing an annual re rt on his ex rt activities
and waste minimization efforts
(f) keeping records for three years
Trans rters involved with ex rts of recyclable ecious metal
wastes irust also meet Certain exgort requiremarits. According to
§266.70(b)(2), trans xrters of recyclable &x ecioJs metal wastes
a.ist c itpIy with the manifest ovisions of SS263.20 and 263.21.
The ex rt regulations of August 8, 1986 n dified the §262.20
manifest requirenents for ex rts. Transprters mist ensure that
the Aknc 1edgement of Consent acca panies the waste shipient and
cannot acce the waste without it. The trarispxter may not acce
the waste for ex rt if he kn s the shipnent does not conform to
the Acknowledgement of Consent (51 FR 28685). The transp,rter mist
give a cow of the manifest to a U.S. custaie agent at the pint the
waste leaves the U .S.
Source; Carolyn Barley (201) 382—2217
Research: Betty Wilson
-------
9456.1987(01)
RCRA/SUpERF D HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
5. xportLng Hazardous Waste
Are lead—acid batteries sent to Canada for
recycling subject to RCRA Section 3017 requirements’
No. Tead_acjd batteries sent to Canada for
recvc ing are not subject to the export
requirements of e0 CFR 262.53, which codifies
Section 3017. The regulations parallel the
statute, which requires that any person exporting
hazardous waste shall: provide notification o the
Ad’ninistr tor; obtain consent from the receiving
country; attach a copy of that consent to the
manifest; and ensure that the shipment and terms of
the written consent are in agreement. The
Cooperative Agreement between the governments of
Canada and the United States parallels the same
points outlined above. As explained at 51 FR
2S669, the defini:ion of “exporter” excludes wastes
not subject t regulation through the manifest
system. Becau a 40 CFR 261 .6(a)(2) and (3) e cclude
lead—acid batteries that are being reclaimed or
regenerated from all substantive regulation until
the batteries are “cracked” or broken open, a
person exporting uncracked lead—acid batteries for
reclamation or regeneration is not an exporter
subject to Section 3017.
Source: Paul 1ushovjc (202) 475—7736
esearch: Laurie Huber
-------
9456.1992(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
AUGUST
1992
2. Accumulation Time for Hazardous
Waste Importers
A U.S. hazardous waste broker wishes to
import hazardous waste by truck from Mexico
into the United Stales. Assuming the shipment
passes U.S. Customs, the broker wishes to
accumulate the hazardous waste at a
warehouse near the border for 45 days in
order to consolidate several shipments before
war spordng the hazardous waste to a
designated TSDF. According to 40 CFR
§262.60, an importer of hazardous waste must
comply with the generator requirements of 40
CFR Part 262. Section 26220 also requires
the importer to comply with certain
manifesting requirements spec jfic to imports
(p262.60(b)). Once the waste is Imported into
the United States, can the importer accumulate
hazardous waste (per §26234) at or near the
point of enny so the United States (e.g., in a
warehouse) for 90 days or less without a
permit or interim status prior to shipping it to
the designated TSDF?
Although it is correct that importers must
comply with Part 262, Standards Applicable to
Generators, including the special requirements
of Pan 262, Subpart F, importers cannot
accumulate hazardous waste under §262.34.
Ninety-day accumulation under §262.34
applies only to generator accumulation on-site,
and is not applicable to this situation. Sections
262.20 and 262.60 require the importer to
prepare a hazardous waste manifest for the
waste shipment, using the importez s name and
the name of the foreign generator in the
generator box. At the time the manifest is
initiated (at the point of entry into the United
States) the waste shipment is aiready in
transportation, and the manifested hazardous
waste must proceed to the facility designated
on the manifest to accept the hazardous waste.
