United States Solid Waste and EPN53O-R-98-012M ‘ “
Environmental Protection Emergency Response July 1998
Agency (OS-343)
RCRA Permit Policy
EPA
Compendium
Volume 13
9551.1992 - 9593.1996
Land Disposal Restrictions (Part 268)
Waste Minimization
Subtitle D
• Mining Wastes
• State Programs
• Municipal Waste Combustion
• Household Hazardous Waste
RCRA Grant Funds
Miscellaneous
• Medical Waste
• Used Oil Management Standards
• Universal Wastes
Techl.aw I/5949ICovcrs/ 14
-------
9551.19^2(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MOtfTKLY REPORT QUESTION
JULY 1992 -.-.-.
2. One-Time Notification Requirement
" Under §268.7(a)(6)
A marutfacturer generates a listed,
restricted waste which is piped directly to a
wasiewater treatment unit exempt from RCRA
regulation under §§264.1(g)(6), 265.1(c)(10),
and 27QJM(2)(v). After treatment, the listed
waste is discharged directly to a POTW
pursuant to §26L4(a)(l)(ii). Because the
waste is never managed in accumulation tanks
or containers regulated under §26234, it is
not subject to "substantive regulation" as
defined in the March 24, 1986, EfdsraL
Register (51 ER 10152-3), and so is not
counted in determining generator status (i.e.,
conditionally exempt, small quantity, or large
quantity generator). Which Part 268 land
disposal restrictions notification
requirements, if any, apply to this waste?
The generator must comply with the one-
time notification requirement under
§268.7(a)(6). This section states, °[i]f a
generator determines that he is managing a
restricted waste that is excluded from the
definition of hPyard°njt or solid waste or
exempt from Subtitle C regulation, under 40
CFR 261.2-261.6 subsequent to the point of
. he must place a one-time notice
the disposition of,the w£%.xa the facility's
file" (empbusis added). IsSifc scenario
preteatfid above, the was&ls egierjited during
the manufacturing process ago bcocnpes, .
excluded from the'defuu'^ «/ ^jiiid waste at
the point of discharge ti; .^? P^i^ . • ...
(§261.4(a)(l)(ii)); in o»hcv Vii«^s, stsvscquent
to the point of generation (see 5
-------
9551.1992(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
SEPTEMBER
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
1992
3. Fluorescent Light Bulbs as Debris
The May 15, 1992, fjderal RegLsrer (57
20766) promulgated a generic one-year, case-
by-case extension of the land disposal restric-
dons (LDR) effective date for nvst ha’ ’dous
debris. Debris qual4fying for this extension may
be Land disposed without meeting the applicable
Part 268, Subpart D treatment gandardc,
provided the landfill or swface frnpowzdinent in
which the hazardous debris is placed meets
minunwn !ec1 ol0gic0l requirements
( 268i(hX2)). Do used fluorescent Zig/u bulbs
that exhibit a prohibited characteristic (e.g.,
exhibit the toxicity characteristic (TC) and the
extraction procedure toxicity characteristic
(EP)for mercwy) meet the definition of debris
and therefore qual jfy for the case-by-case
extension?
Used fluorescent light bulbs are considered
debris and axe eligible for the generic one-year
case-by-case extension. The May 15, 1992,
Federal Register (57 EB 1 20767) established this
extension for materials that meet the definition
of debris found in the Third Third final rule (55
fg22650; June 1, 1990) and that are
contaminated with hazardous waste (with the
exception of debris contaminated with solvent,
dioxin, and nonliquid California List wastes).
This definition of debris includes materials that
are primarily nongeologic in origin, such as
grass, trees, stumps, shrubs, and man-made
materials In August 1992, EPA established
alrernau . e treatment standards for hazardous
debris in 40 CFR §268.45 and promulgated
regulatory definitions of debris and hazardous
debris in § 268.2(g) and (h), respectively. The
definition of debris in §268.2(g) classifies as
debris solid materials exceeding a 60 mm
particle size that are intended for disposal and
that are manufactured objects, plant or animal
matter, or natural geologic material (with
several exceptions specified in §268.2(g)) (57
37222; August 18, 1992). This definition
also includes mixtures of debris with other
materials provided that the debris comprises the
primaxy material present based on a visual
inspection (57 37224). Although the May
1992 Federal Register uses the definition of
debrisfoundinlheThirdThirdflnairu le,EPA
has stated that the case-by-case extension
applies to materials meeting either definition of
debris (57 ER 37242). Fluorescent light bulbs,
which aie man-made (manufactured) materials
exceeding a 60 mm particle size, meet both
definitions when intended for discard, and thus
qualify for the one-year case-by-case extension,
provided the generator or facility owner!
operator complies with the recordkeeping
requirements outlined in the May 15,1992,
Federal Register (57 ER 20769).
Even if the fluqr’escent light bulbs are
broken into pieces that have a particle size of
less than or equal to 60 mm, the pieces are still
eligible for the one-year case-by-case extension.
Broken light bulbs meet the June 1, 1990,
Federal Register definition of debris, which
does not contain a minimum particle size
criterion for materials other than indigenous
rocks (55 EB 1 22650); therefore, regardless of
the diameter of the pieces, broken light bulbs
ale considered debris for purposes of the generic
one-year case-by-case extension.
-------
9551.1993(01)
1. Soil Case-by-Case Extension
EPA established a generic case-by-case
extension of the land disposal restrictions
effective date for soils contaminated with
Third Third wastes that have tr aDnent
standards based on incineration, vitrz) i cation,
or mercury retorting in the October20. 1992.
Federal Register (57 L 4rr,2). This
extension allows soils contaminated with these
wastes to be land disposed without meeting
Parr 268, Subpart D treatment standarLs
provided that the generator or owner/operator
complies with certain recordkeeping
requirements (57 E& 47775-47776).
Treatment standards for both arsenic (D004)
and lead (D008) were promulgated in the
Third Third final rule. Since the treatment
ctandard for D004 is based on vitrification (55
22556; June 1, 1992), soil that exhibits the
to city characteristic (and the characteristic
of EP toxicity) for arsenic qual es for the
case-by-case extension. The treatment
standard for D008 (lead) is based on
stabilization (55 & 22565); soil that
exhibits the toxicity characteristic (and El’)
for D008 only does not qua! jfy for the
extension. Does soil that exhibits the TC (and
EP)for both lead and arsenic qua! jfy for the
generic case-by-case extension?
Soil thai exhibits the TC (and EP) for both
lead and ar cnic qualifies for the generic soil
case-by-case extension, and need not be
treated tc meet either the lead (D008) or the
arsenic (D004) treatment standard until
May 8, 1993. When soil is contaminated with
two or more Third Third wastes, the soil
qualifies for the October 20, 1992, generic
case-by-case extension as long as at least one
of the Third Third wastes with which it is
(Jnt2min2ted has a treatment standard based
on incineration, vitrification, or mei uy
retorting, or if it is contaminated with
radioactive mixed waste. Soil that is
cont2rnirlated with an eligible Third Third
waste and a Second Third waste also qualifies
for the case-by-case extension, since the
maximum period allowable for capacity
extensions under RCRA §3004(h) is four
years, and four years have not yet passed since
the ueatment standards for Second Third
wastes were promulgated. If soil is
contaminated with a Third Third waste that is
eligible for the extension a solvent,
dioxin, California list, or First Third waste,
however, the soil must meet the treatment
standard for the non-Third Third waste before
it can be land disposed. Any other
int i ietation would result in EPA extending
the dale of a prohibition beyond the dates
established by Congress, and therefore beyond
EPA’s legal authority (see the June 1, 1990,
Federal Register : 55 , 22650). For example,
if soil is contaminated with D004 and an
P-listed spent solvent waste (e.g., POOl), the
soil must be treated to meet the FOOl
treatment standard prior to disposal.
Note that EPA promulgated treatment
standards for four newly listed P002 and P005
solvent constituents in the Third Third final
rule (1,1,2-trichioroethane; benzene;
2-cthoxycthanol; and 2-nitropropane). Unlike
all other P001-F005 spent solvent wastes
which had treatment standards promulgated n
the November 7, 1986, Federal Register (51
EB 1 40572), these newly listed P002 and P005
solvents are considered Third Third wastes.
P002- and P005-contaminated soil that
contains one or more of the four newly listed
solvent constituents and no other F-listed
solvent constituents is eligible for the soil
case-by-case extension, since the
nonwastewater treatment standards for these
P002 and P005 constituents arc based on
incineration (see 55 22577-22578).
RCRA/SUPERFUND/0UST HOTLINE
JANUARY
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
1993
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCy
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAY 5 f993 9551.1993(02)
or IGe OP
OUO WASTE AND !MERQINCY A SPoN3
Hz. Pred.rjck Scheffler
Director
Absorpt ion Corporation
1808 Eagle Harbor Lana
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Dear Pft. Scbaffler:
Thank you for your l tt.r of Xarch 7, 1993, asking for
clarjfjcetjon of EPA’s recent rule govern.i g disposal of sorbed
liquids in hazardous waste landfills. This rule, which becones
effectiv, on Xuy 18, 1993, was published in the Federal ReUigte of
Neveeb , s 18, 1992. I trust the clarification below addresses your
Concerns.
In the 1984 Hazardous a.T .d Solid Waste Amendsents to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Congress required
EPA, by February 8, 1986, to develop rules that (1) “ninisjze the
dieposa], of containerized liquid hazardous waste in landfill.,’ (2)
‘nininize the presence of Zr.. liquids in containerized hazardous
waste to be disposed of in landfill.,’ and (3) ‘prohibit the
disposal in landfills of liquid, that have been absorbed in
materials that biodegrad, or that release liquids wha compressed
a might occur during routine landfill operatj M (Sec.
3004(c) (2)). EPA satisfied th. first two of th.se requiremen in
a rule pub ljshad c April 30, 1985 (50 PR 18370), which requires
that hazardous waste disposed of in landfills not contain free
liquids, as determined by the Paint Filter Test. EPA’s November
18, 1992 rule addresse, the third rsquir nr
Your letter particularly focuses on the 1992. rule’s effect o
the use of ‘biodegradab 1 s sorbents in wastes destined for
hazardou, vast, landfills. In the rule, EPA identified two
categories of sorbents as ‘nonbiodegradableii (i.e , those made up
of primarily inorganic or elemental carbon materials and these
consisting of high-mo1ecu a weight organic polymers) • and
-------
—2—
promulgated two tests of biodegradability (ASTM Methods G21-70 and
G22—76). In the preamble to the regulation, we also identified
certain Specific materials as ‘bicdsgradal,le, ft including natural
organic materials like sawdust, municipal waste and shredded
paper. We took this approach because of explicit language j the
ACRA legislative history identifying these materials as
biodegradable and therefore “unacceptable ” for use as sorbents if
they are to be disposed of in hazardous waste landfills (July 25,
1984, Congressional Record -— Senate 39177), and in response to
comments received on earlier proposals (51 FR 46824, December 24,
1986, and 52 FR 23695, June 24, 1987).
To respond specifica y to your letter, EPA’S rule on
“biodegra le ” sorbents does not establish a ban on the use of
“organic” sorbents, nor should it be interpreted as a statement by
EPA on the efficacy of one or another type of sorbent material in
addressing spills. Instead, th. rule prohibits only the direct
landfil]inq in hazardous waste landfills of liquids that have been
sorbed with “biod.gradabien sorbenta. Thu., the rule doss not in
any way prohibit or restrict the use of sorbents (organic or
otherwise) to address wastes or product. going to a non—hazardous
waste landfill (e.g. municipal or nonhazardous waste industrial
landfill). Furthermore, it does not affect the use of serbenta
with hazardous waste that is not landfjlled -- for Aicmmple, that is
burned for energy recov.ry incinerated, recycled, or treated
through bioremodiation or land treatment. In addition, most
hazardous waste today must be treated prior to placement in a
landfill, and such treatment viii generally remove the
biodegradabi. components or render them Unavailable to the
environment or will remove the liquid. Thus, in the case of such
treated wastes, the rule can be expected to hay, no ef fact.
Therefore, only a small proportion of wastes would be affected by
this rule (and that proportion will decrees, as EPA issues more
treatment standards in the future)
You are also correct in pointing out in your Letter that EPA,
in its rulemaking, did not conduct tests on the degradation of
organic sorbsnta in an anaerobic landfiLl en oflment. Also, EPA
did not test, and made no judgment in the rula king (which
addresses a narrow Situatjo ) on the efficacy of different
sorb.nts, including organic eorbent , in spill situations. Factors
like absorption and rstention jmpo nt considerations in the
performance of sorbents tn responding to spills—-lay outside the
scope of the rulemaking. Instead the rule only addressed the
direct landfiiling of sorbed materials in hazardous waste
landfills.
-------
—3—
I hope this response adaquat.ly clarifies the intent and scope
of EPA ’s regulations on placement of liquids in landfills. I:
have any further comments, you should contact Matt liala of my staff
(703—308—8404).
As5istant Su eon General, uspgs
Acting Assistant Administrator
-------
,to sP 4 I ::
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I ) WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
L JgØI#
9551. 1993(03)
AUG 1 8 1993 OFF CEOF
SOL O WAS E EMERGE, .Cv PESPCf SE
Mr. Leonardo D. Robinson
Environmental Counsel
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
2000 S. Batavia Avenue (Route 31)
Geneva, Illinois 60134
Dear Mr. Robinson:
In your letter of April 27, 1993, you raised concern
regarding the waste code carry through principle and the impact
of Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) standards. Precisely,
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWMI) has inventoried wastes
which contain waste codes for which metal recovery is required.
Because these wastes did not contain recoverable levels of
metals, EPA granted a determination of equivalency variance from
the metal recovery requirements on December 4, 1992 to your Port
Arthur facility. The use of recycled scrubber waters and other
practices, however, results in all residuals perpetually carrying
waste codes which require recovery. The Agency is sympathetic to
the confusion that will occur by applying the waste code carry
through principle to this extreme situation. The interpretation
contained in this memorandum should effectively resolve this
problem.
It is reasonable under very limited conditions to stop the
waste code carry through for certain waste codes. After all
waste subject to the December 4, 1992 variance has been treated,
and the residuals have complied with the requirements of the
variance, CWMI should drop the waste code, if the following
conditions are met:
• The waste code to be dropped has an LDR
standard specifying recovery in section
268.42.
• The waste code to be dropped is applicable
solely based on those wastes subject to the
variance granted to CWNI on December 4, 1992.
-------
• AU affected residuals remain listed
hazardous wastes for another waste code.
• Recoverable levels of metals (greater than
1%) are not present in the residuals.
These ccrtditions, which are consistent with those we imposed
earlier, provide a very reasonable and targeted relief to prevent
inappropriate application of LDR standards.
If you have any further questions on the relief provided for
in this memorandum, please contact Richard Kinch at (703) 308-
8434. Finally, thank you for raising this important issue.
Sincerely,
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Richard Kinch
Director, Waste Management Division, Region 6
-------
OlT4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9551.1993(04)
Of F ICE OF
NuV 993 SOL WASTEA I ,DEME EMCy
ESPONSC
Mr. Jim Adamoli
President
Tascon, Inc.
7607 Fairview Drive
Houston, Texas 77041
Dear Mr. Adamoli,
Thank you for your le ter dated Juiy 18. 1993, concerning the regulation and safe
management of certain types of liquids, and absorbent materials containing these liquids.
I apologize for the delay in our response.
You indicated that your company manufactures paper-based sorbents used for
stabilizing liquids prior to incineration, and that you were interested in marketing your
products to other users. You requested guidance on instructing the users of your
products on how to properly dispose of these materials after use. Because of the
numerous types of liquids that could potentially end up in a sorbent material, it would be
difficult for us to describe in a generic way how a used sorbent would be regulated.
Also, the differing ways in which states may be regulating some of these liquids
contained in the sorbents is &so extremely important (e.g., some states may regulate
used oil more stringently than others). Before explaining this issue in more detail,
however, I would like to clarify some points you made in your letter concerning the
hazardous waste regulations.
Under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations,
certain wastes are defined as hazardous waste, while others remain subject to non-
hazardous solid-waste regulations. In general, a solid 1 waste is defined as hazardous
waste if it either 1) is listed as hazardous waste in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 261 Subpart D, or 2) exhibits one or more of the hazardous
characteristics in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. You stated that liquids such as used
motor oil, anti-freeze, and grease are classified as hazardous. This is not always . ue;
As you may know, the term “solid” here does not refer to the physical form of the
waste, but rather to the universe of garbage, refuse, industrial waste, wastewater, and other
wastes regulated by the U.S. EPA.
RscycIed/R.eycIa I
IM,S.q wiffi ,v’Cano4. m iv, e.eiv ‘*1.1
-------
under the federal RCRA regulations, these liquids yot: mentioned are not specifically
listed as hazardous wastes, although these materials might exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste. It is the responsibility of the generators of these wastes to make this
determination in accordance with 40 CFR 262.11.
It appears that the wastes that your potential customers will be generating, for
which you are seeking guidance on disposal , are act ’ually the used sorbents that have
been used to clean up spills or leaks of various liquids. Unless the sorbents are being
used to clean up spills of listed hazardous wastes (or chemicals that when spilled become
iisted hazardous wastes), the used sorbents would only be defined as hazardous waste if
they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste. I have enclosed some
materials that describe both listed and characteristic hazardous wastes. Your potential
customers should be aware that the EPA has specifically prohibited the placement of
bulk and containerized liquid wastes, or wastes containing free liquids 2 , into a hazardous
waste landfill. An EPA rulemaking published on November 18, 1992 (57 Federal
Register 54452), prohibits the direct placement into hazardous waste landfills of liquids
that have been sorbed with ‘biodegradable” sorbents (see 40 CFR 264.314(e)). However,
this rule does not in any way prohibit or restrict the use of sorbents, organic or
otherwise, to address wastes or products being sent to a non-hazardous waste landfill
(see discussion below on municipal solid waste landfills); nor does this rule affect the use
of sorbents that are not landfilled (e.g., they are burned or incinerated). I have enclosed
a copy of this rulemaking, as well as three letters written by EPA that further clarify
certain issues regarding this rule. Should you have any questions specific to this
rulemaking, you may contact Ken Shuster at (703) 308-8759.
In addition, there are other restrictions on the land disposal of hazardous waste
(including hazardous waste/sorbent mixtures), known as the “Land Disposal
Restrictions”, or LDRs. These restrictions mandate that hazardous wastes be treated
prior to land disposal to meet certain criteria, specific to each type of hazardous waste.
Such treatment of hazardous waste prior to land disposal is often performed by
commercial waste management companies, and may include incineration or stabilization.
Potential users of your products should already be familiar with the land disposal
restrictions if they are already generating and disposing of hazardous wastes.
I would also point out that used sorbents that do . meet the definition of
hazardous waste still need to be managed in accordance with any applicable federal,
State. and local solid waste regulations (e.g., some states may have a category of “special”
waste for certain petroleum-contaminated, non-hazardous waste). EPA regulations
pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR 258.28) prohibit the disposal of
bulk or containerized liquid wastes and wastes containing &ee liquids (see October 9,
1991 Federal Register , So E 51021). 1 have enclosed a copy of this rule. You should
note that these federal regulations regarding sorbed liquids placed into municipal solid
waste landfills do not have a biodegradability criteria like that described above for
2 p defined by the Paint Filter Liquids Test, EPA Method 9095.
-------
sorbed liquids placed in hazardous waste landfills.
With regard to the disposal of sorbents containing liquids defined as used oil,
EPA addressed this issue in the final rule on used oil management standards (September
10, 1992 Federal Register , 57. 41566), atid in a subsequent technical correction (May
3, 1993 Federa] Register , 58 ER 26420). I have enclosed copies of these two final rules.
Assuming that sorbents containing used oil will not be burned for energy recovery, these
sorbents wou!d be subject to the EPA’s used oil management standards only if free-
flowing used oil is visible 3 . (Sorbents containing used oil that will be burned for energy
recovery are subject to the used oil regulations regardless of whether or not free-flowing
oil is visible per 279. 10(c)(2)). Assuming that the sorbents j defined as used oil arid
will not be burned for energy recovery, EPA presumes that used oil is going to be
recycled (even if the generator is planning to dispose of the used oil), until the used oil
is actually disposed of on site, or sent off site for disposal’. Prior to being sent off site
for disposal, sorbents meeting the definition of used oil, even sorbents exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste, would only be subject to the used oil standards. Once
disposed of on site or sent off site for disposal, these sorbents would then be regulated
under either hazardous or non-hazardous solid waste regulations.
I would like to reiterate that generators of sorbents containing various liquids
should be advised to contact their state solid and hazardous waste agencies, with a
description of the material for which they are seeking disposal. State regulators are
typically most familiar with the location and acceptance criteria of disposal facilities
within their states, as well as with any particular state regulations that may impact the
disposal requirements for these types of materials. I have enclosed a listing of state
agencies, as well as some other information on solid and hazardous waste that I hope
you will find useful. If you have any questions on this information, please contact Ross
Elliott of my staff at (202) 260-8551. Thank you for your interest in the safe
management of solid and hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
J,BrU )R. Weddle
- ACthc Director
U Office of Solid Waste
enclosures (13)
3 See amended 40 CFR279.10(c) at 5S.ER 26425; see also preamble discussion at 57
41581 and 41585.
‘See 40 CFR 279. 10(a); see also preamble discussion of used-oil rec c [ ing presumption
at 57 FR 41578.
-------
Sr 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
$
P O1
9551.1994(01)
OCT 6 ig9
r1; E c
scL:
Mr. Kenneth L. Humphrey
Environmental Affairs Director
Envirosafe Services of Ohio, Inc.
4350 Navarre Avenue
P.O. Box 167571
Oregon, Ohio 43616—7571
Dear Mr. Humphrey:
This letter is in response to your request of
August 11, 1994, requesting clarification of certain aspects of
the 40 CFR 268 debris regulations, specifically that portion of
the 40 CFR 268.2(g) definition of debris which states: “A mixture
of debris that has not been treated to the standards provided by
section 268.45 and other material is subject to regulation as
debris if the mixture is comprised primarily of debris by volume,
based on visual inspection.”
In your letter you ask for clarification as to: 1) whether
waste shipments containing mixtures of debris and non-debris
materials are to be regulated as debris if the debris portion is
present at 50 percent or greater, by volume based on visual
inspection; and 2) whether EPA has defined the term “primarily”
as included in the definition of mixtures of debris and non-
debris materials other than the percentage given at the 57 FR
37235, footnote 42.
The EPA has not defined the term “primarily” as it is used
in the definition of debris, nor has it been specifically defined
elsewhere in the final rule, preamble or EPA background document.
You are correct in noting that the only reference to a specific
percentage, with respect to the term “primarily” is found on 57
37235, footnote 42. As discussed on 57 37224, the Agency
has classified debris as any mixture of materials (debris, soil
and/or sludge), where the debris portion comprises the largest
amount of material present by volume, based on visual inspection.
As such, if a mixture is comprised of three components (debris,
soil, and sludge); the mixture would be classified as debris if
the volume of debris is greater than soil and greater than the
volume of sludge. If however, the mixture is comprised of two
components, debris and soil debris and sludge as described in
your question, the debris component would have to comprise at
least 50 percent, by volume, based on visual inspecton to be
subject to the debris rule.
7 j? Recycled/Recyclable
Q , P,lnted with SoyiCanola Ink n paoer mat
contains at east 50% recycled fiber
-------
EPA would like to stress, however, that the determination of
a mixture as primarily debris can not be achieved by deliberately
mixing the debris with other wastes in order to change the
treatment classification. Such mixing is impermissible dilution
under section 268.3. In addition, in such situations where
debris is used merely to dilute another prohibited waste, the
mixture would remain subject to the most stringent treatiaent
standard of any waste that is part of the mixture as is specified
in section 268.41(b). -
Finally, in response to your third question, a State’s
authorized program generally operates in lieu of the Federal RCRA
requirements. However, for requirements based on HSWA authority
(which includes the various Land Disposal Requirements), EPA is
required to implement these authorities until the State has
adopted them and received authorization from EPA.
When a State is not yet authorized for a HSWA-based
authority, facilities are required to comply with the Federal
HSWA requirement, as well as any applicable provisions of State
law that address the same matter. States may adopt and implement
authorities that are equivalent to or more stringent than the
corresponding Federal laws. However, if State law is less
stringent than Federal laws, the State authority would not apply.
If you should have any further questions regarding this
matter, please contact Richard lUnch of my staff at 703—308—8434.
Sincerely,
LT ( Lc - L L
/ Micha 1 Shapiro, Director
Offtij of Solid Waste
cc: Richard Kinch I
-------
á UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
I WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
\ PRdI
9551.1994(02)
nir OFFICE OF
ULU . .j SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. T. L. Nebrich, Jr.,
Technical Director
Waste Technology Services, Inc.
640 Park Place
Niagara Falls, NY 14301
Dear Mr. Nebrich:
This letter responds to your letter dated October 12, 1994,
in which you requested clarification of the land disposal
restrictions (LDR) waste identification requirements for organic
hazardous wastes displaying the toxicity characteristic (TC) that
also are listed hazardous wastes. Specifically, you ask for
clarification of what waste codes should be identified for an
organic TC waste (D039 or D040) that is also a listed spent
solvent waste (FOOl or F002).
As you stated in your letter, the LDR regulations of 40 CFR
268.9(a) require that a generator of a solid waste must determine
each EPA Hazardous Waste Number (waste code) applicable to the
waste. The requirements of § 268.9(b), however, state that if a
listed waste is also a characteristic waste, the waste code for
the listed waste would govern if the listed waste includes a
treatment standard for the constituent that causes the waste to
exhibit the characteristic. In the case of a listed FOOl
hazardous waste that also displays the TC for trichioroethylene
(D040), only the FOOl waste code would need to be identified for
purposes of the L DR requirements, because there is a treatment
standard for trichloroethy].ene in FOOl spent solvent wastes.
Furthermore, only the treatment standard for FOOl would need to
be met; there would be no requirement to also meet the treatment
standard for D040 with its requirement of treating any underlying
hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be present at the
point of generation.
( Xj’ RSCycIed RecycIabIe
u t i Soyfc.ncia In an p.p , mat
Issat 50% rscyciad fibir
-------
I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have
additional questions, please contact Rhonda Craig of my staff on
703-308-8771.
Sincerely,
Shapiro
Office of Solid Waste
-------
wTh
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC.
October 12, 1994
Mr. Michael Shipiro
Director - OSW
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shipiro:
According to 40C l<268.9 (a), a generator of a solid
waste must determine each EPA Hazardous Waste Number (waste
code) applicable to the waste for LDR purposes. However,
stated in 40CFR268.9(b), a prohibited waste which is listed
under 40CFR261, Subpart D and exhibits a characteristic under
40CFR261, Subpart C would not have to be identified with a
standard under 40CFR261, Subpart C if the listed waste
includes a treatment standard for the constituent that causes
the waste to exhibit the characteristic.
What exactly is that saying, especially in regards to
the newly listed TC organics (D018-D043)? If you have
identified a waste as a FOOl or F002 and it also fails TCLP
for Tetrachloroethylene (D039) or Trichioroethylene (D040),
do you identify it as the “F” waste and “D” waste codes for
40CFR261 purposes and 40CFR268 (LDR) purposes?
Since FOOl and F002 were listed because of toxicity (T),
does that mean that since D039 and D040 are toxic
characteristics they don’t have to be identified based on
40CFR268.9(b)? If that is true, what about the additional
requirements of meeting the standards for the underlying
constituents for D018-D043 based on the TC organics final
role ( FZ 47 32), .3irlce thcy do noc appear in the listing for
FOOl or F002.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Very truly yours,
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
/ L ) 4 ’
T. L. Nebrich, Jr., CH?ff4
Technical Director
TLN/kjl
640 Park Place, Niagara Falls, New York, 14301 Telephone 716.282-4100
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
, OST4P ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
A
9551.1995 (01)
I fl “ O OFFICE OF
- . SCL WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Basil G. Constantelos
Vice President
Environmental Affairs
Safety- Kleen
1000 North Randall Road
Elgin,Il]4nOiB 60123-7857
Dear b ’- 1stanteloB
Thank you for your letter dated November 17, 1994 regarding
the land disposal restrictions (LDR) Phase ii regulation that
appeared in the Federal Register Ofl September 19, 1994. You
provided some interesting ideas for the Phase II technical
correction notice and proposed an implen entation approach for
your company to comply with the new Phase x x notification
requirements. These issues are discussed below.
.1. Removal of treatment standards from the LDR notifications
Safety-Kleefl favors the action taken in the Phase II final
rule that deleted treatment standards or references. to treatment
standards from being required on LDR notifications. It was
pointed out that parts of the regulatory language in 40 CFR 268.7
still reflected the old requirements. We appreciate you pointing
this out. Furthermore, we have corrected the error in the Phase
ii correction notice (see 60 FR 242, column three, January 3,
3.995).
The Agency agrees that the elimination of the treatment
standards from the LDR notification does not lessen the
substantive LDR requirements. but rather makes an administrative:
adjustment to lessen the paperwork burden on the regulated
community. Furthermore, you suggest that EPA clarify for the
states and the regulated community that the hangeB to the LDR
notification requirements should be immediately applicable. When
the Phase II requirements became effective 12/19/94, all
notification requirements (including corrections made in the
technical amendment) were in place and were iwmediately
effective.
R.cycI.d!R.cyclabl • PnnIed wifi Vege bIe Oil Based b’iks on 100% Recy ed Paper (40% Post n5ufl el
-------
2. Clarification of application of analytical test methods
Safety-Kieen states that for some waste matrices, the SW-846 test methods will not
achieve detection levels near the universal treatment standard (UTS) levels. It is suggested
that EPA issue guidance on what PQL is needed to demonstrate that the UTS are met. It is
also suggested that EPA clarify that the application of EPA SW-846 methods may not be
appropriate for analysis of all UTS in all waste matrices.
Compliance with LDR regulations is usually measured by achieving a constituent
concentration level at or below the UTS for that constituent. However, when combustion
technologies are used to comply with UTS for organic constituents, EPA considers nondetect
values within an order of magnitude of the UTS to be in compliance (see § 268.40 (d)).
It is unclear from the information in your letter what type of materials create your
company’s detection level difficulties. Without further clarification, we are unable to issue
further guidance. It should be noted that except in cases where test methods are specified in
Part 268, there is no requirement th4t SW-846 methods be used to demonstrate compliance
with the UTS.
3. Approach to implementing Phase II LDR requirements
Safety-Kleen has developed an implementation strategy to comply with new
paperwork requirements while also assuring that UTS are met. Under 40 CFR 2 68.7(a) (1)
(ii) in the Phase II rule, the generator must include on the LDR notification all the waste
constituents that the treater will monitor, if monitoring will not include regulated
constituents, for wastes FOOl-F005, F039, DOOl, D002, and D012-D043. The majority of
Safety-Kleen’s managed waste will be monitored after solvent reclamation, and monitoring
will include all underlying h 7 rdous constituents. For wastes ultimately managed outside
the Safety-Kleen system by other facilities, Safety Kleen is obtaining written confirmation
that these other facilities will be monitoring for all underlying h2zardous constituents.
Therefore, no specific constituents will be listed on the LDR notification coming from
Safety-Kleen’ s customers (generators).
If monitoring for all “underlying h27ardous constituents” means all UTS constituents,
such an approach complies with the new Phase II requirements. The generators of the
hazardous waste will specify on their notification that they have a DOOl (or other) waste and
will not include on the notification any underlying haiardous constituents. Therefore, the
treater, in this case Safety-Kleen, must treat and monitor for the constituents on the UTS
list (all underlying h2zardous constituents).
Thu page has been ‘COped from the original
-------
I hope you find these responses helpful. Should you have
additional questions or con xientB, feel free to direct them to
Rhonda Craig of my staff, at (703) 308-8771. -
incerely,
iro
e or
ce of Solid Waste
-------
1. k’m L)
November 17, 1994
Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste (MS—5301)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 111/ A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Phase II LDR Regulation
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
This letter provides follow-up to a November 3, 1994 meeting
between Michael LeBel of Safety—Kleen Corp. and Richard Kinch,
Rhonda Craig, and Doug Heimlich of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). During this meeting Mr. LeBel raised several issues
and implementation questions regarding the September 19, 1994 Phase
II Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) regulations. EPA informed
Safety-Kleen of the Agency’s intention to issue a technical
correction to the final reç 1 .alation prior to the December 19, 1994
effective date. In light of EPA’S intention to issue a technical
correction and Safety—x]een’ s questions regarding approaches to
comply with the new regulations, EPA suggested that Safety-Kleen
prepare a letter outlining suggestions for technical corrections
and our proposed approach for complying with the Phase II LDR
regulations. In addition to looking forward to receiving EPA’s
response, we also suggest that our implementation approach be
addressed in the correction notice.
ISSUES FOR TECHNICAL CORRECTION NOTICE
1. Removal of Treatment Standards From LDR Notices
As the largest user of manifests and LDR notices in the U.S.,
Safety-Kleen welcomes the opportunity to share our experience
regarding the use of LDR notices. Safety-Kleen agrees with
preamble language, which states that “...EPA is thus dropping the
treatment standard or reference to the treatment standard from the
LDR notification in this final rule” (59 FR 48004). However, the
regulatory language in 40 CFR 268.7(a)(l) (as revised) did not
incorporate new regulatory language to address this change.
Safety-K]een suggests the following regulatory language in 40 CFR
268.7(a) (1) to address this discrepancy:
If a generator determines that he is managing a
restricted waste under this part and the waste does not
meet the applicable treatment standards set forth in
D00 NORTH RANDALL ROAD ELGIN. IWNOIS 60123.7857 PHONE 7081697.8460 FAX 708I468 85OO
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro 2
November 15, 1994
Subpart D of this part or exceeds the applicable
prohibition levels set forth in 268.32 or R RA Section
3004 (d), with each shipment of waste the generator must
notify the treatment or storage facility in writing of
the restriction from land disposal of this waste. The
notice must include the following information....
Safety-Kleen suggests that EPA clarify in the preamble that the
elimination of the treatment standards on the LDR notice is not a
less stringent approach to the current regulations, but rather is
an administrative adjustment. The same treatment standards are in
effect under the new regulation as under the old regulation. The
change to the LDR notice will make it more functional and easier to
use, without reduced protection of human health and the
environment.
Safety-Eleen also suggests that EPA clarify for states and the
regulated community and that the immediate application of the
change in the LDR notice is appropriate. As with previously
promulgated LDR regulations, the original LDR regulatory framework
has been adjusted and improved with each subsequent regulation.
Generators have the obligation to comply with existing regulations
that States may be authorized to implement, but must also comply
with newly promulgated Federal requirements. A clarification on
the immediate use of the new LDR notice format would assist the
regulated community in understanding and complying with the LDR
requirements and would not reduce effectiveness of the regulations.
2. Clarification of Application of Analytical Test Methods
Safety-Kleen has found that for some waste, matrices, the SW—846
test methods will not achieve detection levels near the UTS levels.
This raises two issues. First, EPA should provide implementation
guidance on what PQL is needed to demonstrate that the UTS
standards are met. Second, EPA needs to clarify that the
application of EPA SW—846 Test Methods may not be appropriate for
analysis of all Universal Treatment Standards CUTS) constituents in
all waste matrices. EPA needs to encourage the development of
improved test methods and use of alternate protocols by waste
generators and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities in
order to better characterize UTS constituent levels for a broad
range of waste forms. Safety-Eleen suggests that EPA clarify that
alternate test methods can be used without prior EPA approval with
proper documentation and that their use is appropriate for a
particular application and will achieve a lower detection limit.
The preamble is currently silent with respect to this issue and
Safety-Kleen finds that this is problematic. Constituent analysis
is a fundamental component of the implementation of the LDR rules.
The regulated community needs EPA’S assistance in making this
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro 3
November 15, 1994
system functional. Safety—Kleen has discussed these issues with
Barry Lesnik and Gail Hansen of the Office of Solid Waste and we
encourage you to solicit their opinion on the matter.
3. Approach to Impl nting Phase II LDR Requir ents
As descrjbeã in the November 3, 1994 meeting, Safety-Eleen has
developed an implementation strategy for compliance with the Phase
II LDR regulations. This strategy is outlined below and we are
looking forward to any comments EPA may have regarding our
approach.
Safety—Kleen is the world’s largest recycler of solvents and other
contaminated fluids, providing environmentally, beneficial waste
management services to nearly 400,000 customers in the U.S. While
Safety—Kleeri offers a range of waste recycling and energy recovery
services, we specialize in servicing smaller businesses and smaller
waste generators. Approximately, .95 percent of our customers are
small quantity generators (100 to 1,000 kg/mo) or conditionally
exempt small quantity generators (less than 100 kg/mo). Because of
the substantial paperwork burden on the. small businesses that
constitutes the vast majority of our customer base, Safety-Kleen
often provides implementation guidance on manifesting, LDR notices,
and waste analysis information as a part of our service.