Under §263.12, the hazardous waste may be
stored during the normal course of
ansportation to the designated facility at a
ansfer facility for 10 days or less, provided
that the hazardous waste is packaged in
accordance with DOT packaging regulations.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9456.1994(01)
DEC I 6 199a
OFFICE OF
SOiJO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Satoru Morishita
Deputy Director
Office of Marine Pollution Control
& Waste Management
Environmental Agency
Kasumigaseki 1-2-2
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Dear Mr. Morishita:
I am writing in response to your to letter to Paul Borst of November 11, 1994 regarding the
export from Japan to the United States of bubblers containing phosphorus oxychioride used in the
production of semiconductors. In that letter you requested clarification on the EPA position that
bubbler canisters containing phosphorous oxychioride are not waste when returned to the United
States from Japan for regeneration. In our previous correspondence to of September 14, 1994, EPA
stared that we do not believe that phosphorous oxychioride remaining in the bubbler canisters is used
based on a comparison of data on the purity of that substance and new phosphorous oxychioride
added to the canister. This comparison showed that the phosphorous oxychloride remaining in the
returned canister is almost as pure as it was when inserted into the canister. As stated in our prior
correspondence to you, under U.S. hazardous waste laws and regulations, unused commercial
chemical products that are to be reclaimed are not solid wastes. Therefore, in our view, bubbler
canisters containing phosphorous oxychioride when sent for regeneration are not subject to the tenns
of the OECD decision C(92)39IFinal as far as implementation of that agreement by the United States
government.Of course, other countries involved in a transboundary movement of waste might have a
different national procedure for determing what is a hazardous waste. if another OECD country
considered it a hazardous waste subject to the OECD council decision we would expect them to
enforce the requirements of the OECD council decision.
In your letter to Mr. Borst, you request clarification on U.S. hazardous waste laws and
regulations and the OECD system with respect to three different factual situations on the management
of bubbler canisters containing phosphorous oxychloride. You also request technical assistance on
how the remaining phosphorous oxychioride should be managed.
In the three factual situations you present, there are identical elements: 1) bubbler canisters
are exported from country X to Japan for semiconductor production, 2) after the canisters are
depleted they are returned to country X for regeneration. The only differences in each factual
situation is the management of the remairing phosphorous oxychioride upon its return to country X.
The U.S. detailed regulations on what is a hazardous waste are only legally relevant to U.S.
regulations applying if one of the countries involved is United States. We cannot interpret other
countries national procedures.
RecycledlRecyelablo
Q Prtrtted wItn Soylcinol. mu on paper ittat
conlalna at ass, 50% tecycIed II af
-------
2
In the first situation, you state that the remaining phosphorous oxychloride is removed from
the bubbler canister and distilled before being reintroduced with new phosphorous oxychloride to
regenerate the canisters. This is essentially what happens when the bubbler canisters are exported to
the United States. For the reasons stated above, EPA would not consider the phosphorous
oxychioride to be a waste and therefore the bubbler would not be subject to U.S. regulations to
implement the OECD decision C(92)39IFinal.
In the second situation, the remaining phosphorous oxychioride is not distilled or removed
from the bubbler canister. The bubbler canister is regenerated by simply adding new phosphorous
oxychioride. EPA would not consider the bubbler to be waste in this situation because the remaining
phosphorous oxychloride would simply be continuing to be used as a product. Therefore it too would
not be subject, in our view, to U.S. regulations implementing the OECD decision C(92)39IFinal.
In the third situation, the remaining phosphorous oxychioride is removed from the bubbler
canister and disposed of. The bubbler is regenerated by adding new phosphorous oxychloride.
Because EPA has viewed remaining phosphorous oxychioride as an unused commercial chemical
product and therefore not a waste, we would view the transport of the bubbler canisters from Japan to
Country X in this situation as intended for reclamation rather than disposal. If the importer/reclaimer
in Country X makes a decision to discard remaining phosphorous oxychloride rather than reclaim or
reuse it as in the first two situations, EPA would view that material as being generated as a waste at
the importing country’s reclamation facility rather than the exporting country’s facility. Since EPA
would not view the remaining phosphorous oxychioride as a waste until it had arrived and the
importer/reclaimer had made a decision to dispose of it, the Agency would not consider the bubbler
canister to be a waste and therefore not subject to U.S. regulation to implement the OECD decision
C(92)39/Final.
Finally, you ask how the remaining phosphorous oxychioride should be treated. When a
decision is made by a waste handler to discard phosphorous oxychioride, EPA believes that this
material is hazardous because it is reactive and possibly corrosive. It is our understanding that the
phosphorous oxychloride reacts violently with water during its use and has the potential to cause an
explosion. It is also our understanding that the compound is highly corrosive and can cause skin
burns. Phosphorous oxychioride can be destroyed through the addition of sodium hydroxide solution.
The mixture should then be cooled, neutralized and disposed. It is inappropriate for untreated
phosphorous oxychloride to be land disposed or discharged to a wastewater treatment system. If you
have any further questions, please contact either Paul Borst at (202) 260-6713 or Denise Wright at
(202) 260-3519 of my staff if you would like to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
Government of Japan
1-2-2 KASUMIGASEKI. CHIYODA KU
TOKYO 100. JAPAN
Date: November 11, 1994
Mr. Paul Borst
Characterization and Assessment Division
Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Dear Sir:
First of all, let me introduce myself briefly. I am responsible for implementing the OECD system
and the Basel Convention in the Japan Environment Agency, competent authority of Japan. Mr.
David Bussard suggested to me that I should contact you in his kind letter dated September 14, 1994
in response to my letter dated May 31, 1994 for clarifying the status under the OECD system with
respect to the export from to Japan to the United States of bubblers containing phosphorous
oxychloride used in the production of semiconductors.
Based on the information on the letter of Mr. Bussard, I would like to ask you to inform me of the
status of your country concerning the following cases in line with both the U.S. hazardous waste laws
and regulations and OECD system in order to avoid the misunderstanding.
Case I
Waste Description Bubblers containing a small quantity of phosphorous
oxychloride
Recovery Operation Recycling/Reclamation of other inorganic materials
Exporting Country Japan
Importing Country X Country (OECD member country)
These bubblers were exported from X country to a private company in Japan for producing
semiconductors. After phosphorous oxychloride is depleted, they are to be returned from
Japan to X country and are regenerated by distilling any phosphorous oxychioride remaining
in the canister and adding new phosphorous oxychioride to the bubbler canister.
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
Case 2
Waste Description, Recovery Operation, Exporting & Importing Country
Same in Case 1
After phosphorous oxychioride is depleted, they are to be returned from Japan to X country
and are regenerated by adding new phosphorous oxychioride to the bubbler canister.
Case 3
Waste Description, Recovery Operation, Exporting & Importing Country
Same in Case 1
After phosphorous oxychioride is depleted, they are to be returned from Japan to X country
and are regenerated by removing the phosphorous oxychioride remaining in the bubbler
canister and adding new phosphorous oxychioride to the canister. The removed phosphorous
oxychloride is to be disposed of.
According to the letter of Mr. Bussard, the data of Schumacher of Carlsbad indicate that the
phosphorous oxychloride in the returned canister is not used. I would like to know how the
remaining phosphorous oxychloride should be treated? Should it be disposed of or destroyed by the
pre-treatment?
So, could I ask you to give me some advice regarding the above-mentioned cases and question? I am
looking forward to receiving your kind respond on this issue. Thank you very much in advance.
Sincerely yours,
Satoru Morishita
Deputy Director
Office of Marine Pollution Control & Waste Management,
Planning Division, Water Quality Bureau
Environment Agency, Government of Japan
Address: 1-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan
Tel: +81-3-3581-4498, Fax: +81-3-3593-1438
This document has been rqyped from the original
-------
S) 41 1 - —
t i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC11ON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
L O1
FEB I 5 1f ,
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Randall F. Andrews, President 9456.1996(01)
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
Route 2, Box 521-C
Red Springs, NC 28377
Dear Mr. Andrews:
Thank you for your letter of january 18 to Michael Shapiro
in which you requested EPA’s non-objection to imports of cobalt
oxide-molybdic oxide spent catalysts into the U.S. for recovery
at your facility.