The majority of the waste streams accepted. by Safety-Kleen are
handled through our 182 accumulation/collection facilities
(branches). The majority of the waste streAms remain in the
containers while being temporarily stored at one of our branches.
Only one waste stream, a petroleum naphtha (mineral spirits) based
solvent, is bulked at most of our branch locations. Some wastes
from larger generators bypass our branch system and are transported
directly to one of our recycle facilities for recovery operations.
The majority of the waste materials entering the Safety-ICleen
system are recycled into usable products (e.g., parts washer
solvent, paint thinners, motor oils, etc). Where appropriate,
residues from recycling, along with other non—recoverable materials
with BTU value, are recycled for energy recovery in our fuel
blending operations. The useful products produced from the
recycling processes and the cement made in the kilns supplied with
our hazardous waste fuels are products and are not subject to
regulation under the RCRA framework, and thus are not subject to
the LDR requirements. Cement kiln dust ( ) is subject to
regulation under 40 CFR 266.112 and will be tested in accordance
with these requirements.
Some treatment residues and appropriate customer wastes are sent to
hazardous waste incineration, off-site chemical/physical treatment
facilities, or third-party treatment, storage, and disposal
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro 4
November 15, 1994
facilities. Safety—Kleen is in the process of obtaining written
acknowledgements from all outside facilities receiving these wastes
that all underlying UTS constituents will be analyzed for at their
facilities, unless otherwise specified on an LDR notice with a
given shipment of waste.
The Phase II LDR rule requires that the LDR notice include “the
waste constituents that the treater will monitor for, if monitoring
will not include all regulated constituents; for wastes F0O1—F005,
F039, DOOl, D002, and D012—D043” (40 CFR 268.7(a)(1)(ii)).
Safety-Kleen plans to comply with this regulation by monitoring for
all underlying UTS constituents. For the majority of Safety—Kleen
managed waste, this monitoring will be conducted on wastes and
residuals after reclamation. For wastes ultimately managed outside
the Safety-Kleen system by other facilities, Safety—Eleen will have
written confirmation that these other facilities will be monitoring
for underlying UTS constituents.
The underlying UTS constituents will be monitored during the waste
management process. No specific constituents will be listed on the
LDR notice coming from our customers, the original generator.
These constituents will be identified, by Safety-Xleen or the
receiving facility, prior to ultimate waste or residue disposal.
For recycling for re—use waste streams, the recycling process
results in regenerated clean product and treatment residues levels
that are more concentrated than the original waste. For the wastes
leaving the Safety—Kleen system, we are requiring that the
receiving facilities monitor for the presence of underlying
constituents, and treat as necessary, to ensure that all UTS are
met prior to land disposal. We believe that there will be no loss
of enforcement capabilities under this approach that a
clarification should be presented in the technical correction.
Safety-Eleen appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for
the Phase II LDR correction notice. We will also be anxious to
receive EPA’s feedback regarding our implementation strategy.
Please contact me at (708) 468-2217 or Catherine McCord at (708)
468-2245 if you have any questions.
sincerely yours,
# ‘
Ba ii G. Constantelos
Vice President
Environmental Affairs
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro 5
November 15, 1994
cc: Richard J. Kinch
Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
Office of Solid Waste (P1 5—5302W)
U • S. Environmental Protection Agency
2805 Crystal Drive
Arlington, Virginia. 22202
-------
tOST 41 -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
u
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I
l’P 4 ( Pu to1 ’
FEB 27 1996
OFFICE OF
SCUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
T. L. Nebrich, Jr.
Technical Director 9551.1996(01)
Waste Technology Services Inc.
640 Park Place
Niagara Falls, New York 14301
Dear Mr. NebriCh:
Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1995 regarding clarification
of the “mixture rule,” the “contained-in” policy, LDR issues, and “point of
generation” for U096, (a,a,DimethylbeflzYlhYdroPero xide). The U096 waste
itself is subject to the LDR requirements in 40 CFR Subpart 268.42 and must be
treated by the methods specified. When wastes exhibiting a RCRA
characteristic (such as U096) are mixed with a solid waste, if the resulting
mixture does not exhibit the characteristic (in this case of reactivity), then
the waste is not required to be disposed in a Subtitle C landfill, but can be
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. However, the waste is still subject to
treatment by the methods specified in 40 CFR Subpart 268.42 (see 40 CPR
Subpart 261.3(a) (2) (iii)).
If U096 waste was spilled on soil, the EPA or authorized State Agency
overseeing the cleanup could determine whether the soil did or did not contain
hazardous waste, based on the “contained-in” policy. EPA’s “contained-in”
policy does not specify levels at which “contained-in” determinations must be
made. Those decisions are left to the discretion of the EPA or State program
that is making the “contained-in’ determination. Therefore, the “contained-in’
policy does not require that the U096 be analytically non-detectable in order
to be considered non-hazardous, although the EPA ox State program could
require that (or alternative levels) based on their discretion.
Issues similar to those you raised regarding contaminated soil were
discussed in a September 15, 1995 letter that I wrote to Peter C. Wright of
the Monsanto Company. That letter is attached. Also, these issues % ‘iill be
discussed more fully in an upcoming EPA proposed rulemaking “Requirements for
Management of Hazardous Cont mi’ ted Media” conunonly referred to as the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for contaminated Media or HWIR-media. We
plan to publish that proposal in March. and I will forward a copy to you as
soon as it is available. We suggest you look to the proposal’s preamble
discussion for guidance regarding the situation you describe in your letter.
of course, it should be noted that the requirements that apply to contaminated
media could change when EPA finalizes that rulemaking.
Thank you for your concern about protecting the environment. I
apologize for the delay in responding to your letter that was caused by the
with Vegetable C I Based mUG on 100% Recyded Papef (40% Poaconsuinor)
-------
two government furloughs. Your staff may wish to contact Carolyn Hoskinson at
(703) 308-8626, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely Yours,
: 4 &4 ‘ AI’
Michael Shapiro, Director
-Off ice of Solid Wa$ t
En losureS
cc:
Matt Hale, OSW/PSPD
Barbara Pace, OGC
RCRA Regional Branch Chiefs, Regions 1-10
-------
., - _.j fl:Pj)
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC. C- Ci
November 14, 1995
Mr. Michael Shipiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Environmental Protection Agency
401 N Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shipiro:
I am requesting a clarification of the “mixture rule”
and “contained-in” policy in regards to U096
(a,a,DimethylbenZylhydrOPerOXide) and LDR issues. This
material is listed for reactive (R) and as such when mixed
with another solid waste would not be a hazardous waste if it
did not meet the reactivity requirement in 40CFR261.23. If
this material was spilled on soil, the “contained-in” policy
kicks in. I understand that with this scenario the
identification as a hazardous waste is different than the
above scenario (mixture). That is, the U096 would have to be
analytically non—detect to be considered as non—hazardous.
If my assumptions are correct, and correct me if I’m
wrong, what is the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
ramifications? Does this material have to be cMBST under
both scenarios? At what point is the “point of generation”
under both scenarios.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Very truly yours,
WASTE TECEBOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
T. L. Nebrich, Jr.
Technical Director
TLN/kj 1
O Park Place, Niagara Falls, New York. 14301
Telephone 716-282-4100 • Fax 716-282-6986
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
March 1996
EI± _
The table of “Treatment Standards for
Hazrn dous Wastes” (40 CFR §268.40) lists by
waste code each waste that is subject to the
land disposal i estrictions(LDR); each waite
code entry identifies either the hazardous
constituents subject to treatment and their
applicable treatment levels, or the specific
treatment technology that must be applied to
the waste.
If the §268.40 “Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Wastes” identWes the treatment
standard applicable to each particular w aste,
what are the “Universal Treatment
Standards” in §268.48?
The “Universal Treatment Standards”
(UTS) table is an alphabetical list of all the
hazardous constituents referenced in thern
“Treatment Standards for }Th7iardous Wastes.”
While the UTS lists the numeric treatment
level for every hazardous constituent, only the
§268.40 table of “Treatment Standards for
Hs,’i%rdous Wastes” identifies the standard to
which a waste must be treated prior to land
disposal.
9551.1996(02)
Why would a handler of a restricted or
prohibited waste consult the §268.48 (iTS?
The table “Treatthent Standards for
Haza±dous Wastes” notes that certain
characteristic wastes, in addition to complying
with the treatment standard for the specific
constituent or characteristic, must also “meet
§268.48 standards.” Characteristic 5 wastes
subject to this additional treatment-
requirement must meet both the concentration
limit (or technology) for that particular waste
code and the U i ’S levels for each underlying
hazardous constituent (defined in §268.2)
likely to be present at the oint of generation.
Under what circumstances are listed
wastes subject to the §268.48 UTS?
- While characteristic wastes often vary
significantly in composition, each listed waste
is, by definition, fairly unifoi:m in the
hazardous constituents it contains. As a result,
the treatrneht standard listed in the §268.40
“Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes”
is able to address all of the hazardous
constituents that are commonly of concern for
each particular listed waste. Therefore, listed
wastes treated to their waste code-specific.
treatment standards identified in §268.40 will
not require additional treatment for underlyiiig
haiardous constituents. Only listed wastes
that also exhibit a characteristic not addressed
in the treatment standard for the listed waste
( 268.9(b)) could be required to meet UTS for
underlying hazardous constituents.
I
1. Frequently Asiced Quëstioi s on
Compliance with Pail 268 Land
Disposal Restrictions Treatment
Standards ... .. . -
If a waste is subject to the land disposal
restrictions, where can its treatment standard
be found? .
-------
Ouestions and Answers March 1996
Until Phase IV of LOR is finalized,
cha,acteristic metal wastes are subject to less
stringent treatment standards for metal
constituents than are wastes whose treatment
standards require compliance with the UTS of
- §268.48. Where a characteristic metal waste
also exhibits another characteristic that
renders it subject to compliance with (iTS
levels, would the waste need to meet the more
stringent standard for the metal constituent?
., Section 268.9(b) requires wastes to “meet
the eatment standards for all applicable li ted
and characteristic waste codes.” In the rare
case where a waste is subject to multiple
treatment standards for a particular constituent,
the more stringent treatment standard will
continue to apply.
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
June 1996
9551.1996(03)
3. Hazardous Waste Liquid-containing
Pumps and the Liquids in Landfills
Prohibition
RCRA prohibits the disposal of hazardous
waste containing free liquids in hazardous
waste landfills, where free liquids are defined
as those that readily separate from the solid
portion of a waste under ambient temperature
and pressure (40 CFR 260.10). To meet this
requiremeflt must owners and/or operators
disposing of pumps containing free liquids
dismantle the pump to remove the liquid?
Owners and/or operators would not be
required to dismantle the pump. When
disposing of containerized liquids, owners and/
or operators have th’ree options: remove the
liquid by a method such as decanting; add
nonbiodegradable sorbent material or solidify
the waste so that free liquids are no longer
observable; or eliminate the free liquids by
some other means ( 264.314(d)(1) and
265.3 14(c)(1)). The regulations provide
exclusions from this requirement for small
containers, such as ampules, and containers
designed to hold free liquids for use other than
storage, such as batteries or capacitors
( 264.314(d)(2)-(3) and 265.3 14(c)(2)-(3)).
Since the pump holds liquid for use other than -
storage, the owner and/or operator of the pump
will be exempt from the requirement to remove
or sorb free liquids.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
.. ___
pRO1
9551.1996(04)
NOV27 1996
- OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. William L. Warren
Drinker Biddle & Reath
1009 Lenox Drive
Building 4
Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648
Dear Mr. Warren,
I am writing in response to your letter of October 23, 1996,-in which you requested
clarification on when permitting and land disposal requirements are not required for management.
of contaminated soil which is h 72Tdous or contains hazardous waste. I have outlined several
alternatives that are potentially available below. Applicability of these alternatives at any site
depends upon certain state requirements and site-specific circumstances, such as the form of
treatment that is most appropriate at a site. I encourage you to coordinate closely-with state
officials as you pursue these matters. -
- Question 1: “If a company is undertaking .remediation of a site under state auspices, and the
site is not .being addressed under.either the CERCLA or RCRA programs, does
the company require a RCRA permit if as part of the remediation program it
intends to treat at the site location contaminated soil which has been excavated
from the site and which is or contains hazardous waste, or can it be governed by
the requirements and guidance of the state environmental agency.”
As a general matter, treatment of hazardous waste, or media containing hazardous waste,
requires a RCRA permit. However, at the federal level, there are a number of exceptions
allowing for limited treatment on site without triggering the requirement for a RCRA permit.
For example, 40 CFR §262.34 allows generators to accumulate h ardous waste on site in certain
tanks, containers, drip pads and containment buildings for up to 90 days without a permit or
interim status, as long as certain conditions, including compliance with certain tank, container or
drip pad standards of 40 CFR. part 265, are met. EPA interprets this authority to allow generators
to treat haz.aidous waste in units covered by this provision during the accumulation period. See
51 FR 10146, 10168 (March 24, 1986). Other activities that are generally exempt from RCRA
permitting requirements include treatment of hazardous wastewater in exempt wastewater
treatment units, and treatment of certain wastes in exempt elementary neutralization units (see 40
CFR §264.1(g)(6)). -
QD Recycled/RecYCfabIe
Q Punted with SoyICenOI$ Ink on paper that
contains at cut 50% recycled fiber
-------
Non-exempted activities involving treatment of ba’ ardous waste or media that contain
hazardous waste are subject to the hazardous waste permitting requirements. However, some
states havepermit waiver authorities analogous to §7003 of RCRA or § 121(e) of CERCLA.
States with these waiver authorities may have the authority to waive RCRA permit requirements
for cleanups so long as the state waiver authority is used in a mannei no less stringent than that
allowed under Fedemi permit waiver authority. The attached November 16, 1987 memorandum
from J. Winston Porter to EPA Regional Administrators explains the use of state waiver
authorities izf more detail.
Without site-specific details, it is difficult to anticipate whether these approaches would
apply to your site. Decisions on the applicability of permit exemptions, waivers or use of other
authorities are generally made at the state level. I recommend that you consult with the state in
question to determine the best approach for your site-specific needs.
Question 2: “Also, if this company treats the contaminated soil so as to reduce the
contamination inthe soil to a level below the soil remediation standards utilized
by the state, may it return the treated soil to the site even though the remediation
- standards utilized by the state are less ‘stringent than the RCRA treatment
standards which would apply to the contaminant found in the soils were it being
sent off site”
No, unlessa variance from RCRA Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment
requirements is obtained. Where excavated soil containi a h ardous waste (as we understand it
does in your case), LDR treatmentrequirements must be met prior to land disposal.’ See RCRA
section 3004(d), (g), (k), (m). The RCRA land disposal treatment standards apply equally to on-
site and off-site disposal of contaminated soil which is ha, ardoüs waste or contains a ha ardous
waste; if state remediation standards are less stringent than the RCRA treatment standards, the
RCRA treatment standards must be met prior to placement. However, in certain cases, site-
specific treatability variances under 40 CFR §268.44(h) may be used to approve alternative land
disposal treatment standards. - If alternative levels approved under the variance process are more
stringent than state remediation levels, the alternative levels must be attained prior to placement.
The Administrator has delegated the variance approval authority to the EPA Regional
Administrators; in addition, some states have been authorized for 268 .44(h) variance
determinations. -
In addition, there are several ways under the federal program to manage cleanup wastes in
a manner that does not trigger the LDRs in the first instance. If a corrective action management
unit (CAMU) is designated at your site, remediation waste placed into the CAMU on site would
not be not subject to LDRs, and the state or EPA Region may establish site-specific treatment
standards for remediation waste managed in a CAMU that vary from the otherwise applicable
land disposal standards. See 40 §CFR 264. 52. Also, depending on specific site circumstances,
management of remediation waste within an “area of contamination” (AOC) may not trigger
LDRs. The attached March 13, 1996 memorandum provides more details on AOCs and on the
use of CAMUs for management of remediation wastes. . -
-------
• Please note that states may have their.own policies and regulations which may be more
stringent than federal regulations and policies. Asdiscusséd above, decisions on the issues that
you raise are dependent upon site-specific circumstances and are generally made at the state
level. We suggest that you contact the state in question to address any site-specific issues. For
the state of New Jersey, please call Frank Faranca at (609) 984-4071. We hope that this is of
assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Davis, of my staff, at
(703) 308-8633. - -
cc: Frank Faranca, NJDEP
Barry Tornick, EPA Region 2
Sincerely,
attachments
Shapiro
Office of Solid Waste
-------
PI4LADELP14 )A NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
134S CHESTNUT STREET
PHII.ADELPNIA. PA 19,07-3496
12151 088-2700
SUITE 400
47 HULFISM STREET
P.O. Box 627
PRINCETON. NJ 08542-0627
1600) 921.6336
WILLIAM L. WARREN
1609) 895.6203
- LAW OFFICES
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
- 1009 LENOX DRIVE -
- BUILDING 4
LAWRENC VIL.LE. NEW JERSEY 08648
TELEPHONE: 1609) 895-1600 -
FAX: 1609) 895-1329
October 23, 1996
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste -
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W. --
Washington, D.C. 20406
4 i’1o f 5 /Jq7
THE MCPHERSON BUILDING
SUITE 000
901 FIFTEENTH STREET. N
WASHINGTON. DC 2OO05-25
12021 842-0800
SUITE 300
1000 WESTLAKES DRIVE
DERWYN. PA 19312-2409
1610)993-2200
- P TI9) CR ILW . Y PRAC1I
SAMUEL W. LANBERT III
RE: Applicability Of RCRA Requirements to Non-RCRA Remedial Activities -
Dear Mr. -Shapiro:
If a company is undertaking remediation of a site under state auspices, and the site is
not bejngaddressed under either the CERCLA or RCRA programs, does the company-
require a RCRA permit if as part of the remediation program it in(ends to treat at the site
location contamin ted soil which ha beenexcavated from the-site and which is or conthiftc
hazardous waste, or can it be governed by the requirements and .guidance of the state
environmental agency. Also, if this company treats the cont2min2ted soil so as to reduce the
cont min tion in the soil to a level below the soil remediation stiinrI irds utilized by. the state,
may it return the treated soil to the site even though the remediation standards utilized by-the
state are less stringent than the RCRA treatment standards which would apply to the
contaminant found in the soil were it being sent off site.
WLW: ndp
Yours
WilH9rn L. Warren
‘I
‘I
-------
- -—-. .— --
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
January 1997
955 1.1997(01)
RCRA
1. Land Disposal Restriction
Notification Requirements for
Decharacterized Mixed Waste Sent
to an Atomic Energy Act Landfill
The land disposal restrictions (LDR) in 40
CFR Part 268 require that hazardous waste
prohibited from land disposal meet treatment
standards before it is placed in a landfill. A
prohibited characteristic waste that has been
treated to meet LDR standards (and to
eliminate the characteristic) may exit Subtitle
C hazardous waste regulation and be sent to a
Subtitle Dfaciliiy, provided the generator
sends a one-time noztfication and certification
to the EPA Region or authorized state
( 2689(d)). If a generator treats a prohibited
characteristic mixed waste, I.e., a waste that is
both hazardous and radioactive, and it is no
longer hazardous, should the one-time
not jflcarion and certification still be sent to
the EPA Region or to the authorized state f
the waste is being sent to an Atomic Energy
Act (AEA) landfill?
The one-t R e notification and certification:
should still be sent to the EPA Region or
authorized state. The one-time notification
and certification verifies that the waste has
been treated to meet all applicable LDR
standards and indicates the site of ultimate
disposal since the waste is no longer subject to
Subtitle C regulation. RCRA §4004
specifically prohibits the open dumping of
solid waste. If the AEA landfill meets the
S ibtitle D criteria under 40 CFR Parts 257 or
258, which distinguish between sanitary
landfills and open dumps, then the
decharacterized mixed waste may be sent to
that facility.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
January 1997
9551.1997(02)
RCRA
2. Land Disposal Restrictions Storage
Prohibition and Decharacterjzed
Wastes
A facility generates a prohibited
characteristic hazardous waste with a 40 CFR
§268.40 treatment standard requiring
decharacterjzazjon and treatment to meet the
§268.48 universal treatment standards ((iTS)
levels before it is eligible for land disposal.
The generator ships the waste to a hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility
(TSDF). The TSDF decharaczerjzes the
waste, rendering it non-hazardous, but the
waste must still meet (iTS levels prior to land
disposaL is this decharacterized waste
subject to the RCRA land disposal restrictions
(LDR) storage prohibition now that it is no
longer hazardous?
The waste remains subject to the storage
prohibition even though it is no longer
hazardous. Under the LDR storage
prohibition, restrictecLhazardous wastes are
prohibited from being stored for purposes
other than the accumulation of quantities of
waste necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal ( 268.50). Wastes may
be stored for this purpose for up to one year,
unless the implementing agency can
demonstrate that such storage was not solely
for the purpose of accumulation ( 268.5O(b)).
The wastes may continue to be scored beyond
the first year, but the owner/operator of the
storing facility bears th&burden of
affirmatively proving that the waste is being
stored solely for the purposes of accumulation
( 268.50(c)).
Because the LDR program prohibitions
apply at the point of generation, the storage
prohibition applies until the waste is treated to
fully meet its assigned treatment standard (58
EE 29872: May 24, 1993). As a result, even
though the characteristic waste has been
decharacterized, it remains subject to the
storage prohibition until fully treated to meet
UTS levels. Thus, a year after the waste was
originally generated, the facility storing the
waste will have the burden of proving that the
waste is still being stored solely to facilitate
accumulation of amounts necessary to
facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or
disposal.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C. 20460
3 1997 9551.1997(03)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Edward F. Wandelt
Chief, Environmental Management Division
United States Coast Guard
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Dear Mr. Wandelt:
This is in response to your letter datedtYecember 19, 1996, in which you requested
confirmation that mercury batteries recovered f o.m th e wateineär aid fo navigation (ATON)
structures satisfy the definition of debris uncIei4O CFR 268.2 (g). If these batteries are
considered debris, they would be subjectto special standards under the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs) for debris at 4( CFR’ 26845 in lieu of otherwise applicable standards for
mercury wastes found in Section.268.40.
Upon careful review of the information you submitted, the Agency has determined that
these batteries satisfy the defi nofd ébrisu td f 40 CFR2682(g). ‘A a solid material
meeting the general debris criteria of that paragraph, the riiain que on’f whéth r the bitteries in
question are excluded from the defin onas contajpers”. We find that the exclusion from the
definition of debris for “...Intact containers of h ’ irdous waste that are not ruptured and that
retain at least 75% of their original volume...” does not apply to the batteries you have described.
In the preamble which established this definition, EPA states that, ‘By ‘intact container’;
the Agency means a container that can still function as a container.” (57 FR 37225, August 18,
1992). Because the batteries, as you have described, are deteriorated and have holes which have
allowed material to flow into and out of the batteries, we conclude that the batteries are ruptured,
cannot function as containers, and therefore are not excluded from the definition of debris under
40 CFR 268.2 (g). As such, the batteries may be land disposed after treatment in accordance
with the standards for b i2Tdous debris at 40 CFR 268.45. The Agency agrees that these
alternative debris standards are more appropriate to these batteries than the standards for
-------
non-debris mercury wastes, which would require either roasting or retorting (RMERC) or
compliance with a TCLP standard. Clearly, the batteries in question do not seem
appropriate for retorting.
If you have further questions, please contact Shaun McGarvey of my staff at
703-308-8603.
Sincerely,
James R. Berlow, Director
— Hazardous Waste Management and Minimization
Division
2
-------
U.S. Department I G-SEC-3 2100 Second Street. S W.
of Transportation I United States Coast Guard Washington. DC 20593•0001
I Staff SymboI
United States / .
Coast Guard . ( FAX(202)267.4219.
11000
December 19. 1996
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Waste Treatment Branch
401 MStreet. S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. McGarvey:
As you may recall, we met in May of 1995 to discuss the Coast Guard’s ongoing battery removal program taking
place in the rivers and coastal waters across the country. During the meeting we discussed the status of the batteries
that are recovered from the water as hazardous wastes under RCRA. I have enclosed a brochure that further
describes our program. Although our battery removal program has been underway for over a year, several of the
Coast Guard’s waste disposal contractors have recently questioned whether these batteries actually qualify as debris
tinder 40 CFR §268.45. Please let this letter serve to document the background information concerning the batteries -
and to act as the Coast Guard’s request for confirmation concerning applicability of the debris rule to batteries
recovered from the environment.
Background . The Coast Guard operates and maintains over 12,000 fixed, lighted aids to navigation (ATON)
structures throughout the waters of the United States. These devices assist manners and help prevent accidents and
loss of life and property. These ATON are lighted and use batteries as a power source due to lack of availability of
commercial power. Before the mid- 1980’s, unrechargable primary batteries containing a small amount of mercury
were used. Since that time, the Coast Guard has mounted a major solarization effort and now uses lead-acid batteries
in all but a few ATON. The new batteries have a much longer service life and are tracked continually throughout
theiruse.
Over the years, many primary batteries were deposited in the water near these ATON structures. Before 1973, there
was no internal Coast Guard guidance prohibiting this practice. In addition. boating accidents, bad weather, and
vandalism all contributed to the large number of batteries resting on the subsurface near many ATON.
Several years ago, some state regulatory agencies notified the Coast Guard of the existence of these batteries and we
began to mobilize our resources to remove them. Our first step was to conduct a study of the issue in order to
determine whether the batteries posed a health risk. Fortunately, the scientists ex2nl’ning this issue have determined
that the batteries posed little risk to hnm2n health or the environment. A copy of this scientific assessment (entitled
“The Fate of Mercury from ATON Batteries - A Report to the Volpe Center) of the risks posed by the batteries is
also enclosed.
The Coast Guard Battery Removal Program . The Coast Guard has embarked on an ambitious battery removal effort
that will take several years to complete. The ATON sites where batteries are potentially located have been
prioritized. We focused our initial efforts on coastal states in the Southeast where the problem was most evident.
The results of these efforts are most impressive. Approximately 400 tons of batteries have been removed from the
waters of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. We have also made considerable progress in other states across the
nation. Altogether, approximately 650 tons of batteries have been recovered.
Recovered Batteries . It is difficult to make a general statement concerning the condition of the batteries being
recovered. In some cases, only portions of the plastic battery casing is found, other batteries are found intact
Photographs of typical batteries being recovered are also enclosed. The batteries generally contain water, sand, mud,
and some attached sealife. The batteries are manufuctured with air vent holes that allow the electrolyte liquid or gel
to escape the battery which is replaced by external water, sediment, and other debris. The primary batteries being
recovered do contain a small amount of mercury. What remains of the mercury is in an elemental form bonded to the
battery’s zinc anode dunng the electrical discharge process. All of the scientific data indicate that the mercury is
stable and has little opportunity for uptake into the food chain.
Disoosal as Debris . The disposal procedure used for these batteries has varied depending upon the contractor
picking them up for disposal. In the early stages of the battery recovery program, the batteries were taken to a retort
-------
11000
December 19, 1996
facility so that the small amount of mercury remaining in the battery can be recaptured for recycling. Unfortunately.
the condition of the batteries (containing water, mud, and sand) made the retort process very inefficient and the retort
facilities became increasingly reluctant to accept the batteries for treatment. In addition, the retort process causes us
concern because it poses a far greater risk to human health and the environment by potentially releasing mercury into
the air than does Iandfihling after treatment by macroencapsulationimicroencapsulation. It is also important to note
that retorting the batteries costs the taxpayer approximately five times as much as treatment by encapsulation and
landfih ling.
Coast Guard inquiries to the manufacturer of the batteries revealed that the electrolyte liquid or gel makes up more
than 25 percent of the contents of the battery, and that the vent holes will inadvertently allowed the electrolyte to
escape the battery. This information, coupled with the fact that thç batteries have been sitting on the bottom of
rivers, lakes, and the ocean for at least ten years and contain sand, mud and other contaminants, led us to examine
whether the batteries were actually debris under 40 CFR §268.45 and could be disposed by landflhling after treatment
as debris. The Federal Register notice of 10 Aug 92 provides an analysis of the definition of “debris” that fits the
ATON batteries being recovered from the water. Since the batteries lose at least 25 percent of their volume we have
concluded that they are non-intact containers that qualify as debris under the nile.
Several of our hazardous waste disposal contractors have disposed of batteries as debris at the Highway 36 Landfill
in Colorado. I visited the facility and was very impressed with the operation, the nucroencapsulation process, and
their thoroughness in documenting the final placement of all treated wastes. I am convinced that disposing of the
batteries at this site provides better protection of hiivn n health and the environment as compared to retorting.
Reciuest for Confirmation . Several hazardous waste disposal contractors have recently questioned whether the
recovered ATON batteries meet the regulatory definition of debris and are demanding a much higher fee to accept
the waste batteries for disposal. In order to satisfy the contractors concern over this issue, I request that your office
confirm that the debris rule does apply to ATON batteries that are recovered from the environment If you determine
that our interpretation of the debris rule is mistaken, please consider this letter as a request for an exemption from the
land disposal restrictions for this unique waste stream. Should you require addition information concerning these
batteries, please call me directly at (202) 267-2369.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
End: (I) ATON Brochure
(2) Report - “The Fate of Mercury from ATON Batteries - A Report to the VoLpe Center
(3) Battery Photographs
Copy: HQ DRMS
Sincerely,
F. WANDELT
Environmental Management Division
By direction of the Comn indant
2
-------
U.S. Department
of Transportation
United States
Coast Guard
4
2100 Second Street. S.W.
Washington. DC 20593-0001
Staff Symbol. GSEC-3
Phone: (202) 267-1918
FAX: (202)267-4219
11000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Waste Treatment Branch
A1TN: Mr. Shaun McGarvey
Mail Code 5302-W, 401 M St. SW
Washington, DC. 20460
Dear Mr. McGarvey:
B 997
As a follow-up to my letter of December 19, 1996, I am enclosing a letter recently received from
the SAFT Company, the Coast Guard’s main battery supplier. In my previous letter, I related the
ongoing issue the Coast Guard is facing over the disposal of numerous batteries we are
recovering from the environment and their status as debris under 40 CFR 268.45.
The controversy, has focused on whether the batteries being recovered from the environment fit
the description of debris found in the Federal Register notice of August 10, 1992. The letter at
Enclosure (1) clarifies that these batteries are non-intact containers that qualify as debris because
they lose at least 25 percent of their volume when they sit in water for an extended period.
I hope that you find the enclosed letter helpful in confirming that the batteries qualify as debris
that can be properly landflhled after being treated as debris through the microencapsulation
process. I am also providing a copy of the enclosure to the h rdous waste disposal contractors
who have recently questioned whether the recovered Aids to Navigation batteries meet the
regulatory definition of debris. Should you need further information or clarification concerning
this situation, please contact me directly at Coast Guard Headquarters (202) 267-2369.
Your cooperation on this extremely important matter is greatly appreciated.
/
Sincerely,
End: (1) Letter from SAFT Company dated 5 Feb 97
Copy: HQ DRMS Battle Creek, MI
-------
F O 6:1 pri 5. T rilFt HO V 4LDOSTI 4 ,;c4 us i
— .2,4
V
SAFT
Date; O2I05/9 ’
US Coast Guard
S.D. Walker
Acting Chief F r
L.E. Jaeger
Chisf. Ocean Engineering DMsiori
Reference: ST Primary Batteries- Reissued Letter From 118107
Dear Sir:
After reading your letter referencing disposal options for the ST & SP primary. I have the following
comments.
• The batteries do have a open vent system. If a battery were to be Immersed In water, the rate
at which the electrolyte would be exchanged with th• water would be depondent on the
current flow across the vent. The rate may also be affected by salt or fresh water. The
specific gravity of the water may cause a natural gravity mixing of the electrolyte with the
water. It Is not possible to know all of these conditions. Therefore, an accurate prediction can
not be given as to how much and when the PCOH will leave the battery. The only prediction
th8t can be made Is. the I(01( will leav. the battery and mix with the external water.
• The amount of electrolyte by weIght Is approximately 1/3 the weight of the cell The percent of
KOH found in the electrolyte Is approximately 30% to 20% by volume.
• The whIte or brown colored mud found in the bottom of the cell is the spent lIme bed. ThIs
may also mix with the water If Immersed.
We do not recommend disposIng of these batteries In oceans, lakes or rivers. There are land fills
and SAFT Amerca Inc Is a recycle facility. We will recycle all mercury free batteries. These are
id nUfled by the ;olor of the air vents. The batteries wIth green vents can be recycled at our
facility. Baflenei with black air vents must be placed in an approved land fill. These older
batteries with black air vents contain mercury. If you have any questions please call us.
Sincerely.
Nell Jones
Manager. Product Engineering
Power Electronicu, Rail arid Indusbial Batteries
SAFT America In’:.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1’
a
9551.1997(04)
MAY I 1997
Mr. Thomas J. Dolce
Principal Engineer
Award Environmental, Inc.
3670 West Shore Road
Warwick, Rhode Island 02886-5051
Dear Mr. Dolce:
This letter responds to your letter dated April 1, 1997, in which you had questions about
the land disposal restrictions (LDR) requirements for a h rdous corrosive wastewater. As you
described it, the, corrosive wastewater is used to neutralize other nonh 7 rdous wastewater in a
wastewater treatment unit. The treated wastewater is discharged to the sewer. A nonh rdous
sludge is generated in the unit that is disposed in a sanitary landfill.
You asked what LDR notification requirements apply? Under 40 CFR 268.7(a)(6), a
h ,iirdous waste that becomes nonhi ,rndous because of an exclusion from ‘the definition of solid
waste is subject to a one-time notification requirement. The corrosive wastewater would be
excluded under 40 CFR 261 .4(a)(1), because it is discharged to a sewer. The one-time notice
must be placed in the facility file, and should include the following information:
- a statement that the h2wdous waste (D002) ‘was generated;
- a statement’that it is excluded from the definition of solid waste under 40 CFR
261 .4(a)(1); and, -
- a statement providing the disposition of the waste (i.e., discharged to the sewer).
You also asked what notification requirements apply to the sludge? Because the sludge is
nonh rdous at the point of its generation (i.e., when it is removed from the wastewater
treatment unit) there are no LDR notification’requirements for this waste (55 FR 22661-62). The
LDR requirements only apply to wastes that are h rdous at the point of generation.
Finally, you asked if there is a requirement to identify and treat underlying h rdous
constituents (UHCs) in the corrosive wastewater and in the sludge generated in the wastewater
treatment tank? The answer is no, for both the corrosive wastewater and the sludge. For the
wastewater, in the partial withdrawal and amendment of the Phase Il final rule (61 FR 15660),
the requirement to identify and treat UHCs in decharacterized wastes was withdrawn, when those
wastes are managed in centralized wastewater treatment systems subject to the Clean Water Act.
CONCURR!Ni iS
SYMOOt.
SURNAME)
DATE
53O .’J
ft4r uL 4
........
IS •••5
e...SeeS•.tS•i
fl•S•efl .SSS.fl.
.n.nn.fl.
I•Se•••eSSe•••Se•
.........a...an.
•.a.....e.flS .S .
•.s.e ..ss..s...
.........aee . .ee
•S••SSS•S••S•SSS•
S.. .
•..
g/. c /c 7
i ’7
—
EPA F m 1320-IA (1IDO I - I
Pristt.4 at R.c fr4 Papv r
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
2
For the sludge, the fact that it is not a hw ardous waste at the point of generation means no LDR
requirements, including ones requiring the identification of UHCs, attach to this waste.
Please note that the above guidance pertains to the Federal LDR rules. Actual
determinations of facility-specific requirements are normally made by EPA Regional offices or
authorized States. States may have their own more tringent requirements.
I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call
Rhonda Minnick of my staff on (703) 308-8771.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A Catsworth, Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
iW 3?
1% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
% p R O 6 ’
9551. 1997(05)
MAY 12 IO 7 OFFICEOF
SCUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Joseph M. Madden, Ph.D.
Strategic Manager for Microbiology
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Food and Drug Administration
200 C St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20204
Dear Mr. Madden:
This letter is in response to your request for guidance on the suitability of disposing of
frozen strawberries that may be contaminated with hepatitis A virus (HAV) in a municipal solid
waste landfill. As you explained, recently, certain batches of frozen strawberries sold in the
United States by a specific company have been potentially contaminated with HAy.
Discussions were held between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
about the disposal of these frozen strawberries. We considered many thctors in these
discussions. The quantity and viability of the virus in the current situation were considered. The
strawberries are not expected to be extensively contaminated since the epidemiological data
suggest that contamination is relatively focal (possibly just one lot or part of lot) and the virus will
not replicate unless it is in a human host. Rats, insects and other species often found in the landfill
environment are not vehicles of transmission for the virus. In addition, the viability of the virus
degrades with time. For this virus, the primary infection pathway is through the oral-fecal route
(ingestion). No documented outbreaks of landfill or sewage workers contracting hepatitis A in the
workplace have been reported in the literature and waterborne outbreaks are rare.