These spent catalysts are usually non-hazardous, but can be
characteristically hazardous (e.g. they have been shown to
exhibit the toxicity characteristic for benzene and arsenic). In
your letter, you state that the particular spent catalysts you
intend to import are not RCRA hazardous waste. EPA does not have
the authority to consent or object to imports of non-hazardous
wastes, and generally does not object to imports of hazardous
wastes except under certain circumstances. As you know, cobalt
oxide-molybdic oxide spent catalysts have been proposed for
listing as hazardous waste, the final rule for which is expected
this fall.
As we have stated in previous letters, you should 1 e aware
that a number of countries have ratified the Basel Convention on
the Control of Transboundarv Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
Their Disposal (an updated list of Parties is attached). Our
understanding is that you plan to import these wastes from
Venezuela and Trinidad. While Venezuela is not currently a Party
to Basel, Trinidad is, and should not allow the export if they
consider the wastes to be subject to Basel. In order for Basel
Parties to export Basel-covered wastes to non-Parties (the U.S.
is still not a Party to Basel), there must be a bilateral
agreement in place which is consistent with the requirements of
the Convention. We do not current.ly have a bilateral agreement
with Trinidad.
You should also check with the appropriate regulatory
agencies in the state or states in which you operate to determine
whether there are additional requirements with which you must
comply.
Q Recycled/Recyclable
Pdnted with SoyI no a Ink c i i paper that
ntaIna at teaat 50% recycled fiber
-------
2
In the future, please direct similar correspondence to Mr.
Robert Heiss, Director of the RCRA Import/Export Program, Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance,
Enforcement Planning, Targeting, and Data Division (2222A), at
the EPA address above. Mr. Heiss can be reached at (.202) 564-
4108. If you have further questions about this letter, please
call Julia Gourley of my staff at (202) 260-7944.
Sincerely yours,
David Bussard, Director
Hazardous Waste Identification
Division
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc Robert Heiss
-------
STATUS OF RATIFICATION OF THE BASEL CONVENTION
AS PER’GEOORAPKIC GROUPS
or THE UNITED NATIONS
I. STATES (An of 10 January 1996)
Africa
Asia
W. Europa and
Central and
Latin
and Pacific
Others
Eastern Europa
America
and Caribbean
Comoree
Bahrain
Australia
Croatia
1 n igua and
C8te d Ivoire
Egypt
Guinea
Malawi
Mauritius
l3angladesli
China
fred. States of
(Micronesia
India
Austria
Oelgium
Canada
Cyprus
Denmark
Czech RepiiI) I c
Eatonia
Hungary
tatvia
Poland
0nib ida
rgentiuia
liah mas
Barbados
Brazil
Morocco
Indonesia
Finland
Rounania
Chile
Namibia
Iran
France
Russian Federation
Costa Rica
Nigeria
Senegal
Seyche lea
South Africa
Japan
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Cuba
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Tanzania
Tunisia
Malaysia
Maldivea
Israel
Italy
Honduras
Mexico
Zaire
Oman
Liechtenstein
‘
Panama
Zambia
‘akiatan
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Sri-Lanka
Syria
Iunited Arab
lEmirates
Vietnam
Luxembourg
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
•
Paraguay
Peru
JSaint Kitte and
( Nevia
Saint I ticia
Trinidad and
Tobago
Uruguay
16 25 26 10 20
TOTAL, 97
-------
II. POLITICAL ?JID/ ..CONOMIC INTEGRATION
OR GAN IZ ATIONg
Aaia
W. Europe and
othare
E. Europe
.
Latin
America
European Economic
Community
.
1
.