Further discussion centered on risk of infection based on landfill conditions. Although it is
unlikely that the temperatures achieved in a landfill are sufficient to inactivate HAV, we agreed
that the virus being released to the environment through groundwater contamination is unlikely in a
properly designed and maintained municipal solid waste landfill. As the primary infection
pathway is through ingestion, potential aerosolization and subsequent inhalation are not of concern.
Additionally, the strawberries in this situation will be rendered inedible under FDA requirements.
R.cycI.dIR.CYCMbII • Pflnted wt Vege bIe C i i Based Iis on 100% Recyded Paper (40% Pos neumef)
-------
After careful consideration of the facts involved in the current situation, the Agencies
believe that disposal of these strawberries in a properly operated and maintained municipal solid
waste landfill is appropriate and does not pose a risk of infection to disposal workers or the
general public. This determination does not rule out consideration of other options for disposal,
such as incineration in a municipal solid waste combustor.
Although the federal EPA does not have regulatory requirements regarding the disposal
of this specific waste steam, most states are authorized to implement their own Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs. Therefore, many state and local regulatory
agencies have their own regulations which may differ from federal regulations. These agencies
should be contacted for specific information on state and local requirements.
Thank you for your concern about safe waste management. Please do not hesitate to
contact Kristina Meson of my staff with any questions or concerns. Kristina may be reached at
(703) 308-8488.
Sincerely,
A. Cotsworth, Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9553 - PROHIBITION
ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC
PROHIBITIONS GROUP
Part 268 Subpart C
A I Kearney 1/3590/9 cr
-------
9553 . 198 6 (02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 86
6. Land D isoosal Ban
A petrochanical canpany generates a solid waste that contains traces
of naturally occurring benzene and toluene (The waste is auenching
oil). ‘buld the presence of these hazardous constituents prohibit
the generator fran land—disposing this waste?
Section 3004(e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended -y
Section 201 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Mendments of
1984, prohibits land disposal of certain RCRA hazardous wastes.
On January 14, 1986, (51 FR 1602), EPA proposed that the spent
solvents, FOOl thra.x h F005, be among those wastes banned fran
land disposal (S268.30(b), 51 FR 1763). oth spent toluene
and spent benzene (added to F005 on February 25, 1986, 51 FR
6537) are listed in the F005 group, but only when they meet
the listing as ! . solvents.
The auenching oil does contain the hazardous constituents of
concern, namely benzene and toluene, but does not meet the
listing of F005. The oil does not contain spent benzene or
toluerie used for solvent purposes. Accord ir ly, the oil woulc
not be banned f ran land disposal by the proposed §280. 30. The
spent cuenching oil, howaver, would be subject to other bans on
the disposal of bulk and noncontainerized hazardous (if it
exhibited a characteristic) and non—hazardous liauid wastes in
landfills (S264.314(a), 50 FR 28748, and S264.314(e), 50 FR
28749; S265.314(b), and (f), 50 FR 28750). In the future, the
quenching oil may also be listed as RP hazardous waste F030,
depending on the outcane of the rule proposed on Novenber 29,
1985 (50 Ft 49170). Within six months of that listing, EPA
would have to make a decision on whether used oil should be
banned fran land disposal per S3004(g)(4).
Source: Alan Corson (202) 382—4770
Research: Jim Ginley
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECii pi AGENCY
9553.1986(03)
FC I I
Honorable Thomas S. Foley
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Foleyz
Thank you for October 27. 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent, Mrs. Eleanore Cole. Mr.. Cole is concerned
about the regulations governing disposal of dry cleaning
cartridge filters containing fluorocarbons.
The fluorocarbon solvent used by Mrs. Cole is probably
Valc]enee, a product commonly used in drycleaning operations,
Valciens, which is a trade name, is also known as fluorocarbon
113 or trichiorotrifluoroethane. ‘l ’rich lorotrif luoroethan.
is listed as a hazardous waste in 40 CPR Part 261, Subpart
D. It has been assigned the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Hazardous Waste Number P002.
A. you know, in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA), Congress required EP to restrict the land
disposal of dioxin-containing and spent solvent wastes by
November 8, 1986. These waste str.ams were singled out for
immediate action because of the special hazards they pose
when land disposed. Solvents, in particular, easily destroy
landfill liners and help to mobilize other hazardous constit-
uents in landfills. Vaiclene is an P002 solvent. The P002
solvents are among those which the Agency was required to
restrict from land disposal by November 8, 1986.
In i Lementing the land disposal restrictions program,
however, EPA is authorized to grant extensions to the effec-
tive date of the restrictions if insufficient national alter-
native treataent capacity exists. EPA is granting a nationwide
two—year varianc, to th. effective date for certain solvent
wastes due to capacity shortfalls. The solvent wastes which
have been granted the variance includes
o solvent waste generated by a small quantity generator
of 100 to 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste per
month, and
-------
o solvent waste which is a solvent—water mixture con-
taining less than one percent total FOOl - F005
solvent constituents or containing less than one
percent total organic carbon.
Consequently, any of Mrs. Cole’s plants that generate between
100 and 1000 kilograms (220 to 2200 pounds) per month will
not be prohibited from land disposal until November 8, 1988.
In addition, some plants may fall within the conditional
exclusion for generators that generate less than 100 kg (or
220 pounds) of hazardous waste in a calendar month. Under
this exclusion, these generators need only ensure that their
wastes are managed at legitimate recycling facilities or at
facilities permitted, licensed, or registered by the State
to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
EPA is aware of the impact that our regulations, including
these land disposal restrictions, will have on small businesses,
and we have taken a number of steps to help.these businesses
cope. Please find enclosed a copy of a new handbook for small
business explaining the small quantity generator hazardous
waste regulations, and a brief question—and—answer brochure
on the Land. disposal restrictions. Also included is a dry
cleaning and laundries “fact sheet” we had developed to
assist various industries in identifying their wastes.
The Agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition
submitted on behalf of the Alliance of Textile Care Associa—
tions which seeks to have EPA establish a level of spent
solvent below which a drycleaning cartridge filter could be
considered nonhazardous. At this time, however, any amount
of a listed solvent is considered to be of regulatory concern
and a hazardous waste. The Agency hopes to complete an
initial review of the petition within the next few weeks.
At that time we will either recommend a decision on the peti-
tion or request additional information and clarification as
necessary.
I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding
to your constituent. If I can be of any further assistance,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
3. Winston Porter
Assistant b’ inistrator
E’nclosures
-------
UN STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT AGENCY
9553.1906 ( 04)
DEC 30 I 6
MEMO RANDUM
SUBJECT: Technical Support Document for BDAT
FROM: Ei1ee D. Claussen, Director
Characterj atjon and Assessment Division
TO: Regional Waste Managem.nt Division Directors
As you know, th. treatment standards for Land dispo al of
FOOl-p005 spent solvents were promulgated on November 7, 1986.
Th. technical support for the development of these standards is
contained in the three volume document titled Best Demonstrated
Avajlaole Technology (BDAT) Background Document for FOOl-F005 —
Spent Solvents. Two copies of the three volume set have been
attached.
In addition to detailing the development of treatment
standards, there is a significant an unt of data and information
which you may find helpful in implementing the land disposal
restrictions program. These data and information includes
— Summary of characterjgatjon data on spent solvents
affected by this rule.
— Identification of industries which generate these
solvents and locations of these industries by region
and state.
— C plet. data sets used in developing BOAT. These
data sets show all, constituents contained in the
waste as well as various pollutant parameters.
Discussion of applicabl, technologies as well as
design and operating parameters that need to be
taken into account in determining how well these
tschnoloai.s can tr.at artieular waa as.
-------
2
With regard to the last item above, we would like to emphasize
that the treatment standards promulgated do not require the use
of a particular technology; as a consequence, you should be aware
that, in-certain instances, some of the Other technologies dis-
cussed may provide lass expensive alternatives to Comply with the
land disposal restrictions. Batch distillation, for example, may
be an alternative to incineration for some spent solventB with
high solid concentrations, if the temperature and duration of the
batch result in a residue that complies with the TCL.P leachate
concentrat .on for the particular solvent.
You should be aware that the EDAT background document will
provide the basis for Agency decisions regarding treatment
variances. We are currently developing a guidance document for
treatment variances which will more fully discuss this process.
Other areas where the BDAT document may be of help is in various
permitting activities especially as related to treatment design
and operation, corrective action treatment, and helping states
determine resources required for implementing the land disposal
restriction program.
If you have any questions on how the standards were
developed or the application of the technologies, please call
Stephen R. Weil at 202-382—4770 or James R. Berlow at 202—382—7917.
cc: Robert Dellinger
Stephen Weil
aruce Weddle
Joseph Carra
David Pepson
-------
9553.1987(01)
January 12, 1987
Ray D. McIntosh, Manager
Environmental Engineering
IBM General Products Division
Department 04C
Tucson, Arizona 85744
Dear Mr. McIntosh:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed a
detailed review of your July 10, 1986, application for an
extension of the effective date of the land disposal restrictions
for the solvent—bearing wastewater, sludge, and brine treated and
stored in surface impoundments at your IBM facility in Tucson,
Arizona. The EPA did not take final action on your petition
until promulgation of the land disposal restrictions final rule
(51 FR 40572, November 7, 1986) which provides, among other
things, a 2—year national variance extending the effective date
of the land disposal restrictions for wastewaters and sludges
containing less than 1 percent total F001-F005 solvents to
November 8, 1988. Because the wastes treated and stored in the
surface impoundments at the Tucson facility meet this criterion,
these wastes are subject to the variance. Thus, your petition is
mooted by the November 7, 1988, final rule.
While the variance is in effect, you may continue to treat
and store restricted wastes in the surface impoundments, provided
that each new, expanded, or replacement surface impoundment meets
the minimum technological requirements specified in section
3004(o) of RCRA. Any wastes containing F001-F005 solvents which
meet or exceed the 1 percent cutoff are restricted from placement
in these impoundments and must be treated to the applicable
levels in Table CCWE of 40 CFR 268.41, or be the subject of a
successful case-by—case extension of the effective date.
According to the information provided in your application,
on-site construction of treatment and storage tanks is expected
to be underway by February 1987, and completed by the November 8,
1988, effective date. If you anticipate that the tanks will not
be completed by the effective date, you may pursue one of two
options. You can submit an application for an extension of the
effective date pursuant to the provisions in 40 CFR 268.5, or you
may continue to treat and store in the impoundments after the
effective date in accordance with the exemption for treatment
surface impoundments (40 CFR 268.4).
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
—2—
If you choose to submit an application for an extension of
the effective date, please submit the application at least six
months in advance of the effective date to allow the Agency lead
time to review the application. If the Agency approves the
application and grants an extension of the effective date, you
may continue treating and storing restricted wastes in the
impoundments for an additional 1—year period (renewable once).
If you pursue the exemption for treatment in surface
impoundments, you may continue to treat and store the solvent
wastes in the impoundments provided that the following
requirements are met (see 40 CFR 268.4 for details):
1) treatment occurs in the impoundments,
2) treatment residuals that do not meet the treatment
standards in Subpart D of Part 263, or are not delisted
must be removed at least annually,
3) the impoundments must meet the requirements of section
3004(0), unless exempted pursuant to the provisions in
§268.4(a)(3)(i), (ii) or (iii), and
4) a written certification is submitted to the Regional
Administrator stating that the requirements of
§268.4(a) (3) have been met along with a copy of the
waste analysis plan required under §268.4(a) (2).
If you have any questions, you may contact Stephen R. Weil
or Jacqueline Sales of my staff at (202) 382—4770.
Sincerely,
Alan Corson, Acting Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: Mark Kamiya, Region IX
Alan Roesler, Arizona Department of Health
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRUNME ‘I. PROTECTION AGENCY
9553• 1987(02)
JAN t ffT
John ‘. Fasto
!tonc Industrial rivision
J. T . Clark ‘anufacturjra
51 st Avenue & Cree Lane
College Park, Maryland 20740
tear Mr. Fasto:
In your letter 0 October 10, l9P . you requeste an oxe” tion
to the “Schedule for Land flistoaal P.strjetjong” oublishe’ in t”e
Federal Reryister on P’ay 2 , 1906, ( 1 Pfl 19300). Since you have
that notice, you are aware of the nrohibitions on the Isnri dis’ o ai
cf untreated hazardous wastes, and the reauirement t1 at set
treatment standards by certain dates.
(Th ?!ovember 7, 1986, the final Land Disposal T ’estrictions
Rule for Solvents and Dioxins was nublished in the P dera1 P aj ter
(51 FR 40572). In this rule, EPA has established treatment stan ’ —
ards?or land disposal of certain solvent— and dioxin—contal’ in ’
hazardous wastes, including the P005 waste stream aenerate ) v
your company. I have enclosed a cor’y of this reaulation for your
information. The treatment standards do not reauire incineration.
The standards are set as a concentration of a solvent constituent
in an extract from a waste or a waste treatment resi’iua]. It is
possible that your waste stream, the solid nolyester tvne ac”’e ive,
may meet these treatment standards, which are measured by u e o
the toxicity characteristic leaching nrocedure (TCtn) (. rrnen,aix i
in the requlation, page 40643). You shoujci have a laboratory
qualified to do this procedure (there are auite a sew) test your
waste material to see if it meets the treatment standards withr i’t
treatment such a. incineration.
There are some excentions to the requirement that the wastes
meet the treatment standards. The first of the excentions re.’uires
that a petition be submitted to PA and approved based on a eh ina
that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents for e
lona as the waste remain. hazardous. The standard for apnroval
of this tyne of petition wa, specified by Conaress in the Ra ardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 ( FVA). In reality this is a
very limited exception and may not he of much use to you.
-------
second exception is more accurately described as an
exte. ion c,f he effectiVe date. If the waste contains less than
one percent FOOl —FOOS solvents, the waste can be land disnoseri.
subject to certain limitations, without meetinq the treatment
standards until November . ].9P8. FP has us ci its aut) oritv
under PSWPI to extend the effective date for these wastes hesec
on a lack of adequate alternative treatment capacity. e r *
has also extended the effective date for neneratc rs o’ bøtween
bc and 1000 kilograms er month of ha ardoua waste. ¶•* ile I i’o
not know the density of your waste, a aeneration rate of 17 drtim
every three months might put you in thi, small auantity aenerator
category. which would at least temporarily solve your nroblem.
EP7 is aware that these requirements may significantly raise
the waste disposal costs for inclustry. However, we are liirit.” 1
by the law in ir ability to consider such factors in settina
treatment standards.
If you have any further questions. olease feel free to write
or call Stephen P. Weil at (202) e2—4770.
Sincerely.
Marcia . Willjam
rh rector
Of fice of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9553 • 1987 (03)
January 20, 1987
Mr. B.B. Meyer
Aeroj et—General
Sacramento Environmental Operations
Post Office Box 15699c
Department 1520, Building 46010
Sacramento, California 95813
Dear Mr. Meyer:
This is in response to your December 15, 1986 letter to
Eileen Claussen requesting that the Agency clarify its regulatory
interpretation of voluntary treatment prior to land disposal.
Your example is that of having a waste which contains less than 1
percent F0O1—F005 spent solvents and is eligible for the two-year
variance, but the generator voluntarily treats the waste prior to
land disposal, either to reduce the solvent content or to reduce
other hazardous properties of the waste. Your question is then,
would the treatment residual then be required to meet the
treatment standards of 40 CFR 268 Subpart D prior to land
disposal?
In general, the answer to the question above is yes; by the
ban effective dates all hazardous wastes not treated to the
specified treatment levels are prohibited from land disposal.
Specifically, if the generator voluntarily treats the FOOl-F005
spent solvents using the best demonstrated available technology
(BDAT), and the treatment residual contains less than 1 percent
FO01—F005 spent solvents, the treatment residual can be land
disposed until November 8, 1988. After November 8, 1988,
however, if the treatment residual does not meet the treatment
standard as specified in 40 CFR 268 Subpart D, Aerojet-General
can either apply for a treatability variance, submit a no—
migration petition or continue to treat your wastes to the
specified treatment levels prior to land disposal.
Similarly, if the “other hazardous properties”, i.e.
ignitability, are treated and the treatment residual somehow is
concentrated and thus contains more than one percent F001—F005
spent solvents, the treatment residual must be either treated to
the specified treatment levels prior to land disposal, or
Aerojet—General can apply for a treatability variance, or submit
a no—migration petition. If the treatment residual contains less
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
—2—
than one percent FOOl-F005 spent solvents, land disposal can
occur until November 8, 1988. On the other hand, if through the
use of BDAT the treatment residual is rendered rioncharacteristic,
i.e. nonignitable, and thus is nonhazardous, the waste will no
longer be subject to the land disposal restrictions.
If you have any further questions please call either
Jacqueline Sales or myself at (202) 382—4770.
Sincerely,
Stephen Well, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APR 2 1 1981 9553.1987(07)
Ur. Pot’ert Fixter
ss1st rtt Environmental P lanaaer
& Waste Inc.
115 Jacc ’ug venue
South rearny, ‘7ev Jersey 07032
Deer r. Fixter:
This is in reepon e to your letter of Fehruary 2 , 1 7,
concernina the an licability of 2 9.30( )(3) to any o1i or
sludoe that contains less than 1% of t!’e listed O0l ! 0 olvert
constituents. Specifically, you referred to solvent contaw’inatet
raas which have been ana1yze and deterwinel to contain less then
1% listed solvents.
The land disposal restrictions final ruJe (51 PP 4r c72,
! ove ber 7, 1906) ioes not an Iy i mediatelv to those r ’ni—rr c
sr’ent solvent w etee that eor.tain less than 1% solvents. h’ se
wastes are subject to a two—year extension of the effective ?te
based on insufficient national car’acitv. The solvent wastes
covered by the extension inclue!e solvent—water mixtures, snlvenf—
containinq sludees, solvent contaminated soils (non— C PCL
or PCPP corrective action) and solids. However, in the ? ovep 1 ’er
7, 1996 final rule, the 7 gency inaAvertentlv oP itte# 4 the re’erencc’
to so1icisu from the reaulatory lanauaae in 26R.3O(a 3).
s you correctly noted in your letter, the aency inten’ e ‘or
golvent—containina solids (a.a., raas, Dipe i, iaper) to he in—
clur1ed with those materials covered under ç7 R.3O(a)(3). “Fo1v nt—
containina sludges and solidew are correctly identifiei in the
preamble to the flovembor 7, 1996 final rule as among the wastes
granted a two—year national variance (51 FP 4(1615). 7’s such,
solvent contaminated reas are subject to the two—year nationwte’e
variance provided they contain less than 1% total F001—F0 ( 1
solvent constituent..
We are currently worlcinq on a technical correction notice
that will correct errors contained in the reamb1e and reciulntorv
langua9e of the final rule, including the revision to
to include “solids. We expect to publish this notice in the
FEDEPAL PECI5’TER within the next couple onth .
-------
I •hope this lnforr’ t1on a eauate1y ree e Vc ur concerns.
P1e ee feel free to contact ie t (202) 47c— 715, if you h v
further que.tions.
Sincerely,
Will ieii P. Fortune
rnv1roni enta] Protection £ eei 1iqt
1 1 an’ Dtenoe’tI Pe triction Pranch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9553.1987( 09)
JU i ’9
Mr. Kenneth W. Kubofcik
President
The Branford Companies
Post Office Box 1056
Brariford. Connecticut 06405
Dear Mr. Kuhofcik:
This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1987, cci i—
cerning the applicability of the California list land disposal
restrictions to lead-plastic bags manufactured by your company.
As you stat,d, these baa. are usr d to line drums and containers
for the storage, containment, and disposal of low level radioactive
waste.
The California list prohibitions restrict the land disposal
of hazardous wastes containing California list constituents above
.peci’ied conccntration levels. With the exception of hazardous
wastes containing haloaeneted orcanic compounds (in total con-
c-’ntration grcater than or equal to 1000 mg/kg), the restricted
wastes are in liquid form. Although the California list covers
leed—containing wactes. it is confined to liquid hazardous wastes.
that contain lead or lead compounds. Based on the information
nrovided In your letter, the lead—plastic radiation shielding
haas are not liquid hazardous wastes, nor do the bags appear
to meet any other California list waste criteria. As such.
the lead—plastic bags would not be subject to the California
list prohibitions when discarded.
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns.
rlease ‘eel free to contact Bill Fortune, of my staff at (202)
475-6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely.
Stephen R. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
UNITED - ArES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9553.1987(11)
IL 161987
Mr. John B. Slemmer
Environmental Manager
So1 dTex Systems, Inc.
5371 Cook Road
Post Office Box 888
Morrow. Georgia 30260—0888
Dear Mr. Sl.emmer:
This letter responds to your letter to Matt Straus, dated
April 21, 1987, in which you request clarification of the regulatory
status of drums generated from the solvent recovery process at
your fac 1ity. In particular, your letter requests clarification
of the less than 1% total FOOl—F005 solvents determination for
purposes of the 2—year national capacity variance from the effective
date of the solvents land disposal restrictions (51 FR 40572
November 7. 1986). I apologize for the delay in reapondina to
your inqui however, we have been using all available resourcpq
to meet thd July 8. 1987 land disposal restrictions statutory
deadline.
As described in your letter. Solid’rek’s process recovers ag
much solvent from a drum as possible. leavina one—half to eiaht
inches of nonrecoverable sludae containina restricted solvent
wastes. At this point, liquids in the s ludae are solidified and
the drum is crushed, alona with the solidified slutiae, to reduce
the overall volume. The crushed drums are then shipped to a
RCRA hazardous waste landfill. In order to determine whether
the crushed drums can be land disposed without further treatment,
you ask if the weight of the drum should be included when ‘ieter-
mining whether the waste is eligible for the 2—year national
capacity variance for solvent wastes containing less than 1%
total solvents.
You may be unaware of a fundamental issue raised by your
letter which supersedes the questions you asked. The determination
as to th. applicability of the 2—year nationwide variance for wastes
which contain less than 1% total POOl—P005 solvent constituents is
to be made by the initial generator of the waste before the waste
has been treated, therefore, the variance is not applicable to
the residual from the recovery of restricted waste. For ourpose
of the variance, treatment residuals are not considered newly
aenerated wastes.
-------
Furtherr ore, the preamble to the solvents final rule
(Si FR 40575, 40615) states the general principle that once a
hazardous waste is prohibited, it must he treated until it meets
the applicable treatment standards in ?able CCWE. Therefore,
the solidified residual from the recovery of ?00l—F005 solvents
must meet the applicable treatment standard before disposal at
a !ubtitle C landfill. These issues are clarified in a notice
published on June 4, 1987 (52 F? 21012) which corrects and
clarifies various parts of the solvents land disposal restrictions
final rule.
I hope this letter clearly answers your questions reaardina
the land disposal restrictions. You may contact me at (202) 387—
4770 f you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
a
-------
S?4,
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WAS)4IP 1 IGTON. D.C. 20460
5 3.1987(12)
AUG I 0 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Michael Steinberg, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Steinberg:
On June 9, 1987, your client, the Safety—Kleen Corporation,
requested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stay
a portion of its June 4 correction notice to the initial land
disposal prohibition rule for solvents. After careful consid-
eration, I have decided to deny your request. My reasons are
as follows:
1. Safety—Kleen had adequate notice that the distil—
lation bottoms it produces while treating solvents would be
subject to the treatment requirements established by the
prohibition rule. The rule at issue states that if an initial
generator’s waste contains greater than 1% prohibited solvent,
then any residues from treating that waste must be treated to
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section
3004(m) treatment level uhless the initial waste is exempt
from some independent reason, such as being generated by a
small quantity generator. We think that a careful reading of
the November 7 final rule shows that it includes this require-
ment. For example, only generators can certify to a disposal
facility that the waste is subject to a variance. Treatment
facilities, by contrast, must certify that the residues they
generate meet the treatment standards (see 268.7(a)(l) and
268.7(b)(2)). Section 268.40 likewise states that treatment
residues must be treated to meet the applicable treatment
standard.
The preamble to the final rule confirms that this was
the Agency. intent. The Agency stated explicitly that the
determination of whether a waste is prohibited must be made
by the initial generator, (see 51 Federal Register at 44620).
The Agency also provided a series FTI charts illustrating
the rule’s operation which again indicate without ambiguity
that only the initial generator, and not a treatment facility,
determines if a waste is prohibited (see 51 Federal Register
40622, 40624). As EPA explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule, Safety—Kleen cannot consider itself to be a
generator. In that preamble, EPA clearly stated that it does
not consider persons who produce distillation bottoms while
treating solvents to be generators of hazardous waste.
-------
Finally, EPA explicitly addressed distillation bottoms
from spent solvent reclamation in the Background Document to
the final rule on capacity determinations. EPA noted that
solvent reclamation would produce distillation bottoms, and
stated that these distillation bottoms would require treatment
to the levels set under Section 3004(m). EPA included the
expected volume of distillation bottoms in its estimate of the
total volume of solvent wastes requiring treatment.
2. The principle at stake here is an important one.
It is that the 1% capacity variance level not become the de
facto treatment level (see 51 FR 44,620). EPA would stay a
rule illustrating this principle only under the most compelling
circumstances.
I feel it necessary to mention that Safety—Kleen could
have participated much more actively in the rulemaking and
alerted the Office of Solid Waste about its situation. Your
only comment to the Agency’s proposed rule was filed long
after close of the comment period, and indicated that Safety—
Kleen realized it would have to treat its treatment residues
before they could be land disposed. Safety—Kleen’s participa-
tion seems particularly incumbent because the issue of capacity
to treat solvent reclamation treatment residues was raised
specifically by EPA for public comment (see 51 Federal Register
1724. 1727 (Jan. 14. 1.986)).
I regret that Safety—Kleen apparently received incorrect
advice from an EPA offic a1 regarding the scope of the November 7
rule, but the most reliable indication of what a rule means
is the regulatory language itself, and the explanatory preamble.
As mentioned earlier, both the preamble and the regulatory
language indicate that Safety—Kleens residues must be treated
to the applicable treatment standards.
I have decided to deny your request for these reasons.
If the facts are as you state, Safety—Kleen could be eligible
for a case—by—case variance under §268.5. The Agency will
process any such applications expeditiously. Please contact
Rhonda Craig at 382—4800 if you have any questions regarding
the case—by—case variances.
Sincerely,
73 . Winston Porter
Assistant inistrator
-------
9553.1987(13)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 87
5. Land Di.sposal Restrictions - Kalogenated Organic Carbons
An F0O1’F002 waste subject to the November 7, 1986
Federal Register land disposal restrictions meets the
criteria for the 1% national variance specified in
Section 268.30. In the July 8, 1987 Federal Register ,
treatment standards were set for most HOCs. FOOl and
F002 wastes are also HOCs. Would the FOOL F002
wastestream be subject to the newly-promulgated HOC
treatment standards even though it has been granted a
two-year variance F005 solvent wastes?
The solvent would only be subject to the treatment
standards and effective date in the November 7,
1986 rule. In 52 FR 25762, it says that “where
treatment standards and prohibition effective dates
are promulgated for California list waste
constituents that are also covered under the
November 7, 1986 rule, the treatment standards and
effective dates from the prior rule apply.”
The general rule is that where a constituent is
subject to more than one treatment standard, the
treatment standard (and effective date) far the
morespecific constituent applies. Example: the
FOOl-FOOS treatment standard/effective date
presides because, as a subset of the HOCs, it is
more specific.
Also, for a waste where two or more treatment
standards apply because of different constituents
(e.g., FOOl and Lead), both would apply with
respective effective dates. In the case above
mixed with lead, the FO0l,F002 treatment standards
and effective date would appl ’ for the solvent
constituents (rather than the HOC standard) and
would get a variance until lL 9 88. However, the
lead would be subject to the requirements effective
7i8i87.
Source: Mitch Kidwell (202) 382—4770
Research: Mark Janaskie
—4—
-------
9553.1987(13a)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
SEPTEMBER
1987
7. Land Disposal Restrictions — California List
A manufacturer produces an aqueous waste stream
containing 250 mg/i nickel, 1600 mg/i free cyanides, and
650 mg/i chromium (VI) at a rate of approximately 5000
gallons/month. The waste stream is characteristically
hazardous due to the presence of free cyanides and
chromium (VI) (D003 and D007, per 40 CFR Section 261.23-
24). The manufacturer has the waste shipped via tank
truck to a commercial wastewater treatment facility that
treats the wastewater in tanks. The wastewater
treatment facility has a contract with a metals recovery
firm to accept the sludges after treatment for
reclamation.
a) In addition to normal manifesting requirements, what
must the manufacturer do in order to comply with the
land disposal restrictions for his off—site waste
shipments?
b) If the manufacturer has a wastewater treatment facility
constructed and, as a result, will be discharging the
liquid portion of his waste under a I PDES permit and
shipping his non-liquid sludges to a metals recovery
facility, how will the off-site shipment of the sludge
be regulated?
a) The manufacturer’s aqueous waste stream is
restricted from land disposal according to Sections
3004(d)(2)(A), (b)(iii), and (B)(vi) of RCRA, which
prohibit the land disposal of liquid hazardous
wastes containing greater than 1000 mg/i free
cyanides, 500 mg/i chromium (VI), and 134 mg/i
nickel. Consequently, the off-site shipment of his
aqueous waste stream must be accompanied by a
notification to the treatment facility of the
applicable prohibitions in Section 3004(d) of RCRA,
per 40 CFR 268.7(a)(1). The notice must include
the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The corresponding treatment standards and
all applicable prohibitions set forth in
Section 268.32 or RCRA Section 3004(c);
(iii) The manifest number associated with the
shipment of waste; and
(iv) Waste analysis data, where available.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
SEPTEMBER 1987
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
(Continued)
7. Land Disposal Restrictions - California List (Continued )
b) If the manufacturer’s wastewater treatment
sludge is hazardous only because of
characteristics, as identified in 40 CFR 261
Subpart C, and the sludge is sent to a facility
which reclaims metals from the sludge, the sludge
is no longer subject to the land disposal
restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268. 40 CFR 260.10
defines a sludge as “any solid, semi-solid, or
liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial
or industrial wastewater treatment plant. water
supply treatment plan, or air pollution control
facility exclusive of the treated effluent from a
wastewater treatment plant.” According to 40 CFR
261.2, a sludge which exhibits a characteristic of
a hazardous waste is not a solid waste (and
therefore not a hazardous waste, per 40 CFR 261.3)
if it is to be sent for reclamation. Pursuant to
40 CFR 268.1(a). the land disposal restrictions of
40 CFR Part 268 apply specifically to hazardous
wastes. consequently. if the waste is not a
hazardous waste under RCRA, the regulations of 40
CFR 268 do not apply.
— —
58
-------
9553.1987(14)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 5
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Alan Cranston
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Cranston:
Thank you for your letter of September 11 ., 1987, forwarding
the concerns of your constituent, Ms. Beverly Full. The primary
focus of Ms. Full’s letter relates to the December ii, 1986, (51
44714) proposal to prohibit land disposal of hazardous wastes
containing California list Constituents at or above statutory
concentration levels.
Several events have Occurred regarding the land disposal
restrictions program since Ms. Full’s February 1987
correspondence. Ms. Full requested that a hearing be held to
address the concerns identified in her letter. Such a hearing
(Oversight Hearing on RCRA Land Disposal Ban) was conducted
before the Subcommittee Ofl Hazardous Waste and Toxic Substances
of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on
June 5, 1987. At this hearing, I had the opportunity to discuss
the Agency’s progress in implementing the land disposal
restrictions program. Shortly after this Senate hearing, on
July 8, 1987, (52 R 25760), the Agency promulgated treatment
standards and corresponding effective dates for the California
list waste containing PCB’S and Halogenate Organic Compounds,
and codif led the statutory prohibition levels for certain
corrosive wastes. Furthermore, this final rulemaking
established testing requirements for determining compliance with
the prohibition, an aspect of the regulatory framework which
effects the character of those wastes that are Considered
restricted.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section
3004(d) directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
substitute more Stringent concentration levels for those in the
statute when necessary to protect human health and the
environment. In Considering the protectiveness of the
concentration levels for California list wastes, the Agency
examined both the toxicity of the California list Constituents
and the potential for exposure to these waste in the context of
their management. M a result of such considerations, the
Agency published a Notice (August 12, 1987, 52 29992)
requesting information and comment on issues related to
-------
lowering the prohibition levels for California list metal-
bearing cyanide-containing wastes. The suggested prohibition
levels are similar to those requested by Ms. Full -- levels ioo
times current EPA drinking water standards. As indicated in the
Notice, the Agency is Considering promulgating prohibitions on
the California list metal and cyanide wastes at levels 100 times
the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards, or in the
case of nickel, thallium, and cyanide (for which no drinking
water standards exist), 100 times alternative health-based
levels.
Ms. Full expressed concern about the design features
required of units receiving wastes that are subject to a
variance. Under the current regulatory framework, wastes that
are covered by a national variance or case—by—case extension of
the effective date must be placed in a facility that is in
compliance with the minimum technological requirements of RCRA
Section 3004(o). These requirements, including double liner,
leachate collection system, and ground water monitoring system,
apply to new units, replacement Units, or lateral expansions of
existing landfills or surface impoundments at existing
facilities. With respect to “no migration” petitions, it must
be demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that land
disposal of restricted wastes will not allow migration of
hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone
for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.
EPA shares Ms. Full’s concern about the timing involved in
identifying appropriate treatment technologies for metal
wastes. The Agency did not establish prohibition levels or
treatment standards for California list metal and cyanide wastes
in the July 8, 1987, final rule. Instead, in the August 12,
1987 Notice, the Agency has requested further comment on
lowering the statutory levels for these wastes to levels oo
times drinking water standards or alternative health-based
levels. The Agency believes that further evaluation of the
statutory prohibition levels is warranted based on a number of
concerns including these wastes’ mobility and toxicity, and the
land disposal practices employed for these wastes. The Agency
evaluated technologies used to treat these wastes and provides
treatment performance data corroborating that the California
list metals and cyanjdes can be treated to achieve the suggested
prohibition levels. Because of the potential variability of
these California list waste categories, the Agency does not
-------
believe it possible at this time to establish more specific
treatment standards. Therefore, the Agency is evaluating
treatment standards that would be achievable by a wide group of
wastes. Based upon this evaluation, the Agency will make more
specific treatment standard determinations in accordance with
the final schedule for implementing the land disposal
restrictions (51 19300).
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9553.1987(15)
December 3, 1987
Honorable Max BaUCUS
United States senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator BauCUS:
Thank you for your November 3, 1987, letter concerning the
prohibitiOflS on land disposal of California list metal-bearing
and cyanide_Containing wastes.
The statutory language in the Resource conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 3004(d) identifies California list
wastes containing free cyanideS and metals as waste groups that
include “liquid hazardous waste, including free liquids
associated with any solid or sludge.” In consideration of this
language, the Agency believed it appropriate to require that the
concentration of restricted constituents in the filtrate,
generated from the Paint Filter Liquids Test, be evaluated in
etermifliflg compliance with the statutory prohibition levels.
However, as noted in the AugUSt 12, 1987, Notice of Data
AvailabilitY (52 E 29998), serious consideration will be given
to the adoption of treatment standards expressed as constituent
concentrations using the Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity test
or Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). Such an
approach more closely reflects the analytical methodology used
for the data presented in the Notice. Conversely, the Agency
must also take into account that a number of coinmenters to the
December 11, 1986, CalifOrnia list proposed rule were opposed to
the use of a leach test, specifically the TCLP, to develop a
waste extract for further testing.
The public couwient period for the August i2, 1987, Notice
was extended an additional 30 days and recently closed on
November 12, 1987. The Agency is currently in the process of
reviewing C4]’ent s and analyzing the sith’ itted data. After
considerin ‘ ii public coumtentS received on the issues addressed
in this NOt CC, the Agency plans to proceed aggressively toward
promulgation of a final rule.
If I can be of further assistance, please let ute Imow.
Sincerely,
sitwcd. Winston Porter
lAss stan Pe —
ROL
-------
UPIITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9553.1987(16)
8 1981
Mr. Douglas W. Jackson
Project Manager
Rollins Environmental Services (FS) Inc.
9000 Gulf Freeway, Suite 240
Houston, Texas 77017
Dear Mr. Jackson:
This is in response to your letter of October 15, 1987,
concerning your questions on appropriate treatment methods for
elemental mercury that were addressed in a telephone conver-
sation with William Fortune of my staff. Specifically, you
asked whether broken mercury thermometers might be treated with
sulfur to form mercuric sulfate, followed by encapsulation of
the mercuric sulfate/glass mixture in concrete prior to being
land disposed.
As you are aware, the Agency did not establish treatment
standards in the July 8, 1987 final rule for liquid hazardous
wastes containing metals (including mercury and/or compounds).
As a result, California list wastes containing mercury are
currently subject to the statutory prohibition. and thus
are prohibited from land disposal unless treated to concen-
trations below the prohibition level or rendered nonliquid.
The Agency has indicated (see 52 FR 2577w) that certain
solidification technologies may be considered appropriate
treatment for California list metals, at least until treatment
standards are adopted for these wastes. Solidification
techniques, where reagents (i.e.,substances that take part
in reactions or processes) are added that produce physical or
chemical changes, or otherwise ii nobilize the hazardous
constituents, would be considered legitimate treatment (rather
than dilution).
With respect to hazardous waste management practices in
general, it has been the Agency’s preference that waste
minimization methods (e.g. rec] .amation, use or reuse of a
waste) be utilized over treatment and land disposal options.
Since the broken thermometers contain mercury in its elemental
form, this waste would appear to have considerable potential
for recovery and reuse. Prior to treating and disposing of
-------
these broken t ermometers, we suggest that you investigate the
availability of acilities (such as secondary mercury firms)
willing to accept these wastes. If a recovery and reuse option
is not feasible, your proposed solidification technique — treat
the li. quid elemental mercury with sulfur to produce mercuric
sulfate (note: any reaction would likely form mercuric
sulfide), encapsulate in concrete, and dispose in a landfill —
would be in compliance with the prohibitions on California list
metals provided it immobilizes or chemically fixes the mercury,
and thereby legitimately renders the waste nonliquid, or if it
reduces the concentrations below the specified prohibition
levels.
I hope this information addresses your concerns. Please
feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at
(202) 475—6715, if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Weil, Chief
E.and Disposal Restrictions Branch
2
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUINARY
9553 1988(01)
FEBRUARY 88
5. Lahd Disposal Restrictions
The November 7, 1986 Federal Registe (51 FR 40572) codified
the land disposal restrictions for solvent and dioxin wastes
identified in 40 CFR 261.31. At that time all of these
solvent and dioxin wastes were restricted from surface land
disposal unless they met the appropriate treatment standards
set forth in Section 268.41. There was a national variance
from the effective date (November 8, 1986) for these
requirements which was given to generators of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per month (small quantity
generators). This variance was granted because EPA believed
there was not enough capacity to handle this waste (see 51 FR
40615). Small quantity generators (SQGs) would be subject to
the treatment standards on November 8, 1988 (see 40 CFR
Section 268.30(a) & (b)). The August 27, 1987, Federal
Register (52 FR 32446) proposed to codify the solvent and
dioxin land disposal restrictions for Underground Injection
Control (DIC) Class I wells which are regulated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and by a RCRA permit by rule
(see 40 CFR 268.30(a) &(b)). The August 27, 1987, proposal
does not contain a SQG national variance. Does the variance
granted to SQG solvent and dioxin waste also apply to the
same wastes injected into Class I wells after August 8, 1988?
No. The November 7 1986, SQG national variance
granting an extension to the effective date to the
solvent and dioxin restrictions applies only to wastes
which will be placed in land units other than UIC Class
I wells. The August 27, 1987, proposal did not address
a national variance for SQG waste specifically. It does
however propose to grant an extension of the effective
date for solvent wastes which are solvent—water mixtures
or solvent-containing sludges containing less than 1
percent (1%) total F001-F005 solvent constituents (see
40 CFR 148.10(a)). Therefore, small quantity generator
solvent wastes must meet the applicable treatment
standards prior to injection into a Class I well unless
they contain less than one percent (1%) total solvents
after generation. This will result in a three (3) month
“lag time” when SQGs may place their untreated (greater
than one percent) solvent wastes in all land units
except DIC Class I wells.
EPA did not propose a special SQG variance granting an
extension to the effective date of the DIC restrictions
because it is believed there are currently few SQG5
disposing of their wastes by injection who will not also
be eligible for the one percent (1%) total solvent
variance. It is believed there is adequate treatment
capacity for all SQG8 and other generators who generate
solvent wastes above one percent (1%).
Source: John Atcheson (202) 382-5508
Research: Deborah McKie
-------
9 553.1988(02)
MAR 81988
Ms. Mary Elizabeth Slevin
Lombardi, Reinhard, Walsh,
and Harrison, P.C.
5 Computer Drive West
Albany, NY 12205 -
Dear Ms. Slevin:
This is a response to your January 21, 1988 letter to the
Office of Solid Waste in which you request an interpretation
concerning the regulatory status of a process wastewater. The
waste of concern is a rinsewater containing some carried-over
l,l,l-trich loroethane from a metal degreasing operation.
As you have described the operation, the solvent-contaminated
water in the rinse tank constitutes a process waste and not a
spent solvent. (See Hazardous Waste Listing Background Document,
p.81, May 1980; letter from Steve Silverman to Michael Rodbury,
December 16, 1982.) This process waste would be covsidered
hazardous only if it were determined to exhibit one or more of
the hazardbus waste characteristics; namely, ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity.
(See 40 CFR 261.20—261.24.)
In your letter, you also mention an exemption that exists
regarding solvent-water mixtures containing less thaT one percent
organic solvents. You appear to be confusing two different
regulations. This particular provision applies tt’ wastes that
are hazardous and therefore, subject to the land 1sposa1
restrictions rule. Under the land disposal restri . ’tions
(specifically, 40 CFR 268.30(C)(3)), spent solvent hazardous
wastes that contain less than one percent total F001-F005 solvent
constituents are subject to a two-year extension of the effective
date based on insufficient capacity. The solvent wastes covered
by the extension include solvent-water mixtures. Also, at 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(jv)(B) there is an exemption for solvent-contaminat-
ed wastewaters that are managed in units subject to regulation
under Sections 307(b) or 402 of the Clean Water Act. To qualify
-------
for this exemption, the ma.ximuin total weekly usage of the
l,l,l-trichloroetflane discharged to the wastewater must be less
than a5 parts er million of the average weekly fi ,, of waste-
water into the headworks of the facility’s wastewater treatment
or pretreatment system. However, since your waste is not a spent
solvent, neither of these exemptions would apply.
If you have any further questions, please contact
Ron Josephson on my staff at (202)475-6679.
Sincerely,
Jeffery D. Denit
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UI STATES ENv1R0s *EierAL PROTE AGENCY 9553.1989(01)
It 28 I 9
Mr. B.W. Morse
Petroleum Advisor
Department of Commerce
and Consumer Affairs
Private Bag 00252
Gaborone
Botswana
Dear Mr. Morse:
Thank you for your letter of June 21, 1989, requesting
information about environmental protection regulations,
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Our response primarily focuses on the disposal of TEL gasoline
sludge, a particular concern raised in the letter.
EPA lists tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining
industry as a hazardous waste. As such, this waste must be
managed in accordance with the U.S Environmental. Protection
Agency standards published in the Code of Federal Regulations
(Title 40), under Parts 260—272 (enclosed). Several of the
relevant sections, i.e., standards for storage/treatment tanks
and standards for landfills will be found in this document (see
pages 556—567 and pages 581—586, respectively).
On August 17, 1988, EPA promulgated standards restricting
the land disposal of certain hazardous wastes, including leaded
tank bottoms from petroleum refining. The intent of this
rulemaking is to minimize the quantity of hazardous waste beings
land disposed in the United States along with minimizing the
toxicity of the waste when land disposal is necessary. Enclosed
for your review, is a copy of this rulemaking, as well as the
background document that contains information justifying the land
disposal restrictions. These rules require that wastes be
treated to levels achieved by the “Best Demonstrated Treatment
Technology,” (BDAT) prior to being land disposed. You will find
that EPA considers solvent extraction and incineration to be the
EDAT for gasoline sludge waste. A temporary variance to the
treatment technology can be granted for certain wastes because
inadequate treatment capacity is available. These wastes are
then land disposed in a landfill that has double liners and
leachate collection above and between the liners.
-------
; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
6 ’
3 ‘ 9 OFFICEO
WATER
9553.1989(02)
SUBJECT: Applicability of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
to CERCLA Response Actions
FROM: Francoise Srasier. Chief Ifl j sW - 4. I J1’
Underground Injection Control Branch. Office of
Drinking Water (WH—550E)
TO: David M. Fagan.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OS—341)
We have reviewed the Federal Register notice (54 FR 41566)
dated October 10. 1989, concerning the applicability of RCRA Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) to response actions pursuant to
CERCLA. The final Agency interpretation of this issue will
impact the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program due to the
fact that many CERCLA sites use “pump and treat” injection wells.
An October 31. 1989 memorandum from OSWER (attached) resolved the
issue to the satisfaction of all involved programs.
The Safe Drinking Water Act provides the authority for the
regulation of injection wells to assure the protection of
underground sources of drinking water (USDW). An injection well
that disposes of hazardous waste into or above a USDW is defined
as a Class IV injection well (40 CFR 144.6). These types of
injection wells were banned on July 18. 1980. The only exception
to this ban are injection wells used at CERCLA and RCRA sites as
stated in RCRA 3020.
We support the interpretation that excavation and
redeposition of hazardous waste into the same unit at a CERCLA
cleanup site would not constitute land disposal. This
interpretation is consistent with the Agency decision on the
Class IV ban except in the cases of injection that are pursuant
to provisions for cleanup of releases under CERCLA and RCRA
actions. Additional discussion to the CERCLA and RCRA exception
to the Class IV ban can be found 49 F 20141 dated May 11. 19a4.
-------
—2—
In cases where the hazardous waste is :erov d fro r a
site and is disposad of through ln)eccion. we b lieie th LDR d
apply. The axceotion to the Class IV bar. .n RCRA Sect:on 3020
applies to “injection of contaminated around water : to the
aquifer m_wh;c _ t_was withdrawn. f the conta .: ated
water is rer oved to be injected off site. we believe the ].ass 17
ban is in effect and the I DR applies. The injection facility
would need to meet all of the UIC requirements nc .uding the
as found in 40 CFR 148 to assure the protection of USDWs. If you
have further cuestior.s. please contact Bruce obelski at
(FTS) 382—7275.
ttach er 1 t
-------
9553.1990(01)
iO $T ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
. 0 lt
MAY I I {99C
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
C. Michael Swindolj.
Conoco Inc.
P.O. Box 1267
Ponca City, OK 74603
Dear Mr. Swindoll:
This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1990 in which you
presented your interpretations of the ICRA Part B permits at Conoco’s three
land treatnent facilities located at Conoco refineries in Ponca City,
Oklah a; Billings, Montana; and Lake Charles, Louisiana. Specifically, you
have interpreted these permits to mean that (1) continued operation of the
landfarine for the application of non—hazardous waste can occur after August 8,
1990 and (2) permit modifications for delay of closure and closure are not
required until the no-migration petition is denied. In response to your
specific issues we have described below procedures pursuant to Federal rules
and regulations. Since Conoco’s facilities are located in authorized States
and those States nay have their own additional requirenients, the Federal
procedures may or may not apply. Therefore, we reconinend that you work
closely with these States to ensure applicable requiranents are met.
On August 8, 1990 the current two year national capacity variance for the
continued land disposal of petroleuni refinery hazardous wastes (K048—K052) is
scheduled to expire. However, on May 8, 1990 the Administrator signed the
Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions Rule. The rule provides for an
extension, until Novenber 8, 1990, of the national capacity variance for the
K048—K052 wastes.
At the expiration of the revised national capacity variance, in order for
a facility to continue the land disposal of these restricted hazardous wastes
final approval must be obtained for either a no-migration petition, a case-by—
case extension or a treatability variance. Pending a decision on a no—
migration petition for a land disposal unit, Federal regulations allow ers
and operators to continue to dispose of non—hazardous waste in that unit after
the expiration of the variance under the provisions of 40 CFR 264.113(b) and
265.113(b). These regulations state that the owner or operator rmist ccxiplete
partial and final closure activities in accordance with the approved closure
plan within 180 days after receiving the final volune of hazardous waste at
the unit or facility. However, they further state that the Regional
Administrator may approve an extension of the closure period if the owner or
operator conplies with all applicable requirenents for requesting a
Priiu.d Rsc)T&d Pap.r
-------
—2—
ncdificat ion to the permit and that he makes certain deionstratjons. For
example, if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the hazardous waste
manage ent unit or facility has the capacity to receive additions], hazardous
waste; and that there is a reasonable likelihood that he or another person
will rec ce operation of the hazardous waste management unit or facility
within one year; and the closure of the unit or facility would be incompatible
with continued operation of the site; and he continues to comply with all
applicable permit requirements, just cause exists for extension of the closure
period. See 40 CFR 264.113(b) (1) (ii) and 265.113(b) (1) (ii). Proce:iures for
making these den nstratior s are addressed in 40 CFR 264.113(c) and 26 S.113(c).
Procedures for rv difying the closure plan ire addressed in 40 CFR 264.112 and
265.112. Therefore, if the State in which the unit is located has procedures
equivalent to the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 264.113 (b) and 265.113(b)
then closure can be extended as discussed above. Please note, howaver, that
States can be ‘t re stringent or impose additional requirements.
If the no—migration petition is approved, the owner or operator can res une
the receipt of the restricted hazardous waste (K048—K052). If the petition is
denied, denonstrations made under 40 CFR 264.113(b) (1) (ii) and
265.113(b) (1) (ii) would no longer apply (e.g., there n longer exists a
reasonable likelihood that the owner or operator will recoimence operation of
the hazardous waste management unit or facility) and the owner or operator
must proceed with closure unless they are eligible to continue to receive non-
hazardous waste under the “delay of closure” regulations.
These Federal “delay of closure” provis ions as set forth in 40 CFR
264.113(d) and 265.113(d) allow the owner or operator to receive only non—
hazardous waste in a landfill, land treatment unit or surface iripoundment
after the final receipt of hazardous waste if certain conditions are met. See
enclosed copy of 54 g 33376, August 14, 1989.
Since the “delay of closure” final rule was promulgated pursuant to RA,
it is effective only in those States that do not have interim or final
authorization (i.e., Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands, Wyoming, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas
Islands) and in those authorized States that have modified their programs to
reflect this regulation. In addition States may choose to adopt “delay of
closure” provisions more stringent then the Federal. In order to determine
the applicability of the “delay of closure” provisions, you should contact the
States in which your refineries are located.
If the “delay of closure” is available you should carefully note any
deadlines for submission of permit n dification requests and required
demonstrations. For example, under the Federal “delay of closure” provisions
the request to modify the permit and the demonstrations referred to in 40 CFR
264.113(d) (1) and (2) and 265.113(d) (1) and (2) are required to be submitted
to the Regional ninistrator no later than 120 days prior to the date on
which the owner or operator of the facility receives the known final volLme of
hazardous waste or no later than 90 days after the effective date of the
“delay of closure” rule in the State in which the unit is located, whichever
is later. Under the Federal program, denial of the petition would constitute
a date certain after which hazardous waste would not be applied to the
facility.
-------
If you have any further questions regarding the above information please
call Jim Michael of my staff at (202) 382—2231.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
D iclosure
cc: William K. Honker, Region VI
Karen Dihrberg, Oklahoma State Departn nt of Health
Elizabeth Cotsworth, 0 5W
Jim Michael, OSW
Barbara Foster, 05W
-------
9553.1993(01)
itO STdp
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN 6 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Doug MacMillan, Director
Hazardous Waste Program
National Solid Wastes Management Assoc.
Suite 1000
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. MacMillafl
Thank you for your May 13, 1993, letter regarding the need
for clarification of certain points in the hazardous debris case-
by—case capacity variance renewal. In particular, your members
are seeking written clarification on four specific issues
regarding EPA’S May 7, 1993 Debris Variance notice. This letter
provides responses to the first three issues raised in your
letter; EPA hopes to have a response to the fourth issue (what is
the potential liability of a TSDF that receives debris wastes
acting under a “good-faith belief?”) within the next several
weeks.
I.
Issue : Does the Notice require waste generators to complete
their good-faith efforts to locate suitable treatment capacity
any debris is shipped to TSDF5 under the capacity
variance?
No. The hazardous debris capacity variance was renewed for
one year, to May 8, 1994, with the requirement that generators
make a good-faith effort to locate treatment capacity during the
extension. The duty to make this effort began on May 8, 1993,
and continues to May 8, 1994. The 90 day report simply documents
the good-faith effort. As long as the goc -faith effort is
ongoing, debris may be shipped to TSDFs for disposal unless
treatment capacity is located in which case it must be used.
Please note that delaying the effort to find capacity until waste
can first be disposed of, or disposing at a faster-than-usual
rate to “beat” the Qiscovery of capacity, would not constitute a
good-faith effort.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
II.
Issue : Must communications on capacity between generators and
TSDF be conducted in vtitifl ? What about documentation of phone
contacts?
All communication between generators and TSDF’s does not
need to be done in writing. However, the most important aspect
of this process is the ability to demonstrate a good-faith effort
to locate treatment capacity. Written correspondence from both
parties would certainly fulfill this requirement and should not
be difficult to obtain. Documentation of telephone
conversations, however, will also be accepted, especially for
clarification of questions between a generator and TSDF.
III.
Issue : Under what conditions must a capacity—search be repeated ?
The notice requires that generators continue to make a good-
faith effort to locate treatment capacity throughout the entire
one-year period of the variance. The 90 day report is a one-time
demonstration of this continuing effort. The report is due
either 90 days from publication of the notice for debris
previously generated, or 90 days after generation of any debris
generated during the one—year variance. In practical terms,
however, once the generator has completed their good-faith effort
for a specific waste or class of waste, they generally will not
be required to make any further inquiries unless information
becomes available to them on the availability of such treatment
capacity. At the same time, when an initial search was focused
on capacity for a waste type, and another waste type is generated
for which the initial search would not shed light on the
availability of capacity, a further search would generally be
appropriate to demonstrate good-faith.
We appreciate your offer to disseminate this information to
your members to avoid any further confusion. If you have any
further questions, please contact Lee Otte of my staff at (703)
308-8480.
sincerely,
rector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
CC: Matthew StraUS, WMD
Elizabeth cotsworth, WMD
Les Otte, ALDRS
Nicholas Vizzone, ALDRS
George Wyeth, OGC
Jim Thompson, OWPE
-------
Sl .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C 20460
k PRO1
9553.1994(01)
JUN 2 3 co OFFICE CF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERCE Y
RESPONSE
Mr. Roy Deitchman
Managing Director Environmental Policy
Technology and Network Planning
Telesector Resources Group
1111 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, New York 10604
Dear Mr. Deitchnian:
Thank you for your letter dated March 9, 1994, concerning
on—site treatment of manhole sediment which may exceed the
toxicity characteristic for lead.
Although you refer to the waste as debris, it does not
appear to meet EPA’S definition. It seems the pertinent part of
the definition of debris at 40 CFR 268.2 (57 FR 37270, August 18,
1992) is that the material must exceed a 60 mm particle size. If
your waste does not meet the S 268.2 definition of debris, it
would likely be subject to the treatment standard promulgated in
the June 1, 1990 Third Third rule for lead waste displaying the
characteristic of toxicity as analyzed by both the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) and the- Extraction Procedure (EP) (see 55 FR
at 22660). That treatment standard requires treatment to achieve
a level of 5.0 mg/l, as measured by the TCLP (see 40 CFR 268.41,
Table CCWE). Because this is also the characteristic level for
lead, the treated waste would no longer be considered a hazardous
waste and could be disposed in a nonhazardous waste landfill.
If your waste meets the debris definition, the stabilization
process you described (i.e., stabilization using lime, fly ash,
or portland cement) fits under the category of
microencapsulation, an immobilization treatment technology
described at § 268.45, Table 1, (57 FR 37278). To dispose the
immobilized debris in a northazardous waste landfill, you would
have to ascertain that it does not display a hazardous
characteristic. It it displays no hazardous characteristic, it
may be disposed in a nonhazardous waste landfill; otherwise, it
must be disposed in a hazardous waste landfill.
QD Recycled/Recyclabte
< <9 Punted with SoylCanoia Ink On paper that
cOntsIns at Iea t 50% recycted fiber
-------
As to the paperwork requirements, a uniform hazardous waste
manifest would not be needed if the debris is disposed in a
nonhazardous waste landfill. You would still need to determine
whether the material would be regulated by the Department of
Transportation (DOT), and if so, comply with any applicable DOT
requirements. You should also contact the appropriate state
agency regarding more stringent state requirements for
transporting solid waste. Furthermore, the waste would be
subject to the recordkeeping requirements of the LDR program
found at § 268.9. For your convenience, I have attached a copy
of those notification and certification requirements.
If you have any further questions or need additional
clarification, please call Richard Kinch of my staff at
(703) 308—8434.
Sincerely, -
Micf1 el Shapiro
Dirsctor
‘-‘ Office of Solid Waste
Attachment
cc: Mike Petrusca
Richard Kinch
-------
3e cr e5o ce r:uO
• .. - _— rs j -
ã;-.. :Z
Roy Oeutchman -
Yar acng Drectcr Ei i’o men a :Iicj
ecrtrG?cç v’t ‘4etworw IarI’ing
lesector Resources Group
A Subsidiaiy 01 New Englanø Telepr
and New Yoilc Telepflone
March 9, 1994
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW 5301
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro,
Thank you for meeting with our NYNEX group on March 3, 1994 to discuss manhole
sediment removal issues. We appreciate the guidance provided by you and your staff
members. As discussed, we are writing you, as a follow-up to the meeting, to review
our proposed method for proper manhole sediment disposition.
NYNEX conducts telecommunications operations in approximately 100,000 manholes
providing local exchange telephone services in the New England area and New York
State. The debris (sediment) at the bottom of manholes may need to be removed when
a telephone cable failure requires access to a specific cable. NYNEX environmental
policy requires analytical testing of the debris for toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) lead to characterize the material prior to disposition. Since the
laboratory turnaround time for TCLP results has been a minimum of 36 to 48 hours, the
practical result of this NYNEX policy has been to treat the material as a hazardous
waste in emergency situations so that telephone service can be quickly restored. In
1994, we estimate approximately 400 manholes may need to be properly cleaned using
this method - at an average cost of $5000 per manhole.
NYNEX has not fully identified the source of the manhole sediment lead contamination
though we suspect it is a number of potential sources including lead sheathed cable,
surface run-off of lead contaminated roadside soil and contaminated groundwater
movement. Since the early 1970’s, NYNEX has not placed any new lead sheathed
telephone cable and is in the process of removing existing lead sheathed cable in ducts
as the telephone network is upgraded with fiber optic cable. We also have used over
200 controlled environmental vaults (cev’s) as underground equipment vaults that are
water-tight. One of the pollution prevention techniques may be to prevent
environmental contaminants from entering telephone plant equipment such as
manholes.
-------
Page 2
To continue our efforts to protect the environment and in a more cost effective manner,
we would like to develop a procedure for on-site treatment (at each manhole work area)
for lead contaminated manhole sediment. Your comments on the following questions
would be most helpful in moving in this direction:
1. Is stabilization of lead-contaminated debris, using lime, fly ash or portland
cement to create a umatrixu, an appropriate on-site treatment method for this
material? If successful, can the material be disposed of as a solid waste?
2. If treatment is successful, in lieu of a uniform hazardous waste manifest,
would the attached NYNEX 5099 form provide sufficient information for
recordkeeping? If not, what additional information would be required?
Thank you for your help with this matter.
Sincerely,
cc: 0. Feldman
J. Quatrale
J. Rosier
-------
9554 - TREATMENT
STANDARDS
Part 268 Subpart D
A.T. Kearney 1/3590/10cr
-------
9554.1986 ( 01)
MpRVr
!MORA N DUN
SUIJ!CTu Rsponies to additional questions raised by .nator
Mitchell frogs the LandDtsposal striction Pt.artnq
on February 24, 1 R6
eileen M. Claussen, Dir.ctor
Charact.rtsation and Assess snt Division (W9 S628)
TOs Lynn Pirossoli
Off ic. of the Assistant A inistrator
for Solid Wait. and B’serqncy R•s onse
Attached are the additional questions and r.spons.s for
Senator Mitchell conc.rnin!J the hearina before the Subc ittes
on !nvironis.ntal Pollution of the Senate Co rnsittee on !nvtron’sent
and Public Works.
We are also subi’tittinq the necessary ciocu u entation in suDnort
of th•ss answers. Since this docuMentation is so volui inous,
pl•ase advise Senator 1itchetl that we will deleqate a etaf
person to assist hi. and C ittee staff in revievina and
interorsting the data, if he so destr.s.
Attachasfits
-------
Q What is th. basis for EPA ’s e.ti , .t. that 95 perc.nt of
the olvents and dto j , will need to be trsae.d Drior
to land disposal using tPi. EPA Droposed “St’1OdO1 y?
As Solvents
EPk’s tiatincp Droaras (managed by 09W) has collected
qualitativ, and quantitative charact .rjstjc data for
wastes generated by various i dustrje. to letersine
which n•w vast., should be consjie • haaardous under
RCRA. While this proqraii does not eoll.ct data on •xt .tjnq
waste codes, the data collected for this DrOqra ii the best
infor atjon available to EPI on th. coneentratton of
constituent, in wast.s and therefore was the basis for
esti atinq the charaet.rjstjcs of wastes subject to the ban.
ased on extrapolation, of these lata, believe, that
virtually all of the solvent wastes currently land disposed
•zceel ths screenjna levels and uld require treatsent.
These data are described in detail tn Voltwse tI! of the
Background Document for Solvents to Support 40 CPR Part
268, Land Disposal Rsatrietjon,.• As Table C-i on paqe 24
indicates, the an of the total solv.nt concentration,
exceeds 3,000 parts per “iillion (0.30% by weight) for all
sOlviSflt—Iostatninq wastes, ‘imaged by all Manaqen n techniques.
Because this number is so nuch higher than the Pro sed
regulatory levels, we believe now all se lvent—contatninq wastes
will be treated. Because of the li’sitatj s of these
data, the Agency is taking a conservative approach in
-------
assessing capacity ds ands for setting effective dat•s
and thea is assuieiing that S o.rc.nt of all solvent wait..
viii est rsquir• treat*.nt.
Diox ins
In considering th. quantity of 4 toxin eontajnjnq vaet• subject
to tr.at .nt before land dis osal, the Agency •xcluded tIio jn—
contacinated soils. Th.re are approzimat. ly 500,000 MT of th...
soils; howevet, the.. wastes do not bec e subj.ct to restriction
until 19U sine, they are contaiiinat.d soils resulting from
CERCLA response actions (a.. Section 3004(e)(3)), Mr. Porter’.
statement addresses only dioxin—containing vast•s that will be
subject to restriction on flo.mb.r 5, 1,56.
Agency data in support of the dioxin listings indicate that
6,650 metric tons on dioxin-contajning waste (excluding
soils) have been generated as of mid l9 3. These wastes
include the following non—aqueous, relatively non—solid
vastest
still bottoms fro, herbicide nanufacture
nan-aqueous liquid leachate
— s st carbon from aqueous Dhase treatment
— Va stevaters arid
— still bottome from PCP roduct purification.
-------
The •xistirig data show total dioxin Concentration, of
110,000 p, in these wastes. The ., data are summarised
in Ixhibit 6—1 of th. draft R.gulatery Analysis of
Proposed *strictions on T..ani Disposal of certain
Dioxin-Containing Wa.t...
Since dioxin-contatning wastes, for th. most part, at.
liquids, the dioxin eoncentrat on in tPt. leachate will eatial
th. total dioxin concentration in the vast.. Dioxin—
contaminated still bottoms which often are sludges typically
contain organic solvents such as tolu•ne and methanol.
Since solvents, when co-disposed with other hatardous wastes,
are known to mobilise organic constituents which otherwise
may be is obile or r.lati..ly non-mobil., a similar effect
can be expected for dioxin-contaminated stiii bottoms
containing solvents. Thus, the leachate from these
wastes can reasonably be exi acted to contiin dioxins in
concentrations v.11 above the 1 i,pb screening level.
gency data supøort a conclusion that all dioxin..contat jnv
wastes (excluding soils) viii require treatment before
land disposal. owevr, the Agency again is taktv’ici a
conssrvative approach in t et.rmtning caDacity demand by
stattn that 93 percent of th•s. wastes will reautre treat .nt.
PA doss believe that most dioxin—contaminated soils (suhject
to the November 196* deadline) will not reguire treatment
under the proposed treatment standards. Extraction procedure
testing conductsd on six samoles of dioxin contaminated soil.
-------
(ranqtnq fro’ 3 to 1,200 pDh of 2,3,7, TCDD) indjcat.d
that non of th. •aI D1es leached detectable (1..., l
levels of dioxin.. (S.e Evaluation of Dioxin !xtractjon
in the Toxicity Characteristic Leacl tnq Procedure, attached.)
-------
Os W!%at percentIle of th. solvents would need eto he Dretreate(t
under IPA’• proposed ethodolor y if there was no aliust, ent
in the *cr..ntn levels for liner protection?
As To rasponti to this aue.tion, it would be necessary to have
detailed waste charact.riSattOfl data indicating the distrtbuttrrn
of constituent coneentration stfl waste str.a by volume
of waste. The data retied on in response to the nr.vious
question is, unfortunatelV, not ‘etched •nou h to enable
us to respond to this question.
-------
9554.1986(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
1.1. Treated Wastes
!‘tist restricted ‘ astes which have been treated to meet treat nt
standards praTulgated under §268.41 still be menaged as h rdcus
‘ stes ur er A?
The treatzr nt standards set forth in Table CCWE of § 263.41
C 51 FR 40642] specify the . a c.iun centratjons at which
rest Tcted hastes r ay be land disposed. If listed iw rdous stes
are treated, they will retain hazardous stee unt .1 or unless
tey have been delisteci according to 26O. 22. tharacteristic
hastes that r longer e th.thit the tharacterjstic after treatzt nt
1o not need to be nanaged as hazardous stes.
-------
9 554.1986(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
!. 0. Treatment Standards
re the treatment standards established for the land ban rule?
The treatment standards set forth in the Constituent in
Concentration t.n Waste ctract (CCWE) Table of §268.41.
[ 51 FR 40642] are technology—based standards. These standards
are based on the efficiencies that can be achieved using the
Best D rcnstrated Available Techrx logy (BD T). As is explained
on pages 40588-40589, a technology tray be “d . st.rated” if i:
is currently used to treat stes within the group of stes
judged to be similar. The foll ing criteria rTust be net for a
technology to be “available’: (1) the technol.ogy does not
present a greater total risk than Land dis sal; (2) if the
technology is a prcprieta or patented process, it can be
p.irch sed fran the proprietor: (3) the technology provides
subetantial. treatirant and (4) treatnent technologies prthibited
under §3004(n) because of air e iissia,s will be excluded as
“available” technologies for the p. rposes of establishing
treatment standards. The Agency performed a statistical.
analysis on the available treatnent ‘]ata to identify the
and determine the treatment standard.
-------
9554.1986(05)
RCRJ/SUPERP’TJND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
15. Dilut . to Meet Treatn rit Standards
an a generator dilute his restricted wastes to meet the treatnent
st.indarcis of Table CCWE of §268.41?
, as explai.ned in §268.3 C51 FR 40639], ‘No generator,
transporter, handler, or ner or operator of a treatn nt,
storage. or disposal facility shall in any y dilute a restr ed
‘..‘aste or the residual !rcin treatment of a restricted Ste as 1
substi.tute for adequate treatment to ad .ieve TrUance with
Subpart D of this Part.
-------
UNiTED sT*rEs ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9554.1987(02)
FEB 3 9 7
Honorable Eateban Torres
house of Representatives
Wasnington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. TorTes:
Thank you for your letter of January 12. 1967, in which
you requested clarification of the hazardous waste management
regulations governing wastes generated by the metal tiniahing/
electroplating industry. Specifically, you enclosed a copy
of correspondence from Mr. Larry D. Foss of Foss Plating
Company Inc. in which he addressed concerns regarding the
effect of the land disposal restrictions upon the metal
finishing industry.
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWIt) to
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) prohibit
the Continued land disposal of untreated hazardou, wastes
unless the Agency determines that the prohibition is not
required in order to protect human healtn and the environment
(RCRA sections 3004(d)(i), (e)(l), and (g)(5)). However,
hazardou, wastes that meet the treatment standards established
by LPA under section 3004(m) of RCRA are not sub)ect to the
restrictions and may be land disposed.
As you are aware, the legislation established a series ot
deadlines for Agency action. At certain deadlines, further
land disposal of a particular group of hazardous wastes is
prohibit.d unless the wastes meet treatment standards
estab ljahd by the Agency, or a facility has been granted a
petition under 40 CFR 268.6 (Nno_migratjon petition”), or an
extension to th. effective date has been granted under
40 CFR 268.5 (case—by—case extensions). As Mr. Foss correctly
indicated, F006 wastes (wastewater treatment sluuges from
electroplating operations) are included among the wastes
scheduled to be evaluated by August 8. 1968 (40 CF 268.10).
The Z gency plans to propose treatment standards f or the first
third of the scheduled listed wastes 1 including £006
n the early fall of l987.COi U jy. PA is g hrlrirl9
1oLor1aa 1on on ttie pe fQrImand$,c*â various echnolo.jjes
-------
—2—
used for treating P006 wastes that reduce the toxicity or
mobility of these wastes. After Considering the public
comments we receive on the proposed rule we will set the
final treatment standards f or these wastes by the August 8,
1988 deadline. The land disposal of the P006 waste will be
prohibited (by statute) only if EPA does not meet the deadline
specified in he law. Wastes meeting the treatment standards
may continue to be land disposed.
Under RCRA section 3004(h)(2), the Agency has the
authority to grant a nationwide variance of up to 2 years
from the statutory effective date if adequate alternative
treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity does not exist.
Calculations of alternative capacity are utilized in determining
whether to grant variances and the length of any variance from
the effective dateB of the restrictions. The Agency will be
proposing capacity determinations at the same time as we
propose treatment standards for the first third of the
scheduled listed wastes.
We are sympathetic to the problems potentially faced by
Hr. Foss and Foss Plating Company Inc. However, failure
of the Agency to promulgate final regulations setting treatment
standards for these wastes would mean that such wastes could
be disposed of in a landfill or surface impoundment only if
Ci) the facility is in compliance with the minimum technological
requirements of RCRA *3004(o) (double liners, groundwater
monitoring) and (ii) the generator has certified that he has
investigated the available treatment capacity and has determined
that the use of such a landfill or surface impoundment is the
only practical alternative. After May 9, 1990, RCRA would
completely ban the land disposal of any hazardous waste for
which EP! has not specified treatment standards. Allowing
these provisiuns to take affect would likely result in an
even greater regulatory impact on the metal finishing/
electroplating industry than promulgating final regulations
restricting land disposal.
We appreciate ‘the opportunity to provide you with
information regarding prohibitio 5 on the land disposal of
hazardous waste. Please feel free to contact Stephen Weil,
Chief of our Land Disposal Restrictions Branch, at (202)
382—2770 if you have further questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
t
7. Winston Porter
Assistant Ad injstrator
-------
9554.1987(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 87
1. California List
The land disposal restrictions i.n RA Section 3004(d) veq ires
that the California List wastes be banned fran land disposal by J ly 8,
1987. Concentrationa of nickel greater than 134 n /l awe subject to the
ban. Is hazavd .js wastewater containing nickel dispersed by agitation,
b. t not chemically in solution, LncLaded in the restriction?
Yes. It does not matter whether the nickel is chenically or physically
contained in the wastewatew. The ban applies to the total concentration
of nickel in the filtrate as detewmined by subjecting a representative
s nple of wa .gtewa to the Paint Filter Liq.aids Test. If the facility
were to settle out the pieces of nickel and lc rve, the concentration of
nickel bel 134 iiç/l, the wastewateu ld rc longer be subject to the
ban. Until trea nt standards are finalized, this method of l ering
tne concentration is all able.
So.irce: Mitch Kic ej], (202) 382—4805
Research: Laurie H bew
-------
9554.1988(03)
MAY I3j
Dr. Paul Palmer, Ph.D.
Onscreen Directories Inc.
7345 Hea].dsburg Avenue
Suite 524
Sebastopol, California 95472
Dear Dr. Palmer:
This letter is in response to your March 1, 1988 and.
April 19, 1988, letters requesting an interpretation of
40 CFR 268.7 requirements. Your letter of April 19, 1988
expresses a general frustration with EPA’s seemingly meaningless
recordkeeping and certificating requirements. EPA believes that
these requirements are necessary, and I will try to explain the
rationale behind the rules.
EPA is responsible for enforcing the prohibitions on l ;Y d
disposal of untreated hazardous wastes imposed by Congress. A
determination that a waste is a listed hazardous waste
(40 CFR 261.31, and 261.32) is, in general, based on how th
material is used or the process by which it was generated, nc t
on the constituents in the wastes. Thus, only the oriaina1
generator can determine what the applicable waste codes are.
This information is frequently, but not always, on the
manifest. Waste codes have also been subdivided for the purpose
of setting treatment standards. The treatment, storage, or
disposal facility must be informed of the applicable standard.
In cases where no land disposal is anticipated, the notice is
still required to insure that the waste is not disposed of by a
facility not realizing that such disposal for that particular
waste is prohibited.