TOTALs 1
G(OGR GR
-------
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
ROUTE 2’ BOX 521-C RED SPRINGS, NC 28377
(910) 843-2121 FAX (910) 843-5789
., 5, 1
//?4 / c
January 18, 1996
Mr. Michael Shapiro, (5301)
Director
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. EPA
401 N Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Our company wishes to import Cobalt Oxide—Molybdic Oxide
spent catalyst into the United States. We believe that this
material is nonhazardous under RCRA and it will be processed
and used here at our facility. We would like to receive a
letter of “no objection” from you to import this type of
product. I am enclosing a copy of a previous “no objection”
letter we received. We need a letter very similar to this
one for the Cobalt Oxide—Molybdic Oxide spent catalyst.
We would appreciate receiving this as soon-as possible.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding, this
matter.
Best regards,
INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS, INC.
a,ndSP d ttu
Randall F. Andre s, 5
President
Si
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES .ENVIRONMENTAL ROT ECTION.AGENCY
:WA S .fl GTON D.C.-2O46O
MAY I 6 19911
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Randall F.. Andrews, President
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
Route 2, Box 521-C
Red Springs, NC 28377
Dear Mr. Andrews:
Thank you for your letter of April 15 to Julie Lyddon of my
staff ifl which you requested confirmation of the acceptability of
importing into the U.S. spent nickel-containing catalysts for
nickel recovery and stainless steel scrap for use in the
manufacture of stainless steel.
Assuming they do no exhibit a characteristic of hazardcus
waste a: 40 CFR Part 261 Subcart C, the n.ckel-containing
catavs:s a’f s:ain.ess s: a would not be cons dered ha
an :.e: ±c:e be cr:ed. I wculd :e :ha: urde:
2 2.i1, i s :he ;ene:a .J:’. and/or t .r porter’3
res b itv c make t ts determination.
As ze s:azea in cur orev ous letter, you should be aware.
that a .ium.ber of ccuntr es have ratified the Easel Cor.venz:or on
the ntroi of Transbounda ’ Movements of azardcus Wastes and
Their D soosa1 (we attached a list to our orevious letter) . In
order for Easel P .rties to export to non-Parties (the U.S. is not
a Party to Easel), there must be a bilateral agreement in place
which is consistent with the recuirements of the Convez tion. The
U.S. is currently Party to three such aGreements: a bilateral
with Canada for recycling and disposal, a multilateral with the
member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
DeveloDrnent (OECD), and a b laceral w th Mexico, both of which
govern transfrontier movements for recycling only. If you plan
to import frcm a Basel Party with which we do not have an
acreement, and that country considers the catalysts or the scrap
to be subject to Easel, then the country should nct allow the
wastes to be exported to the U S.
Finally, you shculd check with the appropriate re latory
açenc es in t.-ie state Cr states in wh ch you operate to determine
whether there are add.t onal requz.rements with which you must
com iy
Pnred 0(7 Pecvc!ed P2oer
-------
Thank you for your letter and for your interest in the safe
and effective management of wastes. If you have further•
questions, please call Julie Lyddon at (202) 260-7944.
Sincerely,
- Michael Petruska; Chief•
Regulatory Development Branch
Office of Solid Waste
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
0 SI
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4( PRO t ’
9456.1996(02)
I 7 1996
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCy
RESPONSE
Mr. Adam Feldman
Norman Feldman Associates
15 W. 81st St., Ste. 6C
New York, NY 10024
Dear Mr. Feldman:
Thank you for your letter of May 30 to Mr. Michael Shapiro in which you requested a
letter explaining the RCRA hazardous waste import requirements. You indicated that you intend
to import waste, which may or may not be hazardous, from Singapore. You should be aware that
Singapore is a party to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal , while the U.S. is not a party. Under the terms of the
agreement, parties cannot trade in hazardous wastes with non-parties absent an agreement
pursuant to Article 11 of Basel which does not derogate from the environmentally sound
management provisions of Basel. The U.S. and Singapore are not currently parties to such an
agreement.