All restricted wastes, whether treated and disposed on
site, or sent off-site to a RCRA treatment or disposal facility
or to a non RCRA recycling facility, are subject to testing and
recordkeeping requirements. Please note that although recycling
facilities may be exempt from RCRA regulation, the wastes they
receive and the resulting residues are regulated by RCRA and are
-------
subject to the land disposal restrictions. We believe that the
notific ations are necessary to assure that the information for
insuring compliance with the statute is available to both the
handlers of the hazardous waste and to EPA.
Certification is a necessary tool for tracking restricted
wastes from generation to final disposal. This law clearly puts
the burden on the generator to see that the waste is properly
managed and disposed of. Thus, the certification operates to
protect the generator in addition to providing EPA information
needed to efficiently enforce these regulations.
In response to the specific questions in your March 1
letter, I hope the following discussion will be helpful.
After a generator makes a determination that he is managing
a restricted waste which does not meet the appropriate
treatment standards, or where the waste does not comply with
the applicable prohibitions in section 268.32 or RCRA Section
3004(d), the generator must notify the treatment or storage
facility in writing of the appropriate treatment standards and
applicable prohibitions in section 268.32 or RCRA section
3004(d). This notification must accompany each shipment of the
waste.
As a treatment and storage facility that ships restricted
wastes off-site for further management, you must comply with the
notice requirements applicable to generators in section
268.7(a)(l). You must also comply with the manifest
requirements of section 264.71(c) or section 265.71(c).
In the case of the operator of a cement kiln receiving
restricted wastes for further management (for use as a fuel
supplement), the treatment residues from these restricted wastes
are subject to all requirements under section 268.7(b)(2), Ci)
and (ii) prior to land disposal.
Your interpretation of 40 CFR 268.7 certification
requirement is correct. A certification is required that the
waste meets the applicable treatment standards before the
restricted waste may be land disposed. When the restricted
waste is not destined for land disposal a certification is not
required. However, a written notification must accompany each
shipment of restricted waste where further management is
appropriate before land disposal.
2
-------
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns.
If you have further questions, please feel free to Contact Jim
Thompson, at (202) 382—7438.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Region IX
3
-------
9554.1968(04)
JUN I 3 -:
Mr. Kerry Bennert
Coordinator Special Projects
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Inc.)
Medical Products Department
331 Treble Cove Road
No. Billerica, MA. 01862
Dear Mr. Bennert:
I received your letter of April 18, 1988 in which you commented
that regulatory events limiting mixed waste disposal have impacted
your radioactive materials manufacturing operations. Specifically,
you cited as examples, the absence of disposal capacity for
“small-volume mixed waste laboratory generated (organic solvents)
materials” and lead.
As you know, EPA promulgated regulations which appeared in the
Federal Reaister of November 7, 1986 prohibiting land disposal of
certain spent solvent wastes unless they meet specific concentration
based treatment standards. Some solvent containing mixed wastes may
not lend themselves to incineration, the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) for solvent wastes. Such wastes could conceivably
be delisted and disposed in a low-level waste disposal facility
following treatment.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Mr. Terry Husseman, Chair,
Northwest Interstate Compact Committee which details the Agency’s
position on disposal of lead. As the Husseman letter points out,
EPA has not evaluated specific containerization or encapsulation
methodologies using the EP toxicity test. Such approaches to
managing lead mixed waste may be viable in certain circumstances.
Of course, States may adopt a more stringent position with regard
to regulation of lead or any other hazardous waste. We recommend
disposal of lead in a mixed waste unit.
-------
—2—
Also, I share your concern that neither of the three existing
commercial low—level radioactive waste disposal facilities have
applied for a RCRA permit although U.S. Ecology has expressed a
strong interest in filing such an application. EPA and NRC developed
a series of guidance documents last year aimed at facilitating the
State and compact effort in siting and designing a low-level waste
disposal unit that could also accept mixed waste. As a regulatory
agency, EPA believes this level of involvement is consistent with its
mandate. The Agency is available to review alternate waste
management proposals developed by industry. However, until such time
as disposal capacity becomes available or treatment technologies are
identified, storage, an activity which also requires a RCRA permit,
may be the only waste management option available to generators of
mixed waste.
Although mixed wastes are not subject to Federal hazardous waste
regulations until the State applies for and obtains authorization to
regulate the hazardous component of the mixed waste, State law is
applicable in the interim. The deadline for filing mixed waste
authorization applications is July of this year. You may want to
contact Paul Bedrosian, the mixed waste coordinator for EPA Region I
(617-833-1792) to discuss your concerns. Further, I will apprise you
of any future developments on management of solvent containing mixed
wastes.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Paul Bedrosian, Region I
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
554.1988(o5)
Mr. Mark N. Griffiths
Director of Government Relations
National Association of Metal Finishers
Suite 700
1101 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Griffiths:
I am writing in response to your recent letter requesting
information on waste treatment facilities which can and will
accept F006 electroplating wastes for stabilization.
The enclosed list gives the names and EPA ID numbers of 4.1
facilities which reported to EPA that they offered the type of
stabilization used to establish the land disposal treatment
standards for F006 sludges. I have also enclosed a copy of the
Directory of Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
which includes contact information for hazardous waste
facilities. You asked that we supply you with the names of
facilities that would be willing to take your members’ F006
wastes on August 8, 1988. EPA has not attempted to obtain such
specific data on waste treatment facilities.
As I discussed with you on the phone several weeks ago, the
difficulty you members experienced in finding waste treaters
willing to commit to treatment before the standards for F006
wastes were final is typical of what has occurred with past land
disposal restrictions rules. Waste treatment and disposal
facilities are subject to more restrictive standards on storage
of wastes. than are the generators of the wastes. As a result,
these facilities are reluctant to accept wastes that they cannot
treat azam dispose of fairly quickly. When a new treatment
requirement is imminent, these facilities routinely inform their
customers z ot to ship wastes after a certain date. Then, after
the final treatment standards are known, the disposal facilities
have time to determine the correct process changes or mixes
required and make other operating adjustments which are
necessary. Typically, treatment and disposal facilities begin
accepting wastes again within two to four weeks of the
emu1 atien daL i I Lh& f1r I..& 3..._
-------
While this lag time is unsettling for generators,
particularly when they have limited On-site storage capacity, it
is a predictable side effect of the statutory requirement that
land disposal restrictions become effective immediately upon
promulgation.
I hope this information has been helpful.
Sincerely,
Barbara J. McGuinness, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
SflEDSTA,ES E1SYIROI $ fl’AL PROTECTION A .4CY 554.1989( 32)
HAY 5 989
Mr. Richard Pastor
Director, Government Relations
Envirosafe Management Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 833
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482-0833
Dear Mr. Pastor:
This letter is in response to your April 15, 1989,
correspondence requesting a clarifying rule or guidance that
would allow placement of stabilized wastes that do not meet
land restrictions requirements at the time of placement. Your
justification for this clarification is that EPA based its BDAT
treatment standards on a 28 day curing period without clearly
stating where the curing was to occur.
As Jim Berlow explained to you when you met with him on
March 9, 1989, it is EPA’s policy that wastes must meet treat-
ment standards prior to placement in land disposal units. This
policy is founded on our reading of the statutory intent.
Because EPA must be concerned that wastes may be exposed to
rainfall or other sources of leachate at any point in the life
of the disposal unit, it is necessary that Envirosafe establish
the effectiveness of its technology im ediate1y upon placement.
Your letter suggests that Envirosafe believes its process
for in—place curing can be demonstrated to be superior to the
existing basis for BD&T standards, but provides no data. If
you have data that shows your process is superior, then you
should submit those data if you pursue a BDAT variance or
petition for rulemaking. These data should demonstrate the
effectivenes, of the process in reducing mobility of hazardous
constituent, both at placement and once fully cured. As
Mr. Berlov mentioned in your discussions, you should submit
this data in the form of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure data to describe the effectiveness of your process.
This will allow us to determine the degree to which your
process relies on simply encapsulation rather than chemical
fixation to bind the hazardous constituents. If your process
can be judged equivalent or better than the current technology
basis for our standards, then a variance would be appropriate.
-------
—2—
Many of our standards are based on the leachability
achieved by stabilizing waste and curing it for 28 days prior
to placement. rt is our understanding, however, that several
companies have been able to comply with the standards using
processes that achieve the limits after an initial curing of
far less than 28 days, in some cases within about 24 hours.
EPA views this issue as a matter of cost optimization, storage
capacity for curing versus possibly more expensive chemical
costs for stabilization. We do not believe that achieving the
standards based on 28 day curing strength has been shown to
represent a significant technical problem. However, any such
problems that you can document should be addressed in a BDAT
variance submission.
Your letter also mentions the possibility of a “temporary”
no migration petition for the period of curing; we have not
completed our consideration of this idea. I hope to inform you
of our analysis within the next several weeks. However, I
believe that there are several interim points for you to
consider.
HSWA requires that a no migration variance be based on an
analysis of the period over which the waste remains hazardous.
I suspect that a petitioner would have to demonstrate that no
migration would occur for as long as the waste remains
hazardous within the disposal unit, and not necessarily only
for the period within which the stabilized waste will achieve a
particular curing endpoint.
More significant, however, may be Section 3004(c) (1) of
RCRA. This section prohibits “...the placement of bulk or
non-containerized liquid hazardous waste or free liquids
contained in hazardous waste (whether or not absorbents have
been added) in any landfill.,.”. The Agency issued a Statutory
Interpretive Guidance on June 11, 1986 (enclosed) for this
provision. In effect, the Agency’s policy is that bulk and
non-containerized wastes must pass the “Paint Filter Liquids
Test” prior to placement in a landfill. You may wish to
consider whether the treated wastes that you wish to landfill
prior to complete curing can pass such a free—liquids test. As
explained in the Statutory Interpretive Guidance, the statute
provides for no variance opportunity.
-------
—3—
I appreciate your interest in this matter. If you wish to
pursue a BDAT variance, you should continue to contact Jim
Ber].ow and his staff.
Sincerely,
SkL
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE suroc i 9554.1989(03)
OCTOBER 1989
4. Land Disposal Restrictions: Point of Generation
Effective July 8, 1987, liquid hazardous wastes containing PCBs in
concentrations_greater than or equal to 50 ppm are restricted from land
disposal (40 R 268.32(a)(2)). The July 8, 1987, Federal Register states that
for the purpose of characterizing a waste as “restricted” the “initial
generators are to determine if their hawdous wastes are prohibited at the
point of generation.” (52 25766) This policy is reiterated in the August
17,1988, Federal Register by stating “generators must determine whether
their wastes are ‘restricted’ at the point of initial generation, i.e. when the
waste is first considered a hazardous waste subject to RCRA regulation.”
(53 EB 31200)
An electrical transformer released oil onto a concrete containment pad.
The oil contains PCBs at concentrations greater than 50 ppm. The spill
response team used mineral spirits to loosen the oil from the concrete pad.
Then an absorbent was added to the oil/mineral spirit mixture and the
entire mixture was removed from the concrete. Is this mixture subject to
the land disposal regulations?
In this case a waste was generated when the transformer oil was
released onto the concrete. In order for the oil to be a California list
waste it must be a hazardous waste. The oil will not be subject to the
land disposal restrictions regulations as a California list waste because
typically it is not a hazardous waste (i.e., listed or characteristic).
However, after the mineral spirits are used to loosen the oil from the
concrete, the oil/mineral spirit mixture might meet the definition of
a hazardous waste by exhibiting the characteristic of ignitability.
Therefore, the generator must use the following criteria to determine
if the oil/mineral spirit mixture is restricted from land disposal: (1)
does the waste exhibit a characteristic (e.g., ignitabiity); (2) Is it a
liquid; and (3) does it contain PCBs in concentrations greater than or
equalto50ppm? Thewastemustmeetallthreecriteriatobedeemed
a restricted waste, specifically a C alifornia list waste per Section 26832.
This particular California list waste has specific treatment standards
per 40 CFR 268.42. The preamble to the July 8, 1987, Federal Register
states “where treatment standards are expressed as specified
technologies, the Agency has stated in the November 7, 1986 final
rule that such specified technologies must be employed. See e.g., 51
40628. For example, In today’s final rule, the California list wastes
containing PCBs must be treated in accordance with the standards
specified in Section 268.42 (i.e., thermal destruction in incinerators or
high efficiency boilers) and may not be rendered non-liquid in order
to avoid the Section 268 requirements.” (52 f 25766) In this case if
the oil/mineral spirit mixture meets the three a iteria the waste is
still subject to the land disposal restrictions even if the absorbent
renders the waste non-liquid.
Source: Andrea McLaughlin (202) 382-6946
Research: Kent Morey
-------
9554.1989(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Jon Greenberg
Manager of Environmental Policy •.‘ 28 i
Browning—Ferris Industries
Suite 500
1150 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Greenberg:
This letter is in response to your two letters dated
October 10, 1989, requesting clarification of the California list
HOC land ban regulations, and the applicability of Federal land
disposal restrictions (LDR) regulations regarding household
hazardous waste (HHW) and hazardous waste from generators of less
than 100 kg/month, what you are calling “very small quantity
generator waste” (VSQG). We are providing answers or
clarifications in response to all of your inquiries except for
two, which we would like additional time to consider. We do not
wish to delay providing answers to the other questions raised in
your letters, so we are responding to those at this time.
Your first question concerned California list HOCs,
specifically a non-liquid waste containing only one HOC (at
levels greater than or equal to 1000 mg/kg) listed in Appendix
III of Part 268. As stated in 40 CFR 268.42(a)(2), a waste is
prohibited from land disposal unless it has been incinerated in
accordance with Subpart 0 of either Part 264 or 265. (The
treatment standard of incineration does not apply when there is
an established treatment standard specified for the HOC in
Subpart D of Part 268). You stated, however, that 40 CFR
268.42(a)(2) is less clear when there is a mixture of more than
one listed HOC in a non-liquid waste. You gave as your
understanding that in this case, if there is an established
treatment standard in Part 268 for at least one of the listed
HOCS, then that treatment standard, and not the incineration
standard of 40 CFR 268.42(a)(2), applies. This is a correct
interpretation; as stated in previous rulemakings, California
list prohibitions are superseded by more specific prohibitions
and treatment standards (see 52 29993, August 12, 1987; and 52
25773, July 8, 1987).
You also requested confirmation of your understanding of the
effects of the Court—ordered stay on multi-source leachate, when
it is derived from a waste as described above. You stated that
the effect of the stay is to remove the treatment requirements
-------
established under Part 268 as they apply to multi-source leacilate
and, therefore, the incineration treatment standard applies. The
Agency would like additional time to further consider your
interpretation before providing a response.
Your final question in the first letter dealt with a non-
liquid waste containing less than 1000 mg/kg HOCs when initially
generated. This waste is de—watered for further treatment, which
results in the concentration of the HOCs being increased to above
1000 mg/kg. With further treatment, the concentration of the
HOC5 in the waste again drops to below 1000 mg/kg. You stated
that your understanding is that, because the waste did not meet
the California list criteria when it was initially generated nor
when it eventually was disposed, it does not have to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 268.42. The Agency would also like
additional time to consider the issues involved in this question,
and so is deferring a response at this time.
Your second letter is concerned with the applicability of
the Federal land disposal restrictions to wastes that are not
hazardous by Federal hazardous waste definitions, i.e., household
hazardous waste and hazardous waste from generators of less than
100 kg/month, but are hazardous by a State’s definition. You
wished to know if the Federal land disposal restrictions apply in
these cases.
States with approved hazardous waste programs that regulate
generators and handlers of less than 100 kg of hazardous waste
in a calendar month have a larger regulated universe than is
required under Federal law. The program components that include
these classes of hazardous waste handlers are “broader in scope”
than the Federal requirements. “Broader in scope” provisions are
not considered part of the State authorized program and are not
subject to EPA oversight and enforcement (40 CFR 271.1 (i.’(2’).
Therefore, State regulated household hazardous waste and “very
small quantity generator” waste handlers are not subject to the
Federal land disposal restrictions unless the Federal regulations
are adopted and enforceable under State law.
If you have any further questions, please call
Robert Scarberry, Chief, Land Disposal Restrictions Branch, at
382—4770.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
S. 4 .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PPOTECTIO GENOY
WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460
9554.1989(05)
—. ‘
,U : ,i. ., s:.: -i--
I IENORANDUM
SUBJECT: Concurrence on Policy Directive Regarding
Appplicability of Land Disposal Restrictions to
Reinjection of Treated Contaminated Groundwater under
CERCLA and RCRA Corrective Actions
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Direc /(
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Henry Longest, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
This memorandum is to transmit OSW concurrence, with
comment, on the draft policy directive regarding the
applicability of treatment standards established under the RCRA
land disposal restrictions to rei.njection of treated
contaminated groundwater associated with CERCLA and RCRA
cleanups. The Office of General Counsel advises that the
interpretation of Section 3020 of RCRA set forth in the
directive can be supported by the plain language of the statute
and the legislative history which accompanies it.
OSW supports the interpretation for several reasons:
o The end environmental result (cleanup to a protective level)
is consistent with existing CERCLA and RCRA program guidance for
cleanups, which rely on health-based rather than technology
based standards.
o In response to a court decision, we are currently revisiting
technology based standards for the land disposal restrictions
and are considering whether it is appropriate to cap the
standards at health-based levels.
o Several technical practicability issues have been raised
regarding pump and treat systems which call into question the
practicability of achieving BDAT standards used in
implementation of the land disposal restrictions.
-------
I.ionetheless, I he eve tI..lt . 5 “- - -,
Az i’;tant Administrator be aware tl:at this
provoke me considerable cr r.ici5 ” once it is reeacec .
one thing, this interpretation will iii effect a...io c rr wi a :
that may still be quite contaminated to be i ’.j cted ir. o a:i
aquifer, ‘. .ihile at the same time, under the laric1 d:sposa
restrictions the same groundwater could not be placed into
minimum technology surface impoundment. Some may argue that. it
is “technically feasible” to treat contaminated cround :a er o
health-based or BDAT levels before it is reinjected. I s ,
this interpetatiOn may be perceived as having a rationale based
more en economics than environmental protection.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFtJND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9554.1990(01)
JANUARY 1990
2. Land Disposal Restrictions - Lab Packs
Lab packs are containers holding a variety of wastes generated by
laboratories. If a lab pack contains a waste restricted under RCRA’s Land
Disposal Restrictions, how is it regulated?
The disposal of lab packs containing restricted wastes is Initially
addressed in the Land Disposal Restrictions final rule of November 7,
1986 (51 40572). If a lab pack contains any restricted wastes, the
entire lab pack Is prohibited from land disposal “unless the solvents
or other restricted wastes are removed before land disposal, the
solvents in the lab pack meet the treatment standard, or a successful
petition demonstration has been made under Section 268.6.” (51
40585)
The proposed rule for the Third Third wastes in the November 22,
1989 Federal Register (54 f , 48372) also includes a discussion of lab
packs. The Agency proposes alternate treatment standards expressed
as technologies for those lab packs meeting certain criteria. Lab packs
containing certain characteristi and listed organic hazardous waste
may be incinerated according to this proposed rule, and stabilization
is proposed to be the treatment technology for certain EP toxic metal
wastes. However, this proposed approach would not be mandatory
and generators of lab packs who choose instead to comply with
current land disposal restrictions, would be free to do so.
Source: Andrea McLaughlin, 0 5W (202) 382-6946
Research: Anne Kennerley
-------
9554.1990(02)
iIO ST
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB22 1990 FI11COP1
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
William McDonald
Chemical Compliance Manager
Welicraft Marine
Sarasota, Florida
Dear Mr. McDonald:
This letter is in response to your question concerning the
impact of the proposed Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions
rule on DOOl characteristic wastes.
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act directed EPA to set levels
and methods of treatment for hazardous wastes which substantially
reduce the toxicity of the waste. Wastes or residuals from the
treatment that meet treatment standards established by EPA may be
land disposed.
Land disposal of these hazardous wastes are prohibited
unless 1) the wastes are treated to a level or by a method
specified by EPA, 2) it can be demonstrated there will be no
migration of hazadous constituents from the land disposal unit
for as long as the wastes remain hazardous, or 3) the wastes are
subject to an exemption or variance from meeting the treatment
standards.
DOOl is an ignitable waste which is currently subject to
some restrictions on placement in surface impoundments, waste
piles, land treatment units, and landfills. These restrictions
can be found in 40 CFR 264.229, 264.256, 264.281, 264.312,
265.229, 265.256, 265.281, and 265.312.
There are four categories of DOOl ignitable waste. The
first, ignitable liquids such as solvents and paint thinners,
must, according to the proposed rule, be treated through thermal
destruction technologies such as incineration and fuel
substitution before they can be land disposed. The second,
ignitable compressed gasses, are generally recovered by direct
use or are vented into an incinerator. The third, ignitable
reactives, are primarily inorganic solids or wastes containing
reactive materials such as alkali metals or metalloids. These
wastes must be deactivated, according to the proposed rule,
before being land disposed. The final category is oxidizers,
PrLv.d
-------
which include such wastes as peroxides, perchioricies, and
permanganates. These wastes must also be deactivated, according
to the proposed rule, before being land disposed.
The treatment of DOOl waste raises some policy issues which
EP is still resolving, as to when dilution is a permissible form
of treatment, and if characteristic wastes, such as DOOl, must be
treated to levels below which they exhibit a characteristic.
See 54 FR 48490—48494. Unfortunately, EPA cannot discuss these
matters at this time, due to restrictions Concerning the
rulemaking process. EPA’S decision on these two issues will
appear in the Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions final rule
on May 8.
If you have questions concerning specific aspects of EPA’s
proposals for DOOl wastes, please give Robert Burchard a call
at 202—475—6775.
Sincerely,
Robert Scarberry
Chief, Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9554.1990(03)
t’ W? 71990
Mr. Donald Stone
Regional Environmental Manager
GSX Chemical Services, Inc.
121 Executive Center Drive
Congaree Building, Suite 100
Columbia, South Carolina 29221
Dear Mr. Stone:
This letter is in response to your September 18, 1989 letter
to Mike Petruska of the EPA’s Waste Characterization Branch,
requesting confirmation of a conversation you had with Mary
Stevens of the RCRA Hotline, concerning the application of waste
codes to treatment residues. Your letter asks which waste codes
would apply to scrubber water from the incineration of hazardous
wastes for the purpose of complying with the land disposal
restrictions.
If listed wastes are burned, all residues that are generated
carry the waste codes of the listed wastes from which they were
derived. For characteristic wastes that are burned, the
residuals are characteristic only if the residues themselves
exhibit a characteristic.
When deciding which Land Disposal Restriction standard
applies to residuals such as scrubber water (assuming that the
treated residues are destined for some form of land disposal),
your decision must be based on the hazardous waste designation
before incineration. That is, you must know whether the waste
incinerated exhibits any characteristic, meets the California
List criteria, and contains or is derived from any listed wastes.
Potentially, any or all of the treatment standards associated
with these different classifications of hazardous waste may
apply. In situations where multiple treatment standards apply,
the ensuing general rules should be followed:
1. If the standards are for similar treatability groups (e.g.,
all chlorinated organics), all the standards must be met,
and for common constituents, the most stringent standard
applies.
2. If they are not similar (e.g., one is for metals and the
other is for chlorinated organics), then both standards
-------
I have enclosed an excerpt from the LDR Third Third proposed
rule which explains these concepts further. This excerpt also
provides several examples with regard to the California List
prohibitions and clarifies when these treatment standards would
be superseded by more specific treatment standards.
If you have any questions about these issues, please call
Robert Burchard at 475—6775.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and assessment Division
cc Mike Petruska
Robert Scarberry
Enclosure
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9554.1990(04)
MARCH 1990
3. Treatment Standards for Methanol Which Does Not
Meet the F003 Listing
A generator uses xylene for cleaning purposes. At the point of generation
the generator determines that he has generated a F003 spent solvent waste,
subject to the land disposal restrictions. The F003 listed waste has traces of
methanol in it where the methanol was used as a fuel. Would the
notification sent by the generator in 268.7(a)(1) to the treatment, storage or
disposal facilities (TSDFs) have to include the corresponding treatment
standards for methanol as well as for xylene?
No. The generator would only have to include the treatment
standards for the xylene and not for the methanol to be in compliance
with Section 268.7(a)(1). The methanol in this case was not used for
its solvent properties and would not meet any of the spent solvent
listings, which are prohibited from land disposal without first
meeting the treatment standards in 40 CFR 268, Subpart D. The spent
solvent listings cover only those solvents that are used for their
solvent properties; which is to solubilize, dissolve or mobilize other
constituents (51 EE 40606). A solvent is considered spent when it is
no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed or
otherwise reprocessed. Where solvents were used as reactants or
ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical products,
they are not included in the listing (see December 31, 1985 .çj j
ReZister : 50 EE 53315 and the original solvent listing background
document, November 14, 1980).
Supporting data should be maintained on-site in the generator’s files.
Sources: Rhonda Craig, OSW (202) 382-7926
Ron Josephson, OSW (202) 382-4792
Thomas Ovenden, OSW (202) 475-6715
Research: Renee T. LaValle
-------
9554.1990(05)
UNtTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN 25 1990
T T 1 4 OFPICE OF
Mr. zevin SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Regulatory Affairs Manager
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
1155 Conn. Ave., N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Igli:
Thank you for your letter of May 23, 1990, requesting
clarification of the effective date promulgated in the Third
Third final rule (55 Fed. Reg. 22520, June 1, 1990) for F024.
The Third Third final rule revised treatment standards for F024
that were originally promulgated as part of the Second Third
rulemaking. The revised standards eliminate concentration
standards for chlorinated dibenzo—dioxins and furans, and require
incineration as a specified method of treatment.
Your letter suggests that EPA may not have intended to
include F024 in the 90 day national capacity variance granted to
all waste codes covered by the Third Third because the revised
standard for F024 grants relief rather than imposing new
requirements. Your point is veil taken. An (mmediate effective
date for F024 may be included in the technical correction notice
for the Third Third. Until such a correction notice is
published, however, or until August 8, 1990, the Second Third
standard remains in effect for F024.
If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this
issue further, please feel free to contact Matthew Straus of my
staff at (202) 382—6972.
-------
4 I ST4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO 9554 .1990 ( 06)
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20&..
JUN25 igg
Lynn L. Bergeson O FICEOP
Weinberg, Bergeson and Neuman SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
1300 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 600 East
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Ms. Bergeson:
Thank you for your letter of June 8, 1990 concerning the use
of the Extraction Procedure (EP) leach test for determining
compliance with the treatment standards for lead—bearing wastes
beyond September 25, 1990, when the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) replaces the EP.
Your reading of the preamble discussion in the
Third Third land disposal restrictions rule is correct; the
Agency is allowing the continued use of the EP beyond September
25, 1990 for the limited purpose of determining compliance with
the treatment standard for lead—bearing wastes. Lead-bearing
wastes that fail the TCLP, but pass the EP, will be deemed to
meet the treatment standard for DOOB.
On the effective date of the Toxicity Characteristic rule,
Federal regulations no longer allow the use of the EP to
determine if your waste exhibits the toxicity characteristic.
Please note, however, that if, as a matter of state law in a R RA
authorized state, the EP is required, that requirement is not
superseded by the TC rule.
Please note that the second footnote on page 2 of your
letter, which states that the TC effective date for small
quantity generators is March 29, 1991, is incorrect. The TC
effective date is September 25, 1990. There are two compliance
dates: September 25, 1990 for large quantity generators
(generators producing over 1000 kg/month of hazardous waste) and
TSDFs, and March 29, 1991 for small quantity generators.
We will address the continued applicability of the EP in a
future land disposal restrictions rulemaking on wastes that
exhibit the new toxicity characteristic. We plan to propose this
rule within a year, and will provide opportunity for comment.
-------
If’you have further questions on this matter, please contact
Robert BurChard of my staff at 475-6775.
Sincerely
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D. - -
9554 . 1990 ( 07
JU. . 30 1990
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Richard A. Guida
Associate Director
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Department of the Navy
Naval Sea Systems Command
Washington, D.C. 20362—5101
Dear Mr. Guida:
This letter is in response to your letter dated May 24,
1990, concerning the Land Disposal Restrictions for defueled
submarine reactor compartments. In this letter, your primary
question was whether the Navy’s program for disposal of these
reactor compartments falls within the “Macroencapsulationi.
standard for these wastes as promulgated on May 8, 1990 as part
of the Land Disposal Restrictions Rule for Third Third Wastes.
EPA points out that while EPA concurred on this disposal
practice as part of an extensive Environmental Impact Statement
issued in Nay of 1984, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of Noveml,er, 1984, required EPA to establish treatment Standards
for all hazardous wastes prior to land disposal. Thus, EPA
promulgated regulations covering such wastes on May 8, 1990.
While the June 1, 1990 Federal Register Notice which listed these
regulations did not provide a specific response to your comments,
your questions were answered in the administrative record for the
rule in a document entitled the “Response to BDAT Related
Comments Document, Volume i—i”, (as comment number 15—A-].).
In summary, EPA determined that the practice of direct land
disposal of these compartments ma .y meet the “Macroencapsulation
BDAT treatment standard for D008 radioactive lead solids. The
key to assuring compliance with the standard is the stipulation
in the regulatory language that the “jacket of inert inorganic
materials” (i.e., the steel surrounding the lead) “substantially
reduce(s) surface exposure to potential leaching media”. Since
the information in your letter and your comments appears to
indicate that this is true, the Agency believes that the practice
probably complies with the BDAT standard for D008 radioactive
PrLi .d Rac cied Paper
-------
2
lead solids. The compartments probably are considered to meet
BDAT “as generated”, because the lead shielding (as originally
constructed) is surrounded in a thick, sealed steel jacket. The
key to this decision is whether the steel is indeed sealed and
thereby minimizing potential exposure to any leaching material.
EPA chose to establish “Macroencapsulation” as BDAT for D008
radioactive lead solids in order to reduce the potential for
radiation exposure during both treatment and testing. It is
important to point out that because the standard is a technology-
based standard (i.e., specified technology), compliance does not
require that the waste undergo a TCLP analysis for lead. The
TCLP analysis would have required crushing or grinding of the
material in order to verify compliance and would have gone
against the whole purpose of establishing this standard.
EPA purposely modified the proposed standard for D008 radio-
active lead solids to include “jackets of inorganic materials” in
order to specifically account for the submarine reactor compart-
ments. However, EPA felt that it was necessary to add the
language to the definition of macroencapsulation to prevent the
“jacket of inorganic material” from being interpreted as
including materials that are merely containers or drums. Thus,
we concur with your interpretation that the submarine compartment
does not meet the definition of either a drum or a container.
I hope that this information clarifies your concerns as well
as any potential concerns that may arise with the State of
Washington over the applicability of “Macroencapsulation” as BDAT
for your decommissioned reactor compartments. If you, or the
State of Washington, need further clarification or if you feel. a
meeting is necessary, please call Richard Kinch, Chief of the
Waste Treatment Branch, at (202) 382—7917. Thank you for your
patience in receiving your response. The Third Third Land
Disposal Restrictions Rule has generated a significant amount of
questions. For your information, we will be reiterating the
above discussion concerning your situation in a Federal Register
Notice covering corrections to the rule. This notice should be
out by early fall.
rector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
ilO S’.._
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAl f1IflRI Ar %iCv
____ WASHINGTON.D( 9554.1990(08)
JUL31 1990
SCD . %C E\C’ P:SPC’ SE
Mr. Douglas MacMillan, Director
Hazardous Waste Policy
National Solid Wastes Management Association
1730 Rhode Island Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. MacMillan:
This letter responds to your inquiry dated June 13, 1990, to
Richard Kinch, of my staff, concerning several aspects of the
Third Third land disposal re5trictions final rule. Your letter
included questions about the following topics: multisource
leachate, treatment verification, the dilution prohibition, the
applicability of specified technology standards, effective dates,
identification of applicable waste restrictions, inorganic solid
debris, waste tracking, lab packs, underground injection, surface
impoundments, and treatment in tanks and containers. Responses
to the specific questions are presented in the same order as
included in your letter.
Please note that responses are not provided for questions
21, 23, 30, 34, 35, and 36, and the first part of question 42.
Responses to these questions will be provided in the near future.
A. MULTISOURCE LEACHATE
1. In response to your question whether mu].tisource
leachate must be manifested now as F039 -— that is, before August
8, 1990 —— the answer is no. Please see the Third Third final
rule preamble discussion at 55 FR 22650. However, it should also
be noted that the manifest under the federal hazardous waste
program only includes the Department of Transportation waste
description, not EPA’s Hazardous Waste Number.
2. Tb.. question points out a discrepancy between the
regulatory language of 40 CFR Part 268 where multisource ]eachate
nonwastewaters were granted a two—year national capacity variance
for surface disposed wastes, and the regulatory language of 40
CFR Part 148 which failed to grant such a capacity variance to
the waste when destined for underground injection. The Agency
found, upon reexamination of this’ apparent typographical error,
that other waste types destined for underground injection were
also omitted from the regulatory language by mistake (although
1
Pri,i.d R.cyckd hpw
-------
they were included in the preamble). T e effective dates for
these classifications are as follows: for F039 nonwastewaters
that are sent offsite for underground injection, the effective
date is August 8, 1990; for F039 nonwastewaters that are being
injected onsite, the effective date is November 8, 1990; and for
all F039 wastewaters, whether being injected onsite or offsite,,
the effective date is May 8, 1992. These omissions will be
addressed in a correction notice that is expected to be published
in the Federal Register in September 1990.
3. Confirmation is requested on the applicability of the
F039 nonwastewater capacity variance as it applies to
contaminated soil. The Agency ac rees that soil that is
contaminated with F039 is a nonwastewater that is subject to the
two—year national capacity variance until May 8, 1992, even if
some of the sources of the multisource leachate are from waste-
codes for which any capacity variance has expired. Please see 40
CFR 268.35(b) and (e).
4. In response to your question of what mechanism will be
allowed for adopting the F039 waste code into a permit, page
22621 of the Third Third final rule preamble explains that the
procedures that should be followed are those found in 40 CFR
270.42(g). The Agency has made the determination that if a
permit is simply being changed by substituting the F039 waste
code for the multiple waste codes that heretofore were carried
through with the leachate, then only a Class 1 permit
modification is necessary. The procedures require the submission
of a Class 1 modification by the date on which the waste becomes
subject to the new requirements, August 8, 1990.
5. The question asked is what is required for adoption of
the F039 waste code at a facility with a final Part B permit in
an authorized State which has not adopted the new F039 waste
code. The Agency points out that the new waste code is
considered a HSWA regulation immediately effective in authorized
States and implemented by EPA. Thus, the facility should submit
a Class 1 modification as described in question number four
above. This serves as a “HSWA rider” to the RCRA permit. (The
RCRA permit may have been issued by the State, EPA, or jointly by
both Agencies.) The Class 1 modification enables the facility to
manage multisource leachate under the Federal HSWA program;
therefore, the State need not take any action to recognize the
effectivemses of the modification.
6. In response to the question of whether a final disposal
facility must test for all F039 constituents even though the
generator has certified, based on his knowledge of the waste,
that certain parameters are not present, the Agency addressed the
waste analysis requirements in the Third Third final rule
preamble on page 22669. Treatment and disposal facilities may
generally rely on information provided to them by generators.
2
-------
Treatment and disposal facilities, however, must conduct periodic
detailed physical and chemical analyses of their waste streams to
assure that the appropriate Part 268 treatment standards are
being met. Even though the Agency does not specify the frequency
of such corroborative testing, this implies that a treatment or
disposal facility must test for all F039 constituents at some
time, even though the generator has certified, based on his
knowledge, that certain parameters are not present. The Agency
recognizes that waste analysis parameters and the frequency of
testing are best established on a site—specific basis. Thus, a
streamlined permit modification procedure was established in the
Third Third final rule to allow appropriate testing requirements
and frequencies to be incorporated into permits. Permit
modifications and implementation procedures are discussed at page
22621 of the Third Third preamble.
7. The scenario presented in this question is analo us to
that in question number 6. The disposal facility may generally
rely on treater-supplied information, but is also required to
perform periodic corroboratise testing.
8. The question presented is whether a TSDF may dispose of
its own solidified leachate in an onsite, non—MTR cell during the
two—year national capacity variance. The Agency set out the
requirements for wastes disposed of during a national capacity
variance in the First Third final rule on August 8, 1988. These
requirements include that wastes disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment during the period of a national capacity
variance may only be placed in a unit meeting the minimum
technological requirements (see 40 CFR 268.5(h) (2)).
9. In response to the question of whether the F039 waste
code is immediately effective on May 8, 1990, the answer is no.
The Agency delayed the effective date for the new F039
designation until August 8, 1990. This period of time, as
indicated previously, should have been used by facilities to
modify their permits to include the new waste code and their
waste analysis plans to specify the constituents and the
frequency of waste analyses. Please see the preamble discussion
at page 22650. In response to the question of notifying and
certifying requirements for F039 going for partial treatment, the
Agency requires that all constituents and applicable treatment
standards be included on the notification and certification,
regardless of whether it is sent to a facility for partial or
total trsa snt.
B. TREATMENT VERIFICATION
10. Under 40 CFR 264.13(a) (1), certain testing must occur
prior to hazardous waste management; thus, owners or operators of
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities must obtain detailed
chemical and physical analyses of representative waste samples.
3
-------
In addition, corroborative testing is now required on occasion
even where testing data is supplied. Approved waste analysis
plans will eventually specify the frequency of all testing.
11. In response to your question regarding the
certification in 40 CFR 268.7(b) (5) (iii), if the analysis is
performed by an off-site independent lab, who makes the
certification that “I have been unable to detect the inorganic
hazardous constituents...”, such a certification can be made by
the laboratory as an authorized re?resentative. The laboratory
would include this certification with the laboratory results to
become part of the TSD’s required paperwork under section 268.7.
12. This question concerns the use of the TCLP versus the
EP for measuring compliance with the characteristic lead
treatment standard and the characteristic and associated ajsenic
treatment standards. The TCLP may be used to measure compliance
for these wastes. If the waste meets the treatment standard
through analysis of the TCLP leachate, there is no requirement
that the EP must also be used. If the waste does not meet the
treatment standard through analysis of the TCLP leachate, the EP
may be used. If the treatment standard is met according to the
analysis of the leachate from use of the EP, then the waste
complies with the treatment standards.
13. This question asks for an example of the new
“referencing provision” for notifications. The preamble
discussion on page 22668 and the regulatory language of amended
section 268.7 specifies the information that is required on the
notification when referencing treatment standards. In
particular, the hazardous waste number (e.g., D003), the
subcategory of the waste (e.g., reactive cyanide subcategory),
the treatability group of the waste (e.g., nonwastevater), and
the CFR Part, section, and paragraph where the treatment standard
appears (e.g., section 268.42(a)) should all, be on the
notification when using the referencing provision. When the
treatment standard is expressed as a specified technology, the
applicable five-letter treatment code (e.g., INCIN) found in
Table 1 of section 268.42 must also be listed on the
notification.
C. DILVTION PROHIBITION
14. scenario presented is that of a waste which has
both organic. and metals (for which treatment standards have been
established) which is blended in a tank with other wastes prior
to incineration. The resultant incinerator residues meet all
organic and metal treatment standards. In response to the
question of whether further treatment of the metals is required,
the answer is no.
4
-------
15. The scenario presented is that of an F006 waste
containing both metals and c yanides above the treatment standards
that is treated by stabilization. The treatment standards are
met for both the metallic constituents and the cyanide. The
question is whether this is considered to be impermissible
dilution of the cyanide. The objectives of the dilution
prohibition are to assure that prohibited wastes are actually
treated rather than diluted, and to assure that prohibited wastes
are treated by methods that are appropriate for that type of
waste. The Agency considers stabilization of cyanide to be
impermissible dilution —- that is, stabilization is not an
appropriate method of treatment for cyanide. Stabilization
reduces the leachability of the cyanide but does not destroy it.
In the Second Third final rule, the Agency stated that
stabilization is not an applicable technology for the treatment
of the majority of cyanide wastes (54 FR 26609). This is
supported by the legislative history of RCRA section 3004 (iñ)
which indicates that Congress intended that the “destruction of
total cyanides would be required as a precondition to land
disposal” (130 Congressional Record S9179, July 25, 1984,
statement of Senator Chafee). The BDAT for cyanide is based on
the performance of alkaline chlorination. This technology
destroys the cyanide constituents and converts cyanides to carson
dioxide and nitrogen.
16. The question is what are the administrative
requirements for characteristic wastes that are blended for fuel
substitution, and in the course of blending, the characteristic
is lost. Whenever a characteristic hazardous waste loses its
characteristic (and thus its classification as a hazardous
waste), for each shipment of blended fuel, a notification and
certification must be sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator or State authorized to implement the Part 268
requirements (see 55 FR 22688, section 268.9(d)).
17. The first question is whether cyanide is considered to
be an “other inorganic.” The answer is no. The Agency does not
consider cyanide to be an other inorganic and thus suitable for
stabilization (see response to question 15). The next question
is whether a facility may stabilize cyanide wastes to meet
treatment standards if they show that there is more than just
dilution occurring. EPA maintains that merely reducing the
leachability of cyanide is inadequate treatment; the destruction
of cyanide is a precondition of land disposal. Stabilization,
therefore, would not be allowed because there is no evidence of
destruction of cyanide. An example is presented of treatment of
a waste containing 5900 ppm total cyanide that is stabilized
using a waste to additive ratio of one part waste to four parts
additive. After stabilization, the waste meets the 590 ppm total
cyanide treatment standard. The assertion is made that a ten
fold reduction in cyanide concentration has occurred, and a
maximum of less than half of that reduction is attributable to
5
-------
dilution. The question is whether this is permissible. As has
been established in this answer, and in answer number 15 above,
this is not permissible because stabilization is not an
applicable technology for the treatment of cyanide wastes.
18. The question asked is what is the difference between
aggregation by the treater of a waste and aggregation by the
generator; the example provided in the question concerns
aggregation of EP toxic metals in industrial sewer systems. The
answer is that there is no difference. In particular, toxic
characteristic wastes ordinarily may not be impermissibly diluted
(either by a generator or a treater) to meet the treatment
standards if such wastes will be land disposed in a RCRA Subtitle
C or D facility. However, if toxic characteristic wastes are
treated or disposed of in certain systems regulated under the
Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act, the dilution
prohibition does not apply. Please see the preamble disc sion
at pages 22651—22659.
D. APPLICABILITY OF SPECIFIED TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS
19. The Agency agrees with the interpretation that the
specified technology of “INCIN” does not include units such as’
boilers, furnaces, and cement kilns that burn hazardous waste for
their fuel value or material recovery (units not regulated by the
performance standards imposed on permitted incinerators). On the
other hand, Subpart 0 includes among those considered to
incinerate hazardous waste, owners or operators who burn
hazardous waste in boilers or in industrial furnaces in order to
destroy it or who burn hazardous waste in boilers or industrial
furnaces for any recycling purpose and elect to be regulated
under the subpart. Thus, the specified technology of “INCIN ”
does apply in these circumstances.
20. The Agency intended that the requirements of section
268.42(c)(3) (the requirement that lab packs are incinerated in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart 0,
and Part 265, Subpart 0), not allow burning in boilers and
industrial furnaces. The Agency intends that such lab packs be
incinerated in units subject to the performance standards of 40
CFR 264.343 or 265.343.
22. Th question seems to center around the fact that
incinerati is required for certain P and U codes, but when
these specific wastes are constituents in listed wastes,
incineration may not be required. The question asked is whether
a performance standard (concentration-based standard)
automatically exempts a waste from incineration (treatment
standard expressed as a method). The fact that a concentration-
based standard is specified does not automatically “exempt” a
waste from incineration; in many cases, incineration may be the
only technology that will achieve the concentration levels. When
6
-------
a concentration level is specified, however, there is no
requirement that incineration must be used. As far as the
concern about air emissions, for the P and U wastes for which
incineration was specified, the Agency has reason to believe that
they will pose a significant air emission risk. Very few of
these P and U wastes are found as constituents in listed wastes;
when they are, it is much more difficult to determine the air
emission risk for the listed waste matrix than it is for the
listed P and U waste which is more likely to be an industrial
grade chemical.
E. EFFECTIVE DATES
24. The question is when is the TCLP allowed for
characterizing wastes for purposes of the land disposal
restrictions. The EP should be used to characterize wastes for
purposes of hazard determination in order to see if they re
restricted under the Third Third final rule. This is true even
after the TC final rule becomes effective on September 25, 1990.
EPA interprets the statute such that wastes that exhibit the
toxicity characteristic by the TCLP but not by the EP are not
presently prohibited because such wastes are newly identified
pursuant to RCRA section 3004(g) (4).
25. The question is whether RCRA corrective action wastes
and CERCL cleanup wastes should be granted a national capacity
variance in the Third Third final rule, because such capacity
variances were granted in the First and Second Third rules.
The questioner is mistaken that national capacity variances were
granted for RCRA/CERCL actions in the First and Second Third
final rules; no such variances were granted. Rather, national
capacity variances were granted for soil and debris contaminated
with First and Second Third wastes for which BDAT was
incineration. A similar national capacity variance was granted
in the Third Third final rule for soil and debris contaminated
with Third Third wastes for which BDAT is incineration,
vitrification, or mercury retorting.
26. The request is for an update on the status of K061 high
zinc waste, as to whether it received an additional one—year
variance in the Third Third final rule. Please see the
discussion in the preamble at page 22599. Stabilization remains
a permissible way of treating this waste for one additional year.
If stabilization is used, the concentration-based standard must
be met.
F. IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE WASTE RESTRICTIONS
27. The questioner believes that there is an inconsistency
between amended 40 CFR 262.11 (that indicates, it is asserted, a
generator must determine if his waste is characteristic UNLESS it
is listed), and amended 40 CFR Part 261 (which requires that the
7
-------
determination of hazardous characteristic be made for all waste).
There is no actual inconsistency between these parts of the
regulation. Amended section 262.11 actually states two
circumstances that will indicate whether the determination of
hazardous characteristic must be made: (1) for purposes of
compliance with 40 CFR Part 268 (since no further conditions are
specified, the determination must be made for all, solid wastes
regardless of whether or not they are listed hazardous wastes)
or, (2) if the waste is not a listed hazardous waste (this
includes wastes that are not subject to the land disposal
restrictions so the determination must be made only for solid
wastes, not listed wastes).
28. An issue is raised in regard to a perceived discrepancy
between the requirements of 40 CFR 268.35(j) and 268.9(b)
regarding the rule that when a waste is a listed waste and a
characteristic waste, the more specific treatment standard
applies. The Agency has determined that treatment standards that
are in effect for listed wastes are more specific than treatment
standards in effect for characteristic wastes. The perceived
discrepancy arises when the treatment standard for the listed
waste is less stringent than the treatment standard for the
characteristic waste, as is the case in the example of chromium
in F006 (for which the treatment standard is 5.2 ppm) and EP
toxic chromium (for which the treatment standard is the
characteristic level of 5.0 ppm). The question is which
treatment standard should be met for chromium in F006, the more
specific,- or the more stringent. The rule that the more specific
treatment standard is applicable takes precedence, thus the
treatment standard for chromium in F006 is 5.2 ppm, because -it is
the treatment standard for the listed (more specific) waste.
Thus, the Agency sees no discrepancy between section 268.9(b) and
section 268.35(j).
29. A request is made for an explanation of how to classify
wastes as either characteristic wastes or listed wastes (when the
waste is considered both characteristic and listed) for purposes
of the notifications required under 40 CFR Part 268.7.
In the case of a listed waste that is classified as a
characteristic waste, the most specific treatment standard
applies (55 FR 22659) and should be included on the notification.
This means that if both the treatment standard for a listed waste
and the trsatment standard for a characteristic waste are in
effect, then the treatment standard for the listed waste applies
because it is more specific.
An example is presented of the listed waste K061, which
contains lead. Since the treatment standards for K06l are
currently in effect, the lead is subject to the K061 treatment
standard rather than the treatment standard for EP toxic lead.
The question is asked whether only the K061 waste code is
-included on the generator’s biennial report and manifests, or
8
-------
should both 1(061 and D008 (EP toxic lead) be included. Only the
1(061 waste code should be included on the generator’s biennial
report because the 1(061 treatment standard is more speci 4 !ic.
Also, since 1(061 includes a treatment standard for lead,
including the D008 waste code on the biennial report would cause
a double—counting of the volume of lead waste actually being
generated. Only the K061 waste code would be included on the
notification required under 40 CFR 268.7 (as well as all other
information required under section 268.7(a)(1)). Only the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) description is required cn the
manifest; there is no Federal requirement to list the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number.
If the treatment standard for the listed waste is subject to
an extension of the effective date (through a national capacity
variance or case—by—case extension) and the treatment standard
for the characteristic waste is in effect, then the treat ènt
standard for the characteristic waste applies because it is the
only standard that it is currently in effect. An example is
presented of the listed wastes 1(048 - K052, which contain
chromium. 1(048 — 1(052 wastes are subject to a six-month national
capacity variance; consequently, the treatment standards would
not be in effect until November 8, 1990. The treatment standard
for EP toxic chromium is effective on August 8, 1990. During the
period from May 8, 1990 until August 8, 1990, the waste is not
subject to any treatment standards due to the three—month
national capacity variance that was granted for all Third Third
wastes. Therefore, the notification would include the applicable
1(048 - 1(052 waste code and the date upon which the waste is
subject to the prohibitions (November 8, 1990), and all other
information required under section 268.7(a)(3). The notification
would also include the D007 waste code and the date upon which
the waste is subject to the prohibitions (August 8, 1990), and
all other information required under section 268.7(a) (3).
During the period from August 8, 1990 until November 8,
1990, the waste is subject to the treatment standard for EP toxic
chromium since the effective date for this waste has passed (the
1(048 - 1(052 treatment standard is still not in effect). The
notification would include the applicable 1(048 -1(052 waste code
and the date upon which the waste is subject to the prohibitions
(November $, 1990) as well as the D007 waste code and all other
information required under section 268.7(a)(1). The waste, of
course, suit be treated to meet the D007 treatment standard prior
to land disposal. When the effective date for the 1(048 - 1(052
wastes has passed (November 8, 1990), the waste will be governed
by the waste code and treatment standards for the 1(048 - 1(052
wastes, since these treatment standards are now more specific,
and the D007 waste code may be omitted from the notification.
EPA points out, however, that when the listed waste displays
‘a characteristic that is not addressed as a constituent of
9
-------
concern in the listed waste, the treatment standard for both the
listed waste and the characteristic waste must be met (55 FR
22659). EPA applies this principle at the point of generation.
Therefore, both the characteristic and the listed waste codes
must be included on the notification.
31. Please see answer number 29.
32. The question is whether on September 25, 1990 (the
effective date of the TC final rule for large quantity
generators) a waste that becomes hazardous solely due to the
change from EP testing to TCLP testing is subject to the
treatment standards. Wastes that exhibit the TCLP characteristic
but not EP toxicity are considered to be newly identified wastes.
Newly identified hazardous wastes are not subject to the land
disposal restrictions until treatment standards and prohibitions
are promulgated by the Agency. This should not be considé?ed an
‘exemption’ that one may or may not take advantage of; rather,
newly identified wastes are a category of wastes that are subject
to the schedule for promulgation of regulations found at RCRA
section 3004(g) (4).
33. The question concerns the status under the land
disposal restrictions of wastes that were previously exempted
from the definition of hazardous wastes under the Bevill
amendment. These wastes are considered to be newly identified
wastes no matter when they may be generated. See also answer
number 32. Both of these matters were discussed explicitly in
the preamble to the final Third Third rule at pages 22660 and
22667.
G. INORGANIC SOLID DEBRIS
37. This question asks whether a material that is mixed
with nonwastewater materials (such as soil) and defined as
inorganic solid debris is subject to the treatment standard for
the nonwastewater material. An example is given of a soil and
cement debris mixture that carries the D006 waste code. In the
example, the material is stabilized such that the solid fraction
meets the treatment standard. In response to the question of
whether the inorganic debris portion would be subject to the D006
treatment standard, it is difficult to determine from the example
provided hay the waste is being treated, so it is difficult to
formulate an answer. It is unclear how this mixture of soil and
debris could be stabilized to meet the treatment standard for
D006 unless the cement debris was first crushed and mixed with
the soil and then the soil/debris mixture was stabilized. If
that is the case, then the debris is subject to the D006
treatment standard because it has become part of the soil matrix
and the soil is subject to the D006 treatment standard.
10
-------
The next question is whether the inorganic solid debris is
subject to enforcement grab sampling for the purpose of testing
the mix for meeting the treatment standards. Here again, the
debris portion would of course be subject to grab sampling for
purposes of enforcing the treatment standards (because the
stabilized soil would be subject to grab sampling for enforcement
purposes). It should be remembered, however, that if the debris
portion is separated from the soil, the debris is subject to a
two—year national capacity variance as “inorganic debris.”
Inorganic debris is not required to meet the D006 treatment
standard until the effective date of May 8, 1992 (however, the
notification requirements of 268.7(a) (3) apply, and if the debris
is disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment, the unit must
meet the minimum technological requirements).
38. The question posed is whether any organics (hazardous
or nonhazardous) may be included in the classification of
inorganic solid debris. Nonhazardous organic materials are not
precluded from inclusion in the waste matrix, provided the
material meets the definition of tlinorganic solid debris” in
section 268.2.
H. WASTE TRACKING
39. A scenario is presented where a characteristic waste is
treated to below the characteristic level but the treated waste
is sent to a Subtitle C land disposal facility. The question
posed is whether the generator must notify the Agency as would be
required if the waste were disposed at a Subtitle D facility.
The answer is no; the notification should only be sent to the
Subtitle C facility. Please see the preamble discussion at page
22662.
40. The Agency is presuming that in the scenario presented,
a facility has a permit that includes a narrative description
that allows disposal of incinerator ash. If this is the case,
then the facility should be able to take any incinerator ash,
whether it is from the incineration of Third Third wastes or not.
In fact, EPA has encouraged the appropriate use of narrative
descriptions in permits to address situations just like the one
presented here. The question, however, is somewhat vague and
would actually depend upon the wording of the specific permit
language. -
41. The question asked is how often must notifications for
treated characteristic wastes (presumably that are disposed of in
a Subtitle D facility) be sent to the Regional Administrator.
Such notifications must be sent with each shipment. Please see
section 268.9(d). As to whether the notification is waste stream
specific, it is unclear exactly what is being asked. The
information that must be provided in the notification is
Specified in section 268.9(d), and includes a description of the
11
-------
waste as initially generated, including the applicable EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers and treatability group; in this sense,
the notification is waste stream specific.
I. LAB PACKS
42. Clarification is requested on whether the simplified
lab pack procedures set out in the Third Third final rule include
burning in cement kilns. Cement kilns are not included under the
new lab pack procedures. Rather, the simplified lab pack
procedures only apply if the lab pack is burned in an incinerator
in accordance with the performance standards set out in 40 CFR
264.343 (see section 268.42, Table 1, under “INCIN”).
J. UNDERGROUND INJECTION
43. Since this question pertains to the land disposal
restrictions program for underground injected waste, we will be
working with the Office of Water to prepare a response. Should
you need guidance in the meantime, please contact Bruce Kobelski
at 382—7275.
K. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
44. In response to the question of when a prohibited waste
may be placed into a surface impoundment meeting minimum
technology requirements (MTR), such a waste may be placed in a
MTR unit if it: (1) meets all applicable treatment standards; (2)
is subject to a national capacity variance or case by case
extension; or, (3) is subject to the treatment surface
impoundment exemption of 40 CFR Part 268.4. The next question is
whether a restricted waste not meeting the treatment standards
may be stored in a such a surface impoundment for up to one year
provided that all residuals not meeting the treatment standards
are removed within that year. The answer is no. Storage of
hazardous wastes is only allowable in tanks or containers;
placement of untreated hazardous waste into a unit for purposes
of storage is actually land disposal and is therefore prohibited
(unless section 268.4 is complied with). Please see RCRA section
3005(j) (11).
45. In response to the question of whether F039 that is
placed in permitted tank and is then pumped to a carbon
adsorptioa w it and then back to the tank is considered treatment
in a tank, the answer is yes. The treatment process described
may be subject to the requirements of section 262.34, including
the new waste analysis requirements of section 268.7, rather than
the requirements of 40 CFR Part 264. A determination of how to
classify this treatment process would best be made by Regional or
State permit writers who are familiar with the specifics of the
site.
12
-------
I trust these answers will be helpful in dealing with the
concerns of your membership. Since these answers were developed
in a short period of time, the answers provided in this document
represent the Agency’s initial interpretation of the situation
described by each question, and do not necessarily reflect the
Agency’s final position. Answers to many of your questions will
appear in the forthcoming corrections notice to the Third Third
final rule. If you have any further questions, please feel free
to call Matthew A. Straus of my staff at (202) 382—6972.
Sylvia K. Lowrance, irector
- Office of Solid Waste
13
-------
UNITED SL..ES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION A....4CY
9554.1990( 09)
NiB $3)
Mr. Phillip L. Comella
Senior Counsel
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
3001 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Dear Mr. Comella:
This letter is in response to your letter dated July 13,
1990, concerning the final Third Third Rule. In your letter, you
presented an example of a soil that is contaminated with U059,
P093, and KOOl and that exhibits the characteristic of lead
(D008). As you stated in your letter, U059 and P093 are Third
Third wastes and are subject to a technology—based standard of
incineration. KOOl is a First Third Waste with a numerical
treatment standard based on incineration followed by
stabilization of the ash. D008 is a Third Third waste with a
numerical treatment standard based on stabilization. You have
asked the following questions:
1. Because no capacity variance exists past August 8, 1990
for D008 wastes, must the soil be stabilized to meet•
the D008 treatment standard?
2. Because the KOOl soil and debris variance expires
August 8, 1990, must the soil be incinerated and then
the resulting ash stabilized after that date?
3. If the soil did not contain KOOl, must the soil be
stabilized?
The response to your first question is that the soil would
not need to be stabilized in order to meet the treatment standard
for D008 wastes. On page 22650 of the June 1, 1990
Recister notice, the Agency specifically states that if soil and
debris are contaminated with Third Third prohibited wastes whose
treatment standard is based on incineration (for example U059 and
P093) and also with other prohibited waste whose treatment
standard is based on an available type of technology (for example
D008), the soil and debris would remain eligible for the
national car,acity variance. Therefore, in your examole the soil
would r iiai,n liaTh1e fora capacity variange .
-------
UNE1 D sk.. gN!NVlRopO1ENTAL PROTECTION A .NCY
2
In reBponse to your second question, the soil would have to
be treated to meet the KOOl treatment standard for the organics
and metals after August 8, 1990. In response to your third
question, if the soil was not contaminated with KOOl, then the
soil would not have to be treated and would remain eligible for
the national capacity variance. During a national capacity
variance, if these wastes are disposed of in a landfill that unit
would have to meet the minimum technological requirements as
described in 3004(o).
Also, in your letter, you requested a clarification of
whether the contaminated soil in question remains eligible for
only the U059 and P093 variance or whether it also has a variance
from the D008 treatment standard. You asked this question due to
the preamble language on page 22660 stating that, for wastes that
are subject to more than one treatment standard, during the
period of a national capacity variance for one of the wastes, the
treatment standards for any other waste codes that have not
received such a variance must be met. The answer is that the
Agency does distinguish between a contaminated soil and debris
and other prohibited wastes. The example the Agency presents on
page 22660 is only for listed wastes not for contaminated soil
and debris. The Agency does not believe that adequate capacity
exists to treat soil and debris. Therefore, a soil contaminated
with U059, P093, and D008 would be eligible for the capacity
variance but a sludge or listed waste that is contaminated with
U059, P093, and D008 would have to be treated in order to comply
with the treatment standard for D008.
If you should have any further questions, please do not
hesitate to call Monica Chatmon-McEaddy, of my staff, at
475—7243.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9554.1990(10)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
2319gj
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESFONSE
Mr. Douglas MacMillan, Director
Hazardous Waste Policy
National Solid Wastes Management Association
Suite 1000
1730 Rhode Island Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. MacMillan:
In light of a question that has arisen about the responses
to questions 21 and 42 in our letters to you of July 31 and
August 8, 1990, I am sending this clarification to ensure that no
misunderstanding exists about EPA’S current position. Our
responses to questions 21 and 42 indicated that where EPA has
specified a particular technology as the treatment standard,
wastes governed by that standard must be treated using that
method. If the specified method is incineration, this requires
treatment in a device subject to the 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart 0
regulations, or a device that makes the equivalency demonstration
under 40 CTR 268.42.
This response is consistent with prior EPA pronouncements,
such as the preamble to the Third Third rule (see, for example,
55 FR 22536, June 1, 1990). However, our responses to questions
21 and 42 may be misinterpreted because our statement on
treatment standards and equivalency demonstrations addresses only
prohibited waste; it does not address restricted waste sent to a
device that is exempt under the Bevill amendment. A restricted
waste sent to a Bevill device would not be prohibited so long as
the residues from the waste processing remain within the scope of
the Bevill amendment (55 YR 22660—61).
As EPA indicated in the proposal to regulate boilers and
industrial furnaces (54 FR 43718, Oct. 26, 1989), we will
examine the issue of how to determine if residues from co—
processing Bevill raw materials and hazardous waste remain within
the scope of any Bevill amendment exclusion. Also, please note
that wastes sent to a Bevill device are still subject to the
administrative tracking requirements for restricted wastes under
the land disposal restrictions, but would not have to meet a
specified BDAT standard before land disposal (55 PR 22662).
R.c ct.d P. .r
-------
I trust that this clarification removes any uncertainty that
may have arisen from our earlier responses. If you have further
questions, please feel free to call Matthew A. Straus of my staff
at (202)382—6972.
t rector
of Solid Waste
-------
9554.1990(11)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 ’ ‘II—
MJ624 100
OFFICE OF
SOLIO WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Keith D. Colamarino
Senior Project Engineer
RENCOR, Inc.
701 Alpha Drive
P. 0. Box 38310
Pittsburgh, PA 15238-8.310
Dear Mr. Colainarino:
In your letter of August 10, 1990, you expressed concern
with regard to the correction notice in the August 2, 1990
Federal Register (55 31387). The statement which you quoted
from page 31388 of the August 2 notice is somewhat misleading.
The statement should have said that the Extraction Procedure (EP)
will no longer be used for hazardous waste identification
purposes.
As you are aware, the treatment standards for certain lead
and arsenic waste were based on the EP, and therefore, either the
EP or the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) can
currently be used to demonstrate compliance under Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) for D006 (arsenic) and D008 (lead) wastes.
Since the EP can still be used for this purpose, it is so noted
in the regulatory language of the LDR regulation.
Currently, the Waste Treatment Branch is amending the
regulatory language of the May 8, 1990 Third Third final rule
(55 22520, June 1, 1990) to resolve this issue. This will be
done as part of a correction notice that will state that Appendix
I of Part 268 (TCLP) or SW—846 test method 1310 (EP) may be used
for measuring compliance. This correction notice is expected to
be published in the Federal Register before the end of the year.
Until the CFR is revised, the EP can be found in current CFR
(Part 261, App. II) and as Method 1310 in SW—846, “Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste (Physical/Chemical Methods),” Third
Edition; thereafter, the EP can readily be found only in SW-846.
PrLi&.d R.cyclad Papar
-------
I hope that this letter resolves any inconsistencies created
by the August 2 correction notice. If you would like to discuss
this further or have other concerns, please contact the
Characteristics Section of the Office of Solid Waste at
(202) 475—8551.
Sinc ly r,
a
r ctor
Office of Solid Waste
—2—
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9554.1990(12)
AUGUST 1990
2. Point of Generation
Two process units, one producing a strong acidic solution with a pH less
than 2.0 and another producing a strong basic solution with a pH greater
than 12.0, are individually joined by short lengths of pipe to a common
collecting pipe. These solutions, upon contact, neutralize one another.
This co-mingled wastestrearn no longer exhibits the characteristic of
corrosivity. Would this waste be considered hazardous and subject to land
disposal restrictions or, due to its neutral status only be subject to RCRA
Subtitle D regulation?
The facts as given show two hazardous wastes with the characteristic
of corrosivity. The points of generation are both upstream of the
combination in the common collecting pipes. These wastes are
subject to the land disposal restrictions. Removing the characteristic
of corrosivity by combining these wastes can satisfy the treatment
requirement of deactivation set out in 40 CFR 268.42, Table 2.
Dilution may not be appropriate if there are other treatment
requirements for the waste matrices. See 55 , 22549, 22659 (June 1,
1990). The commingled wastestream, if not otherwise hazardous, is
not subject to any other Subtitle C regulations, including permitting.
Contact Debbie Wood, OSW (202) 382-7937
Research: Steve Baker
-------
UNITEL. TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO. AGENCY 9554.1990(13)
OV 2 0 1990
Mr. William J. Ziegler
Vice President of Health,
Safety and Environmental Affairs
ThermalKEM, Inc.
454 S. Anderson Rd.
BTC 532
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Dear Mr. Ziegler:
I am writing in response to your letter, dated October 19,
1990, requesting clarification of the wording in the Third Third
final rule regarding the alternative treatment standards for lab
packs. The point requiring clarification is found at 40 CFR
264.316(f) and 40 CFR 265.316(f) which specifies that “persons
who incinerate lab packs according to the requirements in 40 CFR
268.42(c) (1) may use fiber drums in place of metal outer
containers. Such fiber drums must meet the DOT (Department of
Transportation] specifications in 49 CPR 173.12...” You
requested clarification of whether the word “drum” precludes the
use of other acceptable DOT container types, such as fiber and
wooden boxes.
The Agency added this provision allowing use of fiber
(rather than metal) drums for overpacking lab packs based on
several comments received on the Agency’s proposed approach (see,
for instance, comment number LD12—O01l0 from ThermalKEM/CyanoKEM,
comment number LD12-00124 from Rollins Environmental Services,
and comment number LD12-00172 from the Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council). Commenters stated that lab packs destined for
incineration are usually packaged in fiber packs that are DOT
approved under 49 CFR 173.12. These fiber packs are utilized
since th. container can be incinerated without opening or
emptying th. container. Commenters urged EPA to accept this DOT
allowanc. for fiber packages for lab packs and to reference the
citation to 49 CFR 173.12 instead of, or in addition to, the 40
CFR 264.316 and 265.316 citations which refer to requirements for
lab packs overpacked in metal drums that were primarily designed
for landfilling untreated wastes.
-------
The DOT requirements at 49 CFR 173.12 presents criteria to
be used in selecting a proper outside package. Paragraph (b) of
49 CFR 173.12 states:
The outside packaging must be a DOT specification
metal or fiber drum. It may also be a
polyethylene drum capable of withstanding:
1. The vibration and compression tests specified
in 178.19—7(c) (1) and (2), and
2. A four foot drop test as specified in
178.224—2(b).
The Agency found the commenters’ argument about the danger
posed by opening metal drums and emptying inner containers prior
to incineration persuasive. The Agency agreed that if fiber
drums were used, the entire lab pack unit could be incinerated.
Furthermore, the Agency agreed that the DOT requirements for the
structural integrity of fiber drums would assure that lab packs
were transported in a safe container to incinerators. Therefore,
the provision was made in 40 CFR 264.316(f) and 265.316(f) that
fiber drums were acceptable, and the reference to 49 CFR 173.12
was incorporated into these sections.
As to a clarification of 49 CFR 173.12, it is the Agency’s
understanding that when DOT regulations specify drums , that is
indeed what is meant. Thus, fiber or wooden boxes or other
containers not meeting the DOT specifications in 49 CFR Parts 178
—— 199 for fiber drums may not be used as outer containers for
lab packs. The DOT specifications, however, include several
types of fiber drums, and any of these would be acceptable as
outer containers for lab packs.
Additionally, you request clarification of the effect the
performance packaging specifications proposed in HM181 will have
on lab packs when they are implemented in December of 1990.
Based on the Agency’s understanding of the proposed
specifications, they should have very little impact on the lab
pack requirements. The performance-oriented packaging provisions
will specify criteria for fiber drums (as well as other DOT outer
containers) based on the DOT hazard classification of the
materials being transported (e.g., flammable liquids). The DOT
expects that such criteria will add flexibility to the
requirements for outer containers inasmuch as they may be built
in any design, or of various materials, so long as they meet the
criteria for that particular hazard classification. As to the
expected effect the performance—oriented packaging provisions
will have on lab packs, the Agency foresees that the generator
may be required to give additional attention to packing only
wastes that fit within one DOT hazard classification in the lab
pack; however, given that all the wastes included in the
Appendices to 40 CFR 268 are capable of being incinerated, the
-------
Agency expects that most of these wastes will fall within one or
two of the DOT hazardous classifications (i.e., flammable
liquids, flammable solids).
I hope this letter clarifies the meaning of “fiber drum” as
it pertains to lab packs regulated under the land disposal
restrictions. If additional information is needed about current
DOT specifications for fiber drums, the DOT hazard
classifications, or proposed HM181, please contact DOT directly.
If additional information is needed about the alternative
treatment standards for lab packs, please call Rhonda Craig of
EPA’S Waste Treatment Branch at (703) 308—8434.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
% TI
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9554.1990(14)
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE O
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
r I:’ :r
,_ I
Mr. Kevin S. Dunn
Project Manager
Environmental Policy Center
Law Companies Environmental Group
1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 711
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Dunn:
This letter is in response to your letter dated
November 16, 1990 requesting clarification on certain issues
regarding treatment standards for certain mixed radioactive
wastes.
With regards to Ouestion 1 (as referred to in your letter),
“placement in a heavy stainless steel box and welding the box
closed” would not be considered to comply with the standard
identified as “MACRO” in 268.42 Table 1 (55 22693 (June 1,
1990). This standard is quite clearly described in regulatory
language in Table 1 as “Macroencapsulation with surface coating
materials such as polymeric organics (e.g., resins and plastics)
or with a jacket of inert inorganic materials to substantially
reduce surface exposure to potential leaching media. Macro-
encapsulation specifically does not include any material that
would be classified as a tank or container according to 40 CFR
260.10” (emphasis added). Paraphrasing the regulatory language,
compliance with the macroencapsulation standard explicitly
prohibits containerization of wastes or materials in a tank or
container meeting th. regulatory criteria under the 40 CFR
260.10.
This is not the same situation as where the U.S. Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program wanted to land dispose defueled
submarine reactor compartments. The information provided by the
Navy indicated that the “jacket of inert inorganic materials”
(i.e., the steel surrounding the lead) could “substantially
reduce surface exposure to potential leaching media” and that
due to their size and structure these compartments would not be
classified as a tank or container according to the definitions
in 40 CFR 260.10. EPA purposely modified the proposed standard
for D008 radioactive lead solids to include “jackets of inor-
ganic materials” in order to specifically account for these
submarine reactor compartments. EPA felt that it was necessary
-------
—2—
to add the language to the definition of macroencapsulation to
prevent the “jacket of inorganic material” from being
interpreted as including materials that are merely containers or
drums.
With regards to the plastic coated, lead lined gloves in
Question 2 of your letter, they would be considered to comply
with the standard identified as “MACRO” provided that none of
the lead is exposed (i.e., the entire surface of the lead is
coated) and provided that the coating provides a substantial
reduction in surface exposure to potential leaching media (i.e.,
the gloves should not be expected to be exposed to physical,
chemical, or thermal conditions where the integrity of the
surface coating could likely be breached). With regards to the
lead weights in Question 2 , the wastes may be considered to meet
the specified method of “MACRO”, as generated, provided the
stainless steel surrounding the lead weights does not meet the
definition of a tank or container and provided a substantial
reduction in surface exposure to potential leaching media can be
determined.
The standard identified as “MACRO” currently applies only
to D008 wastes fitting the description of “Radioactive Lead
Solids” as defined in Table 3 of 268.42 (55 22700, (June 1,
1990)) (e.g., those wastes containing elemental lead forms of
lead or that act specifically as radioactive shielding). This
standard is currently not applicable to the D006 wastes referred
to in Ouestion 3 . These D006 wastes would have to comply with
the concentration-based standard for D006 which is based on a
TCLP analysis. Verification of compliance with this standard
would require crushing or grinding of the material and
compliance cannot be achieved by dilution. Thus, macroencapsu-
lation processes would not comply with existing BDAT standards
for metals.
Other than a treatability variance your D006 waste may be
macroencapsulated if a no-migration petition is granted. As of
today, EPA had only granted a two-year capacity variance for
mixed wastes from the statutory deadline prohibiting the
disposal of mixed wastes scheduled in the First, Second, and
Third Third wastes. Previous capacity variances issued for
mixed wastes scheduled in the Solvent and Dioxin Rule and the
California List Wastes Rule had expired and thus, these mixed
wastes are banned from land disposal units unless they meet the
promulgated treatment standards.
-------
—3—
I trust this letter addresses all your concerns and
clarifies any outstanding issues you may have had on the
applicability of the treatment standard identified as “MACRO”.
If you need further clarification, please contact Richard Kinch,
Chief of the Waste Treatment Branch, at (703) 308-8434.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP 2 6 9554.1990(15)
O ’CE oc
SO ’O WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Consultation with Region V on ARAB Waiver for Moss
American Site
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia nse
TO: Norman Niedergang, Associate Director,
Waste Management Division, Region V
Pu r ose
The purpose of this memorandum is to follow-up the
consultation held with Region V on August 28, 1990, on the Moss
American Site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The purpose of the
consultation was to discuss a waiver of the Subtitle C
impermeable cap required for on—site containment of RCRA 1(001
(wood preserving wastes) treatment residues. Based on our
discussion, Region V will waive the Subtitle C cap because a
permeable cap will enhance ground-water treatment.