The hazardous waste import regulations at 40 CFR 262 Subpart F have not changed since
the July 8, 1991 letter you received from Wendy Grieder of EPA’s Office of International
Activities. However, as you have requested, I will reiterate those requirements as they pertain to
non-OECD imports of hazardous waste.
EPA regulations do not prohibit the importation of foreign-generated hazardous waste.
However, the regulations do require that the owner or operator of a facility that has arranged to
receive hazardous waste from a foreign source must notify the EPA Regional Administrator in
writing at least four weeks in advance of the date the waste is expected to arrive at the facility.
Notice of subsequent shipments of the same waste from the same facility is not required (40 CFR
264 12 and 265.12).
Hazardous waste imported into the U.S. from a foreign source is regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in the same manner as hazardous waste
generated in the U.S. This includes compliance with manifesting, transport, treatment, storage,
and disposal requirements.
L X RacyclodlR.cyclabl
ç ,, Pilntsd WIth Soy a bit on poper that
‘aq ign.ai bisitSO%ie yclsdflbar
-------
- Tf oü Ii êTf her questions, please call me at (703) 308-8751.
Sincerely,
L. Gourl r ‘
1nternationaL.gd%p cial ProjeôtsBranch
Hazardous Y/aste Id n jfication Division (5304W)
Office of Solid ‘ asiè
I
-------
9457 - GENERATOR
STANDARDS
Part 262
ATK1/1104f28 kp
-------
9457.1987(01)
25 MAR 87
Mr. Randy Bodley
?ransbas Incorporation
1.525 Lockwood Road
P.O. Box 957
Billing.. Montana 59103
Dear Mr. Dodleys
Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1987, regarding
the reuse of pesticide containers. Und.r the Environmental
Protect ion Agency (EPA) regulations issued pursuant to subtitle
C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a
generator of a solid Waite must determine if he generates a
hazardous waste, and if so, must comply with the regulation.
at 40 CFR Parts 260—268, 270, and the notification requirements
of RCRL,Sction 3010. The drum rinsate you describe would
probably be a hazardous waits because it contains 2, 4 —D. (See
40 CFR 26l.24, ?able 1, ‘D016. ’) EPA has, however, made
special provision. in its regulations both for farmer.
disposing of waste pesticides on their own property and for
management of properly emptied (i.e., rinsed) container..
First, under 262.5l, a farmer disposing of waste
pesticides from his own use at his farm (i.e., 2, 4-D rinsate)
is not required to comply with the hazardous regulations
provided that he triple rinses each emptied pesticide container
and disposes of the rinsate on his own farm (in a manner
consistent with the disposal instructions on the pesticide
label) • This appears to be the procedure that ?ransba i L
proposing for Landmastsr, and as long as farmers allow theie
procedures, they would be excluded from further hazardous
waste regulations.
Second, EPA has provided, in 3261.7(a)(1), that when a
container that otherwise hold. hazardous wastu is properly
emptied, the container is no longer sub oct to the hai a dous
waste regulations. For hazardous wasted that are not.-designated
as ‘acute hazardous wastes,’ a container is empty if all
wastes have been removed using practices commonly employed to
-------
remove materials from that type of container (i.e., pouring).
and no more than one inch of residue remain. in the container.
(See ç261.7(b)(l).) The procedure Transbas is proposing for
L.andmastar, (i.e., triple rinsing), appears to ensure that
the container. would in fact be properly •mptied, and as
such, they can be returned to Transbas without complying with
the hazardous waste manifest or any other hazardous waste
regulation.. You should note, however, that if Transbas (or
any other party) subsequently cleans the containers, the
rinsate may be hazardous waste. The party cleaning the drum.
must make that determination, and if the rinsate is hazardous,
must comply with 40 CFR Parts 260—268, 270, and the notification
requirements of RCRA Section 3010, as applicable.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
* In the case of acute hazardous waste, the container is
considered empty under more stringent criteria. See 261.7
(b)(3).
------- |