Another issue raised by Region V during the consultation
concerns whether disposal of treate4wastes from the Northeast
Landfill area of the site must occur iniunit meeting the
minimum technological requirements of RCRA. This memorandum
clarifies that these wastes may be disposed in the existing unit
(area of contamination) c ross the river from the Northeast
Landfill , which, after receipt of the treated wastes will be
closed, and RCRA standards that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARABs) will be attained (unless a
statutory waiver is justified). Such consolidation does not
trigger the minimum technological requirements of RCRA.
Ba ckg round
Region V is seeking a waiver from the requirement to install
a Subtitle C impermeable cap on a landfill that will contain KOOl
RCRA wastes treated to meet the treatment standards under the
land disposal restrictions (through a treatability variance). A
permeable cap will enhance ground-water treatment while
preventing direct contact with treatment residues. The permeable
cap will enable ground-water treatment to occur in a period of
?rvjgd ‘ Rir cs d P ’
-------
2
seven to ten years rather than 200 years, the estimated timeframe
necessary if an impermeable cap is installed. Because of the
unique site characteristics and the remedy selected, installation
of a Subtitle C impermeable cap, therefore, would result in
greater risk to health and the environment by preventing natural
flushing and significantly delaying and reducing the
effectiveness of ground-water remediation. The Region should
include performance standards in the Record of Decision (ROD) to
verify the protectiveness of the remedy.
During the consultation, Region V also raised a question
related to disposal of 1 (001 waste from the Northeast Landfill
area of contamination. The Region intends to move these wastes
(approximately 1000 cubic yards) across the Little Menomonee
River, treat them in compliance with the land disposal
restrictions (through a treatability variance), dispose of them
on—site in an existing unit (the area of contamination (AOC)
southwest of the river), and clean close the Northeast Landfill
area. Based on its understanding of the RCR.A closure
requirements, the Region had proposed disposing of these wastes
in a unit meeting the minimum technological requirements of RCRA
in the Proposed Plan for the site.
The Region questioned this requirement during the
consultation due to the resulting effect: a hazardous waste
landfill meeting the minimum technological requirements of RCRA
would be constructed in a previously uncontaminated area of the
site, next to an existing unit meeting RCRA ARARs, and both units
would contain 1(001 wastes treated to the same levels.
Specifically, the Region’s question concerns whether disposal of
the Northeast Landfill waste must occur in a minimum
technological unit under the RCRA closure requirements, or
whether the waste may be disposed in the existing unit/AOC,
which, upon closure, will attain (or waive) RCRA ARARs.
Since the consultation, it has been determined that the
Northeast Landfill waste may be disposed in the existing unit/AOC
without triggering the minimum technological requirements of
RCRA. Such disposal may occur because the AOC is an existing
unit’ and does not meet the definition of any of the following
units which must meet the minimum technological requirements: a
new unit, a unit that has been laterally expanded, or a
replacement unit. It is clear that the original area of
contamination is not a new unit, nor is it being laterally
expanded. The question, then, is whether the unit would be
considered a replacement unit.
See preamble to 1990 NC?, 55 FR 8760 (March 8, 1990).
(“EPA believes that it is appropriate generally to consider
CERCLA areas of contamination as a single RCPA land-based unit or
‘landfill’.”)
-------
3
A replacement unit is defined as a unit “that is taken out
of service and emptied by removing all or substantially all waste
from it.” (50 FR 28706, July 15, 1985)2 The existing unit/ oc at
the Moss American site would only be considered a replacement
tinit if all or significantly all of the waste had been removed
from the unit and new waste subsequently disposed there. The
intent of a replacement unit is that once a unit has been taken
out of service and the waste removed, before the unit may be put
back into service, the unit must be retrofit to meet the minimum
technological requirements.
The existing unit/AOC at the Moss American site, therefore,
does not fit the definition or intent of a replacement unit.
Rather, the waste in the existing unit/AOC will be treated in
batches using bioremediation (in compliance with the land
disposal restrictions) and returned to the unit which will later
be closed, and RCRA ARARs will be attained (or waived). Wastes
from the Northeast Landfill area will also be treated and
consolidated with the wastes in the existing unit/AOc. This
consolidation will occur in an existing unit (the original area
of contamination), without lateral expansion of the unit.
Furthermore, this AOC will not fit the definition of a new or
replacement unit, as discussed above. The status of the existing
unit/AOc will not change, and therefore will not be required to
meet the minimum technological requirements.
Implementation
Based on our discussion, the Region will waive the
requirement to install a Subtitle C impermeable cap based on
greater risk to health and the environment, and will emphasize in
the Record of Decision that the permeable cap actually acts as
part of the treatment system, enhancing its effectiveness.
2 CERCLA guidance defines as a replacement unit, an existing
unit where: “(1) the unit is taken out of service; (2) all or
substantially all of the waste is removed; and (3) the unit is
reused, which does not include removal and replacement of waste
into the same unit.” OSWER Directive No. 9234.2—04F5 (October
1989), “RCRA ARARs,” page 6.
-------
4
The Region Vii ]. also state in the ROD that the Northeast
Landfill wastes wii] be disposed in the Original area of
contamination in compliance with the land disposal restrictions.
cc: John Reiley (Region V, R R.3)
Jon Dikinis (Region V 1 MI/WI Section)
Doug Ballotti (Region V, Unit 39)
Betty Lavis (Region V 1 RPM)
Paul Nadeau (HSCD)
Bill Hanson (ROGB)
Tim Mott (OWPE)
Robin Anderson (ROGB)
Steve Golian (ROGB)
Andrea McLaughlin (ROGB)
Ernest Watkins (OWPE)
-------
UNI1 STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT.. 4 AGENCY
9554.1991(01)
JAN 8 1991
Richard 7. Pastor
Director, Government Relations
Envirosafe Mgt. Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 833
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482—0833
Dear Mr. Pastor:
This letter is in response to your letter dated October 25,
1990, concerning a possible inconsistency in the Agency’s policy
on the regulation of cyanides under the Land Disposal Restrictions
Program of RCRA. In particular, you indicated specific instances
where you believe the Agency has been inconsistent in its position
on the use of stabilization for wastes containing cyanides. I
hope that this letter will help to clarify this matter. In that
vein, I would like to review the points you raised in some detail,
and to provide an explanation of our views, particularly as to the
full meaning of preamble language in the Land Disposal Restriction
rules.
First, you referred to the promulgation of the First Third
Land Disposal Restrictions (53 31152) for F006 wastes, where
the Agency stated that the treatment standards for F006 were based
on stabilization using cement kiln dust and that the use of other
agents in the stabilization process is not precluded. Then you
noted the statement that EPA does not consider stabilization an
appropriate BDAT for cyanides. While you did not discuss these
references any further, you seemed to imply that when compared to
each other, an inconsistent policy on cyanides could be seen.
However, a closer examination of the First Third Land
Disposal Restrictions shows that the Agency did establish
treatment standards based on stabilization, but on].v for the
metals contained in P006. (Note: The First Third LDR rule
-------
2
promulgated treatment standards for cyanides in F006 wastes as
“reserved”). The preamble for F006 wastes (53 31152, column
3) specifies the Agency’s position on stabilization of cyanides
in F006 wastes versus stabilization of metals by stating; “EPA
does not consider stabilization—-BDAT for the metals in this
waste--to be a demonstrated technology for the treatment of
cyanide.” This statement is, to my reading, an accurate
reflection of EPA’S current position.
Your letter also emphasized some of the Agency’s language in
the Second Third LDR rule (54 26609) as follows: “The Agency
does not agree with commenters that stabilization is an applicable
technology for the treatment of the maioritv of cyanide wastes .
While some data may indicate that stabilization processes appear
to reduce the leachability of some forms of cyanides, the Agency
contends that destruction of cyanide is clearly a preferred
treatment method. ” Your added emphasis appears to imply that the
Agency was trying to indicate a degree of uncertainty about its
position. Your letter then quotes a later section of the preamble
as follows: “... based on the review of the available treatment
data, the Agency believes that the conventional cyanide treatment
technologies provide substantial treatment of both the amenable
and total cyanide concentrations as measured by the cyanide
amenable to chlorination test in method 9010 (EPA Publication SW-
846. ”
Emphasis of these passages appears to give the impression
that the Agency was stressing the use of the test method to meet
the numerical treatment standard as being more important than
destroying the cyanide. However, the language that directly
precedes the emphasized phrase sheds light on how to read the
quoted passage, i.e., that the Agency believes that conventional
cyanide treatment technologies provide the necessary treatment to
achieve these standards. This is in agreement with the
legislative history (cited in our preamble and your letter) that
- “destruction of total cyanides would be required as a precondition
to land disposal.”
Certainly, the Agency is on record as saying that “other
technologies that can achieve these concentration based standards
are not precluded from use.” However, this statement cannot be
taken alone, and all other applicable regulatory language must be
considered. In particular, section 268.3(a) states that “... no
generator, transporter, handler, or owner or operator of a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility shall dilute a restricted
waste as a substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance
-------
3
with subpart D of this part, ... •“ Given the Agency’s firm
position that cyanides must be destroyed and that stabilization,
as cyanide treatment, is considered impermissible dilution based
on the current lack of substantive evidence of cyanide destruction
in the stabilization process, use of general statements to
contradict specific determinations on BDAT standards is not the
appropriate reading of our intentions.
Your letter also refers to a letter dated June 13, 1990, from
Douglas Mac Millan of NSWMA to Richard Kinoh of EPA. The example
referred to in your letter as question number 15 is really NSWMA’s
question number 17, a hypothetical situation for stabilization of
cyanides not supported by any submitted data. Our July 31, 1990,
response was that “destruction of cyanides is a precondition for
land disposal” and that the situation presented in question number
17 “is not permissible because stabilization is not an applicable
technology for the treatment of cyanide wastes.” I have enclosed
a copy of EPA’s response.
The Agency has established a treatment standard for the
majority of cyanide wastes at 590 mg/kg total cyanides based on
data from well-designed, well-operated cyanide destruction tech-
nologies. (Lower standards have been established for a few
cyanide wastes.) As noted in the administrative record for the
Second Third LDR Rule, data from certain land disposal facilities
indicate that the majority (85%) of F006 wastes were below the
original proposed treatment standard of 110 mg/kg total cyanides.
In fact very few wastes that were treated for cyanides indicated
total cyanides of 5,900 mg/kg (as in question 17) or as much as
1% (as in your intended waste acceptance policy). Perhaps these
cyanide wastes that you were considering for stabilization did not
receive efficient cyanide treatment in the first place.
Your reference to the “on—going” stabilization of FOOl, F002,
F003, F004, and F005 solvents does not really bear upon the
Agency’s position on cyanides. Given what we consider to be a
clear indication of our position on the stabilization of cyariides
in regulatory discussions, the determinations of BDAT for these
solvents should not raise any indirect ambiquities on our separate
decisions for cyanide.
I trust that the fuller explanations above will assist you
in working with the treatment standards for cyanides as a pre-
cursor to land disposal. I encourage you to continue to discuss
this matter more fully with members of my staff if any questions
-------
4
still remain. In that event, I suggest that you contact Richard
Kinch, Acting Chief of the Waste Treatment Branch (703-308-8434).
I am certain that Erivirosafe shares our concern about the safe and
effective treatment and disposal of cyariides. We look forward to
continued mutual efforts in this regard.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9554. 1991 (02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUIQIARY
JANUARY 1991
1. Classification of Leachate Contaminated Ground Water
Hazardous waste migration from an active Subtitle C landfill has resulted in local
ground water contamination. As part of a corrective action at the facility, 400-
gallons contaminated ground water are withdrawn from the uppermost aquifer
and will be sent off-site for underground injection. During the course of the clean-
up, thef lity determined that a leachate resulting from the disposal of a variety of
listed hazardous wastes is responsible for the contamination. In accordance with the
EPA “contained-in” policy, the ground water must be managed as a hazardous
waste, namely the leachate from the landfill. For the purposes of compliance with
the Land Disposal Resthctions in 40 CFR Part 268, what hazardous waste
classification and treatment standard would apply to the ground water?
The leachate meets the definition of a multi-source leachate that is derived from
the.treatment, storage or disposal of more than one listed waste, exduding P020-
F0 and F026-F028. In the Third Third Land Disposal Resthctions rule
pr mulgated on June 1, 1990 (55 E 22520), EPA announced its decision to
eliminate the practice of classifying multi-source leachate according to the
various listed wastes from which it was derived. In this rule, the Agency
established a separate treatability group for multi-source leachate, classified by
a single waste code, F039. (55 22619) The effective date for this new
designation was August 8, 1990, at which time the landfill facility was required
to dassify its ground water, or more precisely, the multi-source leachate
contained in the ground water, as F039. (55 22650)
Although the F039 waste dassification became effective August 8, 1990, EPA
granted a two-year national capacity variance until May 8,1992, for F039
wastewaters that are destined for underground injection (40 CFR Part 148.16).
The extension of the effective date was based upon EPA’s assessment that
current treatment capacity for underground injected P039 wastewaters was
insufficient to require an irnxnediate LDR prohibition effective date. (55
22646) During the period in which the variance is in effect, the P039 ground
water mixture, if disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment, must be
managed in a unit that satisfies the minimum technological standards in RCRA
Section 3004(o)(l)(A) (see 40 CFR 268.5(h)(2)]. After May 8, 1992, the F039
ground water must meet the F039 treatment standards for all applicable
constituents as described in 40 CFR Part 268.43, Table CCW, prior to
underground injection. (55 22623-22626)
Source: Rhonda Craig, 05W (703) 308-8462
Research: Karen Alex
-------
9554.1991(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTffl Y SUNMARY
APRIL 1991
1. Treatment of Reirijected Ground Water Resulthtg from RCRA Corrective Action
For the purposes of RCRA corrective action, must all contaminated groundwater
that is withdrawn from an underlying drinking water aquifer be treated to BDAT
standards established in the land disposal resthctions (40 CFR Part 268) prior to
reinjection of the water into the same aquifer?
No. There are two provisions which potentially restrict or prohibit injection of
contaminated groundwater: the Land Disposal ResthCtions(LDRs) under
RCRA Section 3004 and the injection prohibited under RCRA Section 3020(a).
Groundwater which is not contaminated with “hazardous waste” is not
subject to either LDRs or Section 3020. Groundwater which contains
ha7-ardous waste, but for which there is no LDR standards, is subject only to
Section 300.
RCRA Section 3020(a), prohibits the injection of a l 72rdous waste by
underground injection into or above an aquifer formation which contains an
underground source of drinking water. Section 3020(b) specifies that such
prohibition does not apply to contaminated groundwater which is reinjected
into the aquifer from which it was withdrawn if three criteria are met 1) it is
part of corrective action required under RCRA or CERCLA intended to clean-
up such contamination; 2) the contaminated groundwater is treated to
substantially reduce haz2rdous constituents prior to reinjection; and 3) the
proposed corrective action will be sufficient to protect human health and the
environment upon completion.
Groundwater which is contaminated by a hazardous waste for which there
are promulgated LDRs are also sub ject to the prohibition in Section 3020(a).
Moreover, EPA has interpreted the waiver provision under Section 3020(b) to.
also be available for these wastes. OSWER Directive #9234.1-06. Under
this interpretation, the Section 3004 LDRs otherwise applicable to disposal o
contaminated groundwater have been superceded, where the waste is
disposed by underground injection, by the resthctions on such disposal
under Section 3020. Thus, if the implementing agency at a particular site
finds that the treatment of groundwater as part of the response action has
substantially reduced” the hazardous consituents and the response action is
sufficient to protect human health and the environment,” then the
groundwater may be reinjected even if it does not meet otherwise applicable
BDAT requirements.
Source: Dave Fagan, OSW (202) 382-4497
Research: Karen R. Alex
-------
9554.1991(04)
R A/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONThbY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 1991
2. SW-846 Test Methods
Are the test methods published in “Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical
(erhods.” known as SW-846. required to show
compliance with 40 CFR Parr 268 land disposal
restrictions ILDE) in situations where the treatment
standard is expressed as a concentration? Are SW-
346 methods required to show compliance with Part
261, Subpart C hazardous waste characteristics?
Generally, the test methods found in SW-846 are
not required but are intended to serve as guidance.
EPA recommends these methods for evaluating
solid waste arid the Agency will use the
recommended methods in enforcement situations.
There are a handful of exceptions to this rule where
specific test methods are required.
Compliance with LDR for wastes that have a
treatment standard expressed as constituent
concentrations in wastes (CCW. §268.43) can be
shown using any appropriate method. This section
does not specifically require the use of
SW-846 methods. If the waste treamient standard is
expressed as constituent concentrations in waste
extfãcts (CCWE. §268.41). then the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCL.P), which is
specifically referenced in §268.41(a). must be
performed. Following that, however, any
appropriate method may be used to determine
concentrations of hazardous constituents in the
extract and to show compliance with LDR.
Similarly, in identifying Part 261, Subpart C
characteristics. § 262.11 provides that a generator
has the option of applying knowledge of the
hazardous characteristics of the waste in light of the
‘ iaterials or the processes used. or testing the
aterial to determine whether or not it is a
hazardous waste. If the generator chooses to test. he
must use the method prescribed in Subpart C of 40
CFR Part 261. The to ucity criaracteristic. for
amoie. references method 1311. the TCLP. whic ,
must be used to obtain an extract of the waste.
Following that, as with LDR, any appropriate
method may be used to analyze the extract for
hazardous constituents. In determining the
characteristic of ignitability. the regulations
reference two specific test methods, the Pensky-
Martens (method 1010) and the Setaflash
(method 1020), either of which must be
employed when testing. The characteristic of
corrosivity also references a specific test
method. If the generator chooses to test the pH
of a given waste stream, method 9040 must be
used.
Several other regulatory sections also require
the use of SW-846 test methods. For example.
in completing a petition to deist a waste from a
specific facility, SW-846 methods must be used
in accordance with §260.22.
-------
9554 .1992(01)
to Sy 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
+ 4 0 tC
N ’ 1 _5 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. W.C. Rankin, Supervisor
Environmental Affairs
Olin Chemicals
P.O. Box 248
Lower River Road
Charleston, TN 37310
Dear Mr. Rankin:
Thank you for your letter dated September 8, 1992 to Mr.
Larry Rosengrant of my staff in which you raised several
questions concerning the final rule on newly listed wastes and
hazardous debris (57 FR 37194, August 18, 1992).
You first asked for clarification as to whether after D009
debris is treated with a specified technology, is it still
regulated for the treated characteristic or as a contained-in
waste. Once characteristic debris is treated to meet the
performance and/or design and operating standards and contaminant
restrictions for each regulated constituent, and no longer
exhibits the characteristic, it is no longer regulated as
hazardous waste. (However, if the waste does still exhibit the
characteristic, i 1 .. still contains a hazardous waste and must be
disposed of in a Subtitle C facility.)
Your second request was for some relief from the requirement
to thermally roast materials which are non-debris because they
are less than 60 nun in size. If a mixture of material is
comprised primarily of debris, by volume, based on visual
inspection, then the entire mixture is debris. In other words.
if a mixture of items less than 60 nun in size and items greater
than 60 irun in size is comprised mostly of the larger items, then
the whole mixture is considered debris and would be subject to
the applicable debris treatment standard if contaminated with
hazatdous waste. Mixtures which are not primarily debris are
sub:cct to the LDR treatment standards in 40 CFR 268.41, 268.42.
and 268.43. Relief from those standards may be obtained through
an equivalency demonstration ( 268.42(b)), or a treatability
variance (S268.44).
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
—2—
Your third request was for advice on how to demonstrate the
leachabilitY reduction achieved by the rnicroencapsulation
performance standard, as specified in § 268.45 Table 1 (57 FR
37280, August 18, 1992). The regulation does not require a
particular method for making this demonstration. One way to
analyze for this reduction would be to determine the potential
leachability of the toxicants before and after treatment by the
TCLP test. If the leachability of the toxicants has been
reduced, you have met the performance standards.
Finally, as you are probably aware, a case-by-case capacity
variance for certain hazardous soils was approved on October 13,
1992, and was published in the Federal Register on October 20,
1992 (57 FR 47772). See enclosed FR notice for list of hazardous
soils for which a capacity extension has been granted.
Sincerely
J 7 .L )/ -
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9554.1992(02)
,tOSTi
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
‘: ,
DEC 4 92
OFFICE 0
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Charles W. Grant
Environmental Compliance Manager
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
P.O. Box 2563
Port Arthur, Texas 77643
Dear Mr. Grant:
EPA has reviewed your request for a “determination of
equivalent treatment” as authorized by 40 CFR 268.42(b) for 17
“third third” waste codes for which metal recovery was specified
as BDAT. Based on the information provided in your letters dated
August 31 nd October 7 and the conversations between you and my
staff, we :iave determined that the proposed treatment of incin-
eration followed by treatment of the ash to comply with the metal
treatment standards (as specified in the Enclosure), would
provide equivalent treatment to that of the promulgated standard
for thirteen waste codes present in your waste streams (K069 —
lead, K106 — mercury, P015 — beryllium, P065 — mercury, P087 —
osmium tetroxide, P092 — mercury, P113 — thallic oxide, P115 —
thallium (I) sulfate, U151 — mercury, U214 — thallium (I) ace-
tate, U215 — thallium (I) carbonate, U216 thallium (I) chloride,
and U217 — thallium (I) nitrate). The other waste codes
specified in your request letter currently allow incineration,
stabilization, or other applicable technologies to be used to
achieve the treatment standard. As such, a determination of
equivalent treatment is not needed for those wastes.
Enclosed you will find our determination on your request.
:f yc-.i need further assistance, please contact Richard lUnch,
Chief , Waste Treatment Branch (703 308—8434).
Enclosure
cc: im Thompson, OWPE
Nick Stone, Region 6
Sincerely,
of Solid Waste
-------
9554.1993(01)
,ID S?4,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PIIO
JUN —3 O PFICECP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Kelly Ewing
Supervisor
Ensco, Field Ssrvice Group
P. 0. Box 1957
El Dora o, Arkansas 71731
Dear Ms. Ewing:
This letter responds to your letter of May 1, 1993, asking
for a letter that approves the use of an on-site precipitation
process of specific mercury compounds as an acceptable pre-
treatment step al. ct to mercury retorting.
The wastes you discuss in your letter are considered
toxicity characteristic for mercury, D009. The land disposal
regulations require that D009 high mercury subcategory wastes
(greater than 260 mg/kg total mercury) be retorted. Precipita-
tion of mercury into mercury salts is not an alternative
treatment process to the recovery of mercury. It is, however,
acceptable to use a precipitation process as a pretreatment step
to the ret’ ting of mercury wastes. Any residue that exceed 260
mg/kg of mercury from the treatment of the aqueous phase must
also be retorted. This pretreatment step cannot be used to avoid
the D009 retorting treatment standard.
You also asked us to clarify if your pre-treatment process
for mercury wastes destined for retorting may require an EPA or
state permit. EPA does not issue RCRA permits for hazardous
wastes treatment on a national level. By law, RCRA permits must
be considered on a site-specific basis and in most cases these
permits are issued by authorized states.
A generator may be able to pre-treat their mercury wastes in
tank units pursuant to the generator accumulation exemption of 40
CFR f 262.34. (See also March 24, 1986, 51* (10168)). This
provision allows for generators of hazardous wastes to treat or
store such wastes in tanks for short periods of time (i.e., 90
days) without obtaining a RCRA permit, provided that all the
conditions of 40 CFR § 262.34 are met, including compliance with
specific tank or container standards in 40 CFR 265 and compliance
with all the waste analysis plan provisions for treating land ban
wastes in 40 CFR § 268.7 (a) (4) (i)-(iii). In nany cases,
precipitation operations may be considered tank units under RCRA
and might be eligible for this exemption. However, you shouLd
consult with the appropriate state program regarding this
.L
-------
exemption because individual state requirements may be different
from the Federal program.
I hope this letter adequately answers your questions. If
you have further questions, please contact José Labiosa at (703)
308-8464.
Sincer ly,
y 4ac
Di ector
Of f ice of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9554. 1993(02)
NOV 1 8 1993
OFF E CF
SOt 0 WASTE AI IO EME GE C Y
Mr. Keith D. Colamarino RESPONSE
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
REMCOR, Inc.
701 Alpha Drive
P.O. Box 38310
Pittsburgh, PA 15238-8310
Dear Mr. Colamarino:
Thank you for your letter dated October 22, 1993 concerning
treatment of an inherently hazardous debris that exhibits the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) for lead and cadmium.
As is stated in §268.45 (a) of the regulatory language of
the August 18, 1992 rule (57 FR 37277), hazardous debris tay be
treated by using the alternative treatment standards found in
that section, or it may be treated to the waste-specific
treatment standards provided in Part 268, subpart D for the waste
contaminating the debris.
The preamble language you cite in your letter, which states
that debris treated to the existing waste-specific treatment
standards must continue to be managed under subtitle C, is
referring to debris contaminated with listed wastes. Debris
contaminated with characteristic waste can be treated by one of
the technologies described in Table 1 of §268.45, or it can be
treated to the existing standard. When debris is hazardous only
because it exhibits a characteristic (including inherently
hazardous debris), and is treated in compliance with the debris
or waste-specific standards so that it no longer displays the
characteristic, it can be disposed of in a subtitle D unit.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call
Richard lUnch of my staff at (703) 308—8434.
Sincerely,
cc: Richard lUnch
G ’ R.cyclodJROCYCIIb(a
, Pr.nteø lftl SOy nSI. 11*0 .1 p.p that
CIL ,eu0l 1 1W. ..
Director
of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9554. 1994(01)
OFFICE OF
SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESDONSE
JAN — 4 I99
Mr. James W. Wright, Chief
Environmental Management Office
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899
Dear Mr. Wright:
Thank you for you letter dated November 4, requesting
clarification on the applicability of the debris standards to
your P078 wastes. In your letter, you refer to a November 27,
1992, correspondence from EPA which indicates that the Agency did
not take action on your request for a treatability variance for
solid debris since it was indicated that the Kennedy Space Center
should be able to utilize the new debris standards. However, you
have concerns that the regulatory language may not allow this
result -- that is, the contaminants subject to debris treatment
are those established for the wastes under H 268.41 and 268.43,
while P078 is regulated in § 268.42.
Section 268.42 lists those wastes for which EPA established
a treatment method as the standard. The Agency fully intends
that debris contaminated with those wastes be subject to the
alternate debris standards found in the August 18, 1992 rule (57
FR 37194). The source of confusion in the rule is that,
technically, only the wastes themselves, and not waste
constituents, are listed in § 268.42. Section 268.45(b) (2)
should have read “The contaminants subject to treatment for
debris that is contaminated with a prohibited listed hazardous
waste are those constituents or wastes for which BDAT standards
are established for the wastes under H 268.41, 268.42, and
268.43.” The Agency will be correcting this unintended language
in a future amendment to the Debris Rule.
Therefore, the debris standards, including the Kennedy Space
Center’s proposed use of Chemical Extraction - Water Washing and
Spraying are applicable to debris contaminated with P078.
-------
If you have any further questions, please call Richard Kinch
of my staff at (703) 308—8434.
Sincerely,
cc: Richard Kinch
Office of Solid Waste
-------
iI 57 4p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
pq 0 ,G
9554.1994(02)
.JAN —5 1993 OF ICEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
) 4ORANDUM
SUBJECT: Land Disposal Restrictions Ru1emak ng on Characteristic
Wastes for Which Treatment Standards Were Remanded -
Phase III: Effect on Nonhazardous Class I Underground
Injection Control Wells and Elementary Neutralization
Units
PROM: Mike Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Joseph R. Franzmathes, Director
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
Wendell R. Cunningham, Director
Water Management Division
US EPA Region IV
This memorandum replies to the memorandum from John E.
Dickinson, P.E. and Thomas Hansen, dated October 15, 1993, which
requests clarification on the effect of an upcoming land disposal
restrictions (T. DR) rule (Phase III) on nonhazardous Class I
underground injection control wells (UIC wells) and elementary
neutralization units.
Your questions arise from issues raised by a September 25,
1992, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA . Among other things, the court decision
vacated LDR treatment standards for wastes displaying the
characteristics of ignitability and corrosivity when they are
managed in systems other than those regulated under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) or that engage in treatment equivalent to systems
regulated under the CWA, and those regulated in other than Class
I nonhazardous UIC wells (such as certain Class V UIC wells).
These vacated treatment standards were the subject of an
emergency interim final rule that was published in the Fedexal
Register on May 24, 1993 (58 FR 29860). The September 25, 1993,
court decision also remanded LDR treatment standards for.the
characteristic wastes when managed in wastewater treatment
systems regulated under the CWA and in Class I nonhazardous UIC
wells. These treatment standards will be addressed in the Phase
III rule, scheduled to be proposed by mid-January, 1995, and
finalized a year later. Until that time, I am unable to give you
definitive answers to the questions posed in your letter.
-------
The following two questions were highlighted in your letter.
! have answered the questions based on the approach adopted in
the May 24, 1993 interim final rule. I caution you, however,
against using these answers as the basis of any decisions you may
wish to make, because we simply do not know how the final Phase
III rule will address these issues.
1. Will a nonhazardous Class I UIC well need a no-migration
petition if the influent waste stream, at the point of
generation, is ignitable or corrosive, and the
concentrations of underlying hazardous constituents exceed
proposed regulatory levels?
A nonhazardous Class I UIC well is defined by statute as
engaging in land disposal. A waste that displays the
characteristic of ignitability or corrosivity at the point of
generation will require treatment to meet the LDR treatment
standards prior to injection. If an approach is adopted in the
Phase III rule like that taken in the emergency rule, treatment
standards will apply to not only the hazardous characteristic,
but to any underlying hazardous constituents in that waste at
levels above minimize threat levels. Therefore, the UIC well
would need to have a no-migration petition approved in order to
accept ignitable and corrosive wastes that have not been treat.ed
:o meet treatment standards for underlying hazardous
constituents.
2. Will the Phase III rule eliminate the exemption for
elementary neutralization units and require that wastes
managed in these units be treated for underlying hazardous
constituents?
Currently, there are no plans to eliminate the exemption
from permitting requirements for elementary neutralization units
in the Phase III rule, nor does the Chemical Waste Management
opinion address this issue (much less require changing the
exemption). If an approach is adopted in the Phase III rule like
that taken in the emergency rule, however, wastes treated to
remove the characteristic in elementary neutralization units
would require further treatment to meet the treatment standards
for underlying hazardous constituents before the waste could be
land disposed.
Judy Sophianopoulos is an active member of our TJDR Phase III
workgroup, and will be reviewing drafts of the proposed and final
Phase III rules and participating in workgroup meetings. She
will thus be kept informed of the most current thinking as the
regulation is developed.
= you would like to discuss these issues further, please
call Rich Kinch of my staff at (703) 308-8434.
-------
,IO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
\ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9554.1994(03)
FEB 6 1994 OF EOF
soL;o WASTE .% ) E .’ERGENCY ESPG?.JSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Mixed Wastes at Rocky Flats
FROM: irector
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
I am pleased to respond to Region V i ii’s December 21, 1993
inquiry regarding the acceptability under the RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRB) of two methods of macroencapsulation.
According to the letter from Martin Hestinark of your staff, these
methods are under review at Region VIII, for possible application
to low-level radioactive hazardous debris wastes at the
Department of Energy’s (DOE’S) Rocky Flats Plant. The two
methods described in RegIon VIII’S letter involve: (1) applying a
heated polymer to the surface of the debris, and (2) using a
sealed preformed polymer container into which the waste has been
placed. As your letter notes, the major difference between the
two final waste forms is the lack of any physical/chemical
banding under the second method between the container and the
polymer.
Your first question asks whether the preformed container
method discussed above meets the definition and performanco
criteria for macroencapsulatior. under the LDRs.
Macroencapsulation is defined as “Application of surface
coating materials such as polymeric organics or use of a jacket
of inert inorganic materials to substantially reduce surface
exposure to potential leaching media” in the following sections
of 40 CFR Part 268:
(1) Table 1.- Technology Codes and Description of
Technology-based Standards in §268.42; and
(2) Table 1 —- Alternative Treatment Standards For
Hazardous Debris in §268.45
The definition in Table 1 of §268.42 contains tl.e additional
statement that “Macroencapsulation specifically does not include
any material classified as a container or tank according to 40
CFR 260.10.”
-------
The second method of using a preformed container does not
meet the definition of macro ncapsUlatiOfl because it would
contain void spaces between the debris and container. In
addition, placement in tanks and containers is not considered
treatment. The preformed container also would not qualify as a
jacket under the definition. EPA purposely included “jackets of
inorganic materials” in the definition in order to specifically
account for submarine reactor compartments that are subject to
the treatment standard for D008 radioactive lead solids.
If the second method is the preferred option to treat this
waste then a treatability variance, equivalency demonstration
under 268.42(b), or a no-migration petition may be options that
might allow this treatment method to be legally applied to the
radioactive debris wastes. However, Rocky Flats will have to
demonstrate that: 1) the use of the preformed container is the
only alternative process available for a particular waste or
waste type; 2) the process substantially reduces surface exposure
to potential leaching media; and 3) the jacket of material would
not be classified as a tank or container under the definitions at
40 CFR 260.10.” In addition, detailed information on the content
of the debris would need to be submitted. If DOE wishes to
develop a treatment process which would include adding other
encapsulating materials to debris, so that there would be no void
spaces in the preformed container, we could reevaluate this
proposal.
Your second question asks whether a method of
macroencapsulatiOn that meets the performance criteria (i.e., tne
performance described in Table 1 of §268.45) is acceptable
regardless of whether it strictly meets the regulatory definition
of macroencapsulation. A proposed technology should clearly faLl
within the definition of riacroencapsulation g meet the
performance standard to qualify for the “macroencapsulation”
treatment standard for these debris. The purpose of including a
performance standard for an immobilization technology such as
i acroencapsulatiofl is to ensure that the technology
“substantially reduces the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from debris, as required by RCRA section
3004(m) (1),” while allowing some flexibility to design or operate
the unit to treat the contaminant of concern. See 57 37235,
Auqust 18, 1992.
‘tour letter also suggests concerns you have that there couid
be site—specific factors at individual disposal sites that might
adversely affect the performance of the required
inacroencapsulation technology. In such instances, EPA policy
allows any limitations on technologies attributable to site-
specific factors to be addressed in the facility permit by the
appropriate State or EPA permit writer. My staff in the Waste
M inagewent Division, which developed these standards, is
available to provide you with additional clarification on this
2
-------
question.
Thar ) you for bringing these issues to my attention. If you
rseed more information in this area, please call Susin 3 .,r es of
the State and Regional Programs Branch at (703) 308-8762, or
Larry Posengrant of the Waste Treatment Branch at 7O3 308-84E3.
cc: Matt Straus
Richard Kinch
Dev Barnes
Richard LaShier
3
-------
*110 STA? e
2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUL I 4 (994 . 9554.1994(04)
Mr. William C. Rankin SOLID WASTEANDEMERGENCY
Manager of Environmental Services RESPONSE
Olin Chemicals
P. 0. Box 248
1186 Lower River Road
Charleston, TN 37310
Dear Mr. Rankin:
Thank you for your letter dated June 27, 1994, requesting
clarification of the treatment standard for K106 (low mercury
subcategory) nonwastewater residues from retorting/roasting
(RMERC) units. This treatment standard is given in 40 CFR 268.41
as 0.020 mg/i, and in the Third Third final rule was given as
0.20 mg/i (55 FR 22569-22573, 22691, June 1, 1990).
You are correct that the standard which appears in
40 CFR 268.41 - Table CCWE is inaccurate, and that 0.20 mg/i is
the correct treatment standard. The correct standard can be
found in the Final Best Demonstrated Available Techno1o v (BDAT)
Background Document for Mercury-Containing Wastes D009, K106,
P065. P092, and U151 . Therefore, RMERC residues that show
mercury concentrations above 0.20 mg/i, as measured by the TCLP,
must be treated to meet the applicable High or Low Mercury
treatment standard prior to land disposal.
The discrepancy in 40 CFR 268.41 appears to originate from a
typographical error in the January 31, 1991, Correction Notice to
the Third Third rule, 55 FR 3864, which set a maximum mercury
concentration of 0.020 mg/i. We will be correcting this error in
an upcoming LDR rule scheduled to be signed July 31, 1994.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please
contact Richard Kinch, Chief of the Waste Treatment Branch, at
(703) 308-8434.
Sincerely,
I! .. -. p. -
/ 7 7i /J ;
. . . ..-‘ ‘ z ¼.. ., ., .. — - .
L .”-Micha 1 Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
CC: Richard Kinch
0Y Recycled/Recyclable
<9 P,lnted with SoylCanola ink on paper that
contain. at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
“1.
i1fl CHEMICALS
P 0 BOX 248. 1186 LOWER RIVER ROAD. CHARLESTON, TN 37310
Phone (615) 336-4000
June 27, 1994
Mr. Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 5301
401 MStreetS.W.
Washington, 0. C. 20460
RE: Correction for Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Standards for
NonwastewaterS Residues of REMERC for K106 (Low Mercury
Subcategory)
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am hereby requesting written confirmation that the treatment standard listed as
the constituent concentration in waste extract (CCWE) for Ki 06 nonwastewaters
(Low Mercury Subcategory-less than 260 mg/kg Mercury-residues from RMERC)
in Table CCWE of 40 CFR Part 268.41 is incorrect as 0.020 mg/L. The correct
value for this treatment standard for K106 and U151 nonwastewater residues
from RMERC should be 0.200 mg/L as listed in Table 7-5-B, Page 7-25 of the
Final Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background
Document For Mercury-Containing Wastes D009. K106. P065. P092. And
U151 , May 1990.
Olin operates a thermal recovery unit (TRU) under the definition of RMERC for
mercury contaminated wastes and several questions have been raised by
Agency personnel concerning what should the TCLP mercury concentration be in
the residues (ash) from processing K106 nonwastewater materials. Since the
value, in Table CCWE in Part 268.41 has 0.020 mg/L instead of 0.200 mg/L as
listed in the BOAT Background Document, this becomes an issue of discussion
during every RCRA compliance inspection because there has not been a
“technical correction” issued for this error in any form by USEPA.
OLIN CORPO RATION
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Page 2
June 27, 1994
Please confirm in writing that this is indeed a technical error as printed in Table
CCWE of Part 268.41 and that the correct value should be 0.200 mg/L instead of
0.020 mg/L for K106 nonwastewaters (Low Mercury Subcategory-less than 260
mg/kg Mercury-residues from REMERC). You cooperation in this matter is
deeply appreciated.
Please contact me at (615) 336-4512 if you have any questions concerning this
request.
Sincerely
OLIN CORPORATION
Ø - c
William C. Rankin
Manager, Environmental Services
cc: S. E. Barnes
Janet Dutto, TN SWMD
W. G. McGlasson
W. D. Mitchell
J. P. Newman
-------
, 1EO S7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
t pqØ1 .
9554. 1994(
‘JUL 2 6 1 94
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCy
RESPONSE
Mr. Michael G. Fusco
Environmental Affairs Specialist
Rollins Environmental Services
One Rollins Plaza
P.O. Box 2349
Wilmington, DE 19899
Dear Mr. Fusco:
Thank you for your letter dated May 31, 1994, requesting an
EPA determination on the legality and appropriateness of using
incineration for two P078 waste streams. In your letter, you
propose to incinerate two waste streams: P078—contaminated
debris and P078 rinsate contaminated with CFC—113. These waste
streams are generated by NASA Kennedy Space Center. NASA was
granted a determination of equivalent treatment on the CFC-
contaminated waste stream in November of 1992 to treat that waste
stream by the method that they proposed (neutralization).
The original treatment standard of ADGAS is defined as
“Venting of compressed gases into an absorbing or reacting media
(i.e., solid or liquid) — venting can be accomplished through
physical release utilizing valves/piping; physical penetration of
the container; and/or penetration through detonation”. Because
the NASA’s P078 is not a gas but rather a liquid dimer, and the
P078 has already been absorbed onto the debris or into the
rinsate liquid, the actual standard of ADGAS has been achieved.
When NASA requested a Determination of Equivalent Treatment for
this waste, we expressed to them that they actually comply with
the treatment standard “ADGAS”. NASA, however, still wanted the
Determination of Equivalent Treatment, which they thought would
make it easier for them to treat their waste by neutralization
and landfill any residuals, without any question about them being
in compliance with the land disposal restriction regulations.
The Agency, then, granted a determination of equivalence.
With regard to your request, the debris and P078 waste have
met the “ADGAS” standard, and a determination of equivalent
treatment is unnecesary. If these wastes are incinerated, the
Agency recommends that the residuals meet the numerical treatment
standards for Chromium, Nickel and 1,l,2—Trichloro—1,2,2-
trifluoroethane specified to NASA.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with SoylCancIa Ink on paper that
contain S at least 50% recycled liber
-------
If you have any further questions on this issue, please call
Mary Cunningham of my staff at (703) 308—8453.
//
Matthew Straus, Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Richard Kinch, HQ
Mary Cunningham, HQ
Steve Silverman, HQ
Jim Thompson, HQ
Judy Sophianopoulos, Region IV
Gary Miller, Region VI
James Wright, NASA
-------
it 0 Spa,
2 1
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9554. 1994(06)
OCT 2 i 94
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Eugene Berman
Vice President of Regulatory and Community Affairs
Molten Metal Technology, Inc.
51 Sawyer Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
Dear Mr. Berman:
EPA has reviewed your request for a “determination of equivalent treatment” (DET)
as authorized by 40 CFR 268.42(b) for 8 of the waste codes from the toluene diisocyanate
(TDI) treatability group for which incineration (INCIN) or combustion (CMBST) was
specified as BDAT. Based on the information provided in your application dated
April 22, 1994, and conversations between your staff and mine, we have determined that the
proposed treatment of Catalytic Extraction Processing (CEP) and compliance with the
Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for metals (as specified in the Enclosure), would
provide equivalent treatment to that of the promulgated standards for eight of the waste codes
(Nonwastewater forms of K027, K! 12, Ki 13, Ki 14, K! 15, K116, U221, and U223). The
other waste code specified in your request letter, Kill, has a treatment standard expressed as
a maximum constituent concentration rather than a specified technology. As such, a
determination of equivalent treatment is not applicable for this waste.
The enclosed determination includes a list of specific facilities for which this
Determination of Equivalent Treatment applies. Additional sites may also be covered by a
DET if CEP is expected to be commercially deployed at other sites and MMT requests a
DET.
Enclosed you will find our determination on your request. If you need further
assistance, please contact Richard Kinch, Chief, Waste Treatment Branch (703-308-8434).
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro,
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Jim Thompson, OWPE
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
REQUEST FOR 0MB REVIEW
Title : Land Disposal Restrictions — Phase Ifl: Decharacterized Wastewate s, Carbamate
and Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners; Proposed Rule.
Background
Pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, E?A is required to
set treatment standards for wastes identified or listed as hazardous. Wastes must meet the
treatment standards before they can be disposed on land. By setting standards for the newly
listed hazardous wastes addressed in this rule — organobromine, carbamate, and spent
potirner from aluminum production -- (“Phase ifi”), we will fulfill some of the requirements
of a proposed consent decree (the “megadeadline” settlement agreement) with the
Environmental Defense Fund (ED?). Under the consent decree, EPA is required to propose
this rule by January 17, 1995. Phase ifi also meets some of the obligations of a subsequent
settlement agreement by proposing treatment standards for characteristic hazardous wastes
that are diluted to remove the characteristic (decharacterized) and placed in :i wastewater
treatment system surface impoundment regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) or
equivalent, or into Class I nonha7-ardous injection wells regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). The treatment standards that are being proposed would apply at the
point of discharge from the surface impoundment into waters of the U.S. (or in the case of a
zero discharger, at the point the wastewater is sprayed or otherwise placed cn the land), and
at the point the waste is injected into the Class I nonhazardous waste (also referred to as
“end-of-pipe”). This approach is modelled after that taken in two previous LDR rules (the
emergency interim final rule and the Phase II final rule) to address the decision of the U.S.
Circuit in Chemical Waste Management v. EPA , 976 F. 2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1S92), cert. denied
113 s.ct. 1961(1993)(CWM v. EPA)).
Description of the Rule
Phase HI proposes treatment standards for 80 newly listed carbamate wastes and two
organobromine wastes named in the proposed consent decree with EDF. Treatment
standards are also being proposed ahead of the schedule set out in the consent decree for
spent aluminum pothners (scheduled for proposal in Phase IV in June, 1995\
EPA is also proposing that decharacterized wastes managed in CWA or CWA-
equivalent wastewater treatment surface impoundments must be treated to address any
underlying haiardous constituents reasonably expected to be present, before the effluent is
released into waters of the U.S. or land disposed (end-of-pipe). The treatment standards
being proposed are the “universal treatment standards” (UTS) that were promulgated in the
July 29, 1994 Phase II LDR rule. Because many of these waste management facilities are
regulated under the CWA, EPA is proposing to integrate implementation of the RCRA
treatment standards by deferring, whenever possible, to CWA limits. The regional or state
permit writer may regulate the RCRA constituents under the facility’s CWA permit: If the
CWA permit regulates the RCRA constituents, then enforcement would be carried out under
CWA exclusively, thereby using less regional or state resources. If, however, the CWA
permit writer does not regulate the applicable RCRA constituents, then enforcement would
have to be carried out by both CWA and RCRA personnel, at a greater resource cost.
Decharacterized wastes that were previously allowed to be injected into Class I
nonhazardous waste wells must now be treated to address any underlying hazardous
constituents reasonably expected to be present, prior to injection into the well. Or as an
-------
alternative, such units could apply for a variance based on a finding that hazardous
constituents will not migrate from the unit for as long as the waste remains Iiaiardous. If the
so-called “no migration” variance is granted by EPA, then untreated ha7ardcus wastes can
legally be placed in the unit.
Because the proposed requirements include treating underlying h iar us constituents
that have not been previously regulated in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA Class I
nonha.zardous systems, such facilities will incur significant new waste management costs. In
order to minimize impacts to the extent possible within the confines of the court decision, the
Agency is proposing two mechanisms that should reduce costs and paperwork burden for
minimis wastestreaxns, and mass reductions in ha2aTdous constituents made through pollution
prevention for wastes going to deep well injection.
In addition, EPA is proposing several actions in Phase ill to streamline the LDR
program. EPA is also proposing to clarify certain regulatory definitions to provide
consistency with the universal treatment standards. Furthermore, comments are solicited on
additional streamlining mechanisms for LDR paperwork.
Anticitated Reactions
0MB. 0MB may again object to the Phase UI proposed rule on the grounds that
costs of compliance are high, considering the low measurable environmental and health
benefits. The Agency, however, is compelled by statute to set standards for these newly
listed wastes, and is obligated under the 1992 court decision to establish treatment standards
for CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA Class I nonhazardous injection wells.
Others. The regulated community is expected to object to the end-or-pipe treatment
standards because of the dual statutory controls proposed to be imposed on these wastewater
treatment systems and injection wells, and because of new compliance costs. As to the levels
of those standards, the regulated community favors the universal treatment siandards but may
prefer that they be based on risk rather than technology performance. They will generally
support the de minimis concept, but may prefer more wastes be included. They will likely
support the pollution prevention provisions and other initiatives to simplify the LDR rules.
Also, they will likely support integration of RCRA with CWA implementation.
Certain environmental groups should be pleased with the rule, especially the
regulation of underlying bfilardous constituents in decharacterized wastes, and the
establishment of stringent treatment standards. In addition, environmental groups may be
concerned that generators can continue to use process knowledge to identify underlying
h 7 rdous constituents and would prefer required testing.
The Regions and States may be concerned about the dual regulatory scheme that may
be imposed on CWA and SDWA facilities that they will be primarily responsible for
implementing and enforcing. They will, however, favor the mechanisms being proposed to
defer to CWA limits for applicable RCRA constituents.
-------
j . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460W
9554.1995(01)
JUN 141995..;
OFF ICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Roy.F. Weston, InC.
Ms. Janell B. Bergman, P.G.,CPG
Senior Project Manager
215 Union Boulevard, Suite 550
LakewOod, CO 80228-1842
Dear Ms. Bergman:
It is a pleasure to respond to your letter dated April 27,
1995, regarding the Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II final
rule (59 FR 47982). specificallY you requested an
interpretation of the phrase’ “which can reasonably be expected to
be present” as it applies to underlying hazardous constituents- in
oil that exhibits the toxicity characteristic -
The preamble. to the final Phase II rule states: “regulated
entities do not- have to ascertain the presence -of all hazardous
constituents for which EPA is promulgating a universal treatment
standard. Generators may base this -detez miflatiOfl on their
knowledge of the raw materials they use, the process they-
operate, and the potential reaction products of the process, or
upon the results of a one-time analysis of the entire list of
constituents at § 268.48.” (See 59 FR 48015.)- - - -
In the case of contaminated soil, however, the “generator”
may not be the party that caused the conta’ ’ 4 n t ion, bu rather
may be the one performing the cleanup. As you point out, it may
be diffidult to determine exactly what constituents are
reasonably expected to be present in the soil because of the lack
of records about the site and the absence of anyone who has
institutional memory about the cause of the contamination. It is
appropriate, therefore, to use the constituents that are at
levels abàve the Universal Treatment Standards, based on
monitoring at the site, provided anplysis has been conducted for
the entire list of constituents at § 268 .48. These would be the
constituents reasonably expected to be present at the point of
generation (in a remediation, the point of generation iS the
point the contaminated soil is picked up). ‘ -
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
I hope you find this information helpful. If you have
further questions, please call Rhonda Craig of my staff on
(703) 308-8771.
Sincerely,
Dir9tor) -
Off icç.ef Solid Waste
-------
A
215 UNION BOULEVARD. SUITE 550
LAKEWOOD. CO 80228.1842
303.980-6800 FAX:303.980-1622
27 April 1995
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
W2 diington, D.C. 20460
SUBJECT: Land Disposal Restrictions - Phase II
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Roy P. Weston, Inc. requests an interpretation of a phrase pertaining to the recently published
Land Disposal Restrictions - Phase 11(59 47982). Specifically, we request an interpretation
of the phrase ‘which can reasonably be expected to be present’ as it applies to underlying
ha ardous constituents that may be found in c i1 that exhibits the toxicity characteristic (TCLP).
(Sections 268.2(i) and 268.40(e))
Application of this concept is straightforward as it applies to industrial waste streams; however,
it be mes difficult when referring to contaminated soil where unknown wastes were deposited
years ago. Weston requests EPA’s interpretation of this concept as it applies to contaminated soils.
Is it sufficient to use the list of constituents that have been detected at the site as the list of
constituents reasonably expected to be present?
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response to this question.
Sin eIy,
ROY F. WESTON, INC.
Janell B. Bergman, P.G., CPG
Senior Project Manager
cc: Mr. Jim Thompson /
Office of Regulatory Enforcement 4
RCRA Enforcement Division
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9554.1995(02)
Signature date: September 19, 1995
Mr. Kevin J. Igli
Vice President. Environment, Health & Safety
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
3001 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Dear Mr. Igli:
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1995, regarding macroencapsulation of
hazardous debris. You referred to an interpretive guidance memorandum sent by EPA’s
Office of Solid Waste to EPA Region VIII on February 16, 1994 regarding the
mac oencapsulation of mixed hazardous/radioactive debris waste, and requested clarification
on the memorandum’s applicability. Specifically, you requested EPA’s determination on
whether CWM’s macroencapsulation process addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 268.45,
Table 1.
As your letter pointed out, EPA has specified two definitions of macroencapsulation:
a specified technology for D008 radioactive lead solids, and one for hazardous debris. In 40
CFR 268.42, Table 3, EPA specified for D008 radioactive lead solids a required method of
treatment, macroencapsulation. Macroencapsulation is defined in § 268.42, Table 1 as:
Macroencapsulation with surface coating materials such as polymeric organics (e.g.,
resins and plastics) or with a jacket of inert inorganic materials to substantially reduce
surface exposure to potential leaching media. Macroencapsulation specifically does
not include any material that would be classified as a tank or container according to
40 CFR 260.10.
EPA defined macroencapsulation for hazardous debris at § 268.45 as:
Application of surface coating materials such as polymeric organics (e.g., resins and
plastics) or use of a jacket of inert inorganic materials to substantially reduce surface
exposure to potential leaching media.
Obviously, the only difference between the definitions is that the prohibition against using
Thu page has been renped from the original
-------
tanks and containers was not included in the definition of macroencapsulation for treating
h27 rdous debris. Thus, the Agency provided more flexibility in treatment for hazardous
debris by not specifically prohibiting the use of tanks and containers.
Your letter describes CWM’s macroencapsulation process. A jacket of inert inorganic
material is placed around the hazardous debris as the encapsulating agent in a high density
polyethylene vault. The lid of the vault is secured and the unit is disposed in a subtitle C
(hazardous waste) landfill.
It is EPA’s determination that your treatment process meets the definition of
macroencapsulation for hazardous debris, subject to an evaluation that the tank or container
is structurally sound and resistant to degradation, in order to substantially reduce exposure to
potential leaching media. As you allude to in your letter, merely placing h27ardous debris in
a tank or container, except under special circumstances where the container is made of
noncorroding materials (e.g., stainless steel), would not fulfill the macroencapsulation
treatment standard. State or EPA Regional authorities can best evaluate if the design criteria
and operation procedures are sufficient.
EPA does not view this as a reversal of its previous position in its memorandum of
February 18, 1994. Rather, it is clarifying that for the treatment of ha ’iirdous debris, the
definition of macroencapsulation in § 268.45 should be used, and for the treatment of D008
radioactive lead solids, the defmition in § 268.42 should be used.
Hopefully, this response addresses your concerns. If you have further questions, do
not hesitate to give me a call on (703) 308-8434.
Sincerely,
Richard Kinch
Chief
Waste Treatment Branch
cc Fredrick Moore, Oregon DEQ
Bruce Long, Region X, Oregon Operations Office
Thu page has been rer%ped from the onguial
-------
(O Si: .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASI INGTON D C 20460
c 9554.1997(01)
8 ‘QQY
SOL;D WASTE AND EMEFt ENCY
ESP”)NSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Use of Site-Specific Land Disposal Restriction Treatability Variances Under 40
CFR 268.44(h) During Cleanups
FROM: Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Steve Luftig, Director L L
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO: RCRAJCERCLA Senior Policy Managers
Regions I - X
This memorandum encourages appropriate use of site-specific land disposal restriction
(LDR) treatability variances under 40 CFR § 268.44(h) for contaminated soils and other
materials managed during cleanups. In particular, this mei iorandum clarifies the minimum
requirements for alternative treatment standards and outlines treatability variance procedures. It
builds on Superfund LDR Guides 6A and 6B, “Obt2ining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance
for Remedial Actions and Obtfiining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Removal
Action,” publication numbers 9347.3-067S and 9347.3-0B67S, September 1990 and the quick
reference fact sheet “Regional Guide: Issuing Site-Specific Treatability Variances for
Contaminated Soils and Debris from Land Disposal Restrictions,” publication number 9380.3-
O8FS, January 1992.
LDR Applicability
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), enacted November 8, 1984,
largely prohibit land disposal of ha rdous wastes. After a waste is prohibited from land disposal
the statute provides two options: comply with a specified treatment standard designed to
minimize threats to human health and the environment prior to land disposal or dispose of the
P,uuøil ,uth Veoetabla Oil Based tnl on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Poslconsumer)
-------
waste in a no migration’ unit.’ Land disposal includes any placement of hazardous waste into a
landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome
formation, salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave. See, RCRA Section 3 004(k).
Since 1984, EPA has developed LDR treatment standards for all hazardous wastes listed
or identified at the time HSWA was enacted and many hazardous wastes that have been
subsequently listed or identified (e.g., the new toxicity characteristic (TC) wastes). The Agency
recognizes, however, that in some cases these generally applicable LDR treatment standards will
be unachieveable or inappropriate. When a generally applicable LDR treatment standard is
unachieveable or inappropriate, a site-specific LDR treatability variance offers an opportunity to
comply with LDRs through development of an alternative standard based on site- and waste-
specific characteristics. The Agency’s longstanding policy is that site-specific treatability
variances are generally appropriate for contaminated soils; they also may be appropriate for other
wastes encountered during site cleanups. See, e.g., 55 FR 8666, 8760-8761 (March 8, 1990); 58
FR 48092, 48125 (September 14, 1993); 61 FR 18805-18808, 18810-18812 (April 29, 1996); 61
- FR55717(October28, 1996).
It is important to note that the land disposal restrictions apply only to ha”ardous wastes
placed after the effective date of the applicable land disposal prohibition. Not all materials
managed during a cleanup action are h ardous wastes and not all activities conducted during a
cleanup action constitute placement. For example, EPA has interpreted placement to include
putting ha ardotis waste into a land-disposal unit, moving hazardous wastes from one land-
disposal unit to another, and removing hazardous waste from the land, managing it in a separate
unit, and re-placing it in the same or a different land-disposal unit. Placement does not occur
when hazardous waste is consolidated within a land-disposal unit, when it is treated in situ, or
when left in place (e.g., capped). See, e.g., 55 FR 8758-8760, (March 8, 1990).
When To Use Site-Specific Variances
Site-specific LDR treatability variances generally do not require rulemaking for approval;
they are approved on a case-by-case basis in consideration of site- and waste-specific
circumstances and conditions. A site-specific variance may be approved when the properties of
the waste at issue are physically or chemically different from the properties of the wastes
evaluated in establishing the generally applicable treatment standard and, as a result, the
generally applicable standard cannot be achieved. A site-specific variance may also be approved
when the generally applicable treatment standard is based on a Best Demonstrated Available
Tecimology (BDAT) that is inappropriate for the waste in question. See, 268.44(h) and 61 FR
55717 (October 28, 1996).
‘A no migration unit is a unit from which there will be no migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the
waste placed in the unit remains hazardous. See, RCR.A Sections 3004(d), (e), (g)(5).
2
-------
Common cleanup situations which may prompt consideration of a site-specific
treatabiliry variance include:
Cleanup of contaminated soils where the generally applicable land disposal
treatment standards are based on combustion. For large quantities of
contaminated soils with relatively low concentrations of hazardous constituents,
EPA generally considers treatment standards based on combustion inappropriate.
• Cleanups where bench or pilot scale studies indicate that the generally applicable
land disposal treatment standard cannot be achieved.
• Cleanup of old sludges initially placed prior to the effective date of land disposal
prohibitions. In some cases the physical or chemical composition of sludges
become significantly altered upon prolonged exposure to: natural sunlight, acidic
rainf ll, weather cycles (such as freeze-thaw) and intrusion, commingling, or
chemical reaction with rainfall, soil, windblown dirt and/or other co-disposed
wastes. These types of exposure can result in changes in composition through:
evaporation or migration of volatiles, sunlight induced polymerization of
organics, lime stabilization (i.e., self-cementation), photodegradation, natural
biodegradation, hydrolysis, and even electrolytic oxidation/reduction reactions.
As a result, weathered sludges often no longer have the physical or chemical
composition of newly generated sludges and a treatability variance may be
warranted.
• Cleanups where, due to site-spec flc circumstances, compliance with the generally
applicable land disposal treatment standard would result in a net environmental
detriment, for example, by discouraging cleanup. In some situations, legal and
protective cleanup alternatives involve the choice between remedies that require
compliance with LDR treatment standards developed for as-gqnerated wastes and
remedies that do not (i.e., remedies that rely on containment). When application
of the generally applicable treatment standard provides an incentive for remedies
that, while permitted under applicable law, are less aggressive (and, potentially,
less protective over the long term) than alternatives, the generally applicable
standard may be considered inappropriate. Note, many of these remedies will
include some form of treatment; however, it might not be the treatment prescribed
for as-generated wastes. See, e.g., 61 FR 55717 (October 28, 1996) where EPA
approved alternative treatment standards, in part, because imposing the otherwise
applicable standards would have resulted in a net environmental detriment.
3
-------
Alternative Treatment Standards
All alternative LDR treatment standards must satisfy the statutory requirement of RCRA
3004(m) by minimizing threats to human health and the environment. In many situations.
protective, risk-based, site-specific cleanup standards established in the context of an Agency-
overseen cleanup will meet this “minimize threat” standard and may be used as alternative
treatment standards. In other situations, alternative treatment standards may be established on a
technology basis. 2
Risk-based alternative treatment standards established in the context of an Agency-
overseen cleanup should consider EPA guidance on risk-based cleanup standards. EPA has
interpreted protective cleanup standards to include risk-based media cleanup standards that are
within the 10-’ to 10-’ risk range for carcinogens and result in a ha rd index of one or less for
constituents with non-carcinogenic effects. Protective, risk-based, site-specific cleanup standards
can be based on generally available constituent concentration standards (e.g., MCLs and many
state cleanup standards) or they may be developed for an individual site (e.g., through a site-
specific risk assessment). Alternative treatment standards established on a technology basis are
most often based on site-specific treatability data oron a “substantial treatment” standard. For
example, 90 per cent reduction in constituent concentrations is generally considered substantial
treatment.
For contaminated soils, the Superfund LDR Guides 6A and 6B, “Obtaining a Soil and
Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions and Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability
Variance for Removal Action,” publication numbers 9347.3-067S and 9347.3-0B67S,
September 1990 provide suggested constituent concentration ranges and per cent reduction
targets that may be used as guidance when establishing alternative LDR treatment standards for
contarnin ted soils. 3 When using the constituent concentration ranges or per cent reduction
targets from the 6A/6B guidance, the Agency should be prepared to support application of these
standards on a site-specific basis. As with application of any Agency guidance, application of
the constituent concentration ranges or per cent reduction targets from the 6AJ6B guidance could
be questioned by facility owners/operators or by the public; the Agency must be prepared to
respond to these comments and justify application of any guidance to site- and waste-specific
2 The ability to, as appropriate, use site-specific, risk-based cleanup levels as alternative LDR treannent
standards does not affect the Agency’s other remedial expectarons, for example, that ueaunent will be used to address the
principal threats posed by a Site whenever practicable.
Note that protective, risk-based cleanup standards that are developed based on site-specific conditions may be
either higher or lower than the constituent concenu azion ranges or per-cent reduction targets from the 6A/6B guidance. In
addition, while debris are still eligible for site-specific treazability variance, such variances are no longer presumed to be
appropriate. LDR ti-eannent standards specific to debris were promulgated August 18, 1992 (57 FR 37194).
4
-------
circumstances.
Constituents Subject to Treatment
Unless the generally applicable LDR treatment standard will be met, alternative
treatment standards must be set for each constituent subject to treatment. Constituents subject to
treatment are, loT listed wastes, the constituents for which treatment standards are specified in 40
CFR 268.40 and, for characteristic wastes, the characteristic constituent and any underlying
hazardous constituents present at concentrations greater than the Universal Treatment Standards
(IllS) specified in 40 CFR 268.48. For example, a waste that fails the toxicity characteristic
leaching test for benzene but also contains other organic hazardous constituents such as toluene,
ethyl benzene, and xylene must meet treatment standards for both the benzene and the other
hazardous constituents.’ Note that, when testing characteristic waste to determine constituents
subject to treatment, individuals do not necessarily have to test for every constituent with a
universak treatment standard; they may limit testing to constituents that are reasonably expected
to be present
Multiple Contaminants
It is not autotnaxically necessary to treat all constituents subject to treatment in order to
satisfy RCRA Section 3004(m). Just as some industrial wastes are generated with concentrations
of constituents subject to treatment that arc below the applicable land disposal treatment
standards, some wastes generated during cleanup may contain concentrations of hawdous
constituents that are below Land disposal treatment standards established in a site-specific
wearability variance. It is common for cleanup wastes to contain mixtures of many different
kinds of hazardous constituents at widely varying concentrations. Often, these combinations of
constituents or constituent concentrations are different from the constituents combinations and
concentrations typically found in as-generated wastes that carty the same waste code or exhibit
the same hazardous characteristic and treatment of all constituents subject to treatment may not
be required to satisfy RCRA Section 3004(m).
in some of these cases, a treatability variance might establish alternative treatment
standards foisome constituents subject to treatment, but not others (i.e., compliance with the
otherwise applicable treatment standard might be required for some constituents). Ln other cases,
a treatabiiity variance might require treatment to meet alternative LDR treatment standards for
some constituents subject to treatment while for others it might be determined that no treatment
is necessary to comply with LDRs. For example, a waste might be characteristic for benzene and
‘Note, extending the obligation so teat for underlying hazardous constituents to TC metal waste was discussed
in 60 FR 43654, August 22, 1995. The proposal has not been finalized.
S
-------
contain low levels of toluene, ethyl benzene, or xylene. Depending on the concentrations of the
individual constituents, treatment might be required for the benzene, and protective, risk-based
alternative treatment standards for the minor contaminants might be established such that
treatment to comply with LDR standards was not required (i.e., where the initial constituent
concentrations are at or below the risk-based standard). Similarly, a cleanup waste might fail the
toxicity characteristic leaching test for a metal contaminant and also contain low levels of
organic contaminants. Treatment to the generally applicable LDR treatment standards might be
required for the TC metal, but protective, risk-based alternative LDR treatment standards for the
organics might be established at or above the initial constituent concentrations, making treatment
of the organics unnecessary. 5
Variance Procedures
In states authorized to issue site-specific LDR treatability variances, applications should
be submitted to the state h ’ rdous waste program director, or other official designated by the
state. In states that are not authorized to issue these variances, applications should be submitted
to the EPA Regional Administrator or to the appropriate delegated official within the Region. All
applications should include information required by 40 CFR 260.20(b)(l) - (4) and information
documenting compliance with the waste analysis requirements of 40 CFR 268.7.
Applications for site-specific LDR treatability variances will likely require less detail and
rigorous analysis than applications for generically applicable variance (e.g., rulemaking variances
under 268.44(a)); however, if necessary EPA can use 40 CFR 268.44(j) to request additional
information to support a given application. All approvals should emphasize that the variances
are site- and waste-specific in nature and do not apply to any other site or waste.
Whenever possible, the decision to approve a site-specific LDR treatability variance
should be integrated into other cleanup decision documents (e.g., RCR.A Statement of Basis,
CERCLA Record of Decision, state corrective action order). As a matter of Agency policy, site-
specific LDR treatabiity variances should undergo public notice and opportunity for comment
before approval. See, 53 FR at 31200 (August 17, 1988). Similar to the decision to approve a
variance, whenever possible, public notice and opportunity for comment for site-specific LDR
treatability variances should be combined with other public notice and opportunity for comment
activities that occur during Agency-overseen cleanups (e.g., the public notice and opportunity for
comment associated with a CERCLA proposed plan or approval of a corrective action remedy).
In the limited circumstances where it is not possible to combine public notice for site-specific
LDR treatability variances with other public notice opportunities, public notice and opportunity
for comment should be provided consistent with the program goals of full, fair and equitable
See footnote 4.
6
-------
public participation. While a variance application is pending the applicant must comply with all
applicable land disposal restrictions and requirements (40 CFR 268.44(1)).
As discussed in the National Contingency Plan (55 FR 8760-8762) and the Superfund
LDR 6A and 6B guides, EPA presumes that site-specific LDR treatability variances may be
granted for contaminated soils; therefore, applications for a site-specific LDR treatability
variance for soil do not have to document that the generally applicable LDR treatment standards
are unachievable or inappropriate. 6 However, applicants should include information
documenting the basis for their application supporting application of the soil presumption to their
site- and waste-specific circumstances. Applications for site-specific LDR treatability variances
that address cleanup wastes other than soil should include information documenting that either
(I) the waste at issue is significantly different from the waste evaluated for the generally
applicable treatment standard and, as a result, the regulated constituents cannot be treated to the
specified levels or (2) the generally applicable standard is based is not appropriate. Applications
should include a statement, signed by the applicant, certifying that the information in the
application is true and correct.
Delegation
The authority to approve site-specific LDR treatability variances for contaminated soils
was delegated to Regional Administrators in Delegation 8-45-B. For CERCLA removal actions
and actions under the solid waste disposal act (which includes RCRA), the authority can be
further dejegated to regional Division Directors. The authority to approve site-specific LDR
treatability variances for one-time only cleanup wastes (non-soil or debris wastes, i.e., sludges
managed as part of a cleanup) is under consideration for delegation to Regional Administrators.
(See proposed delegation 8-45-C.)
While the authority to approve site-specific LDR treatability variances wiU rest with the
Regions and states, we encourage you to work together and with EPA Headquarters to maintain a
national dialogue on variance issues. In particular, we request that Regions (and authorized
states) share information on critical or precedent setting variances so we can all benefit from your
experiences and so we can assure that issues of national scope or consistency are equitably
resolved. This information could be shared at national and regional meetings or through other
networking opportunities.
6 Of course, if a commenter on.any given site-specific treatability variance challenges the presumption, the
Agency must address these comments on a site-specific basis, for example, by articulating the site-specific conditions that
support the presumption, in response.
7
-------
State Authorization
EPA has recently clarified its policy on state authorization for site-specific LDR
treatability variances and is actively encouraging states to seek authorization for and integrate
appropriate use of these variances in their cleanup programs. See, 61 FR18828 (April 29. 1996).
Additional information on state-authorization will be provided in an upcoming update to the
State Program Advisory.
Disclaimer
This document provides guidance to EPA and State personnel on how to best implement
RCR.A and EPA’s regulations on site-specific treatability variances to facilitate appropriate use
of these variances, especially as part of Agency-overseen cleanups. It also provides guidance to
the public and the regulated community on how EPA intends to exercise its discretion in
impidinenting these regulations. This document does not, however, substitute for EPA’s
regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements on
EPA, States, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based on
specific circumstances. EPA may change this guidance in the future, as appropriate.
Summary/Additional Information
Site-specific LDR treatability variances are an important tool to ensure compliance with
appropriate LDR treatment standards. They can be especially useful where application of the
generally applicable standard can serve as a disincentive towards aggressive cleanup. We
encourage you to continue to integrate site-specific LDR treatabiity variances into your cleanup
activities and to support the use of these variances into state programs. For additional
information, please contact Elizabeth McManus or Shaun McGarvey at (703) 308-8657 and
(703) 308-8603, respectively.
cc: Jim Berlow, OSW
Susan Bromm, OSRE
Elizabeth Cotsworth, OSW
Matthew Hale, OSW
Peter Neves, OSRE
David Nielsen, OER
Bruce Means, OERR
Dawn Messier, OGC
Larry Reed, OERR
Steve Silverman, OGC
Larry Starfield, OGC
8
-------
Jim Thompson, ORE
Jim Woolford, FFRRO
Regional RCRA Branch Chiefs
Regional CERCLA Branch Chiefs
Tom Kennedy, Association of States and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
9
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
s Q SZi
. 1% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
pRO
9554.1997(02)
FEB I I 1997
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Hugh Allerton
Director, Environmental Affairs
TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc.
4505 West 26 Mile Road
Washington, MI 48094
Dear Mr. Allerton:
In your letter of December 17, 1996, you requested that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make a determination
whether or not solidification of the evaporator concentrate waste
produced at TRW’s Mesa II Facility, Mesa, Arizona, achieves the
land disposal restriction treatment technology standard of
deactivation.
Based on the information provided and conversations between
your staff and mine, it is EPA’s understanding the waste stream
may be comprised of up to 15 percent sodium azide, and has been
classified as a K044 hazardous waste by the State of Arizona.
For a K044 waste, deactivation (DEACT) is the required treatment
prior to land disposal’(40 CFR 268.40). To accomplish the
deactivation of wastewaters the recommended deactivation
technologies are incineration, chemical/electrolytic oxidation,
chemical reduction, biodegradation, or carbon adsorption (40 CFR
268, Appendix VI). The list of recommended technologies is
advisory only and does not constitute a list of the only
deactivation technologies that can be used. Any technology that
removes the characteristic of reactivity may be used. In the
preamble to the Third Third Rule 55 FR at 22552 (June 1, 1990),
EPA noted that it had selected udeactivationu, because
technologies exist that can remove this characteristic, and that
the general standard would allow the regulated community to use
whichever treatment technology that best fits the type of
explosive waste; see also Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976
F.2d 2, 18 (D.C. Cir. 1992) cert. denied 113 5. Ct. 1961 (1993)
where the court upheld the deactivation standard for wastes
identified because they exhibit the characteristic of reactivity.
Therefore, based on the data provided, EPA concludes that
solidification of the K044 wastestream with pozzolonic material
PnnIed wI Vege 1e 01 Based InKs on 100% Recyded PaDer (40% Poslconsumef)
-------
2
satisfies current regulations, as long as the solidified material
no longer exhibits the potential to form reactive residues and
provided the waste does not exhibit any other RCRA hazardous
waste characteristic.
If you need further assistance, please contact John Austin,
Waste Treatment Branch (703-3080436).
Sincerely yours,
LI-,Jcbf.
Shapiro, Director
of Solid Waste
-------
, cIo SZI?
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
7, : )
w WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9554.1997(03)
W&R I I 1997
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
David J. Lennett, Attorney RESPONSE
Louisiana Environmental Action Network
P.O. Box7l
Dennis Hill Road
Litchfield, Maine 04350
Dear M $ :
EPA has received your February 14, 1997, request to Adrnini trator Carol Browner for
an administrative stay of the treatabiity variance granted for the h 7J rdous waste generated
from the closure of the Surge Pond at CITGO Petroleum’s Lake Charles, Louisiana refinery.
61 FR 55718 (Oct. 28, 1996). You indicate that “ [ t]he CITGO variance is bad law and worse
environmental policy”, state that EPA is giving in to “environmental blackmail”, and maintain
that a stay is needed to avoid “irreparable harm”.
EPA does not believe an admiimctrative stay is justified. EPA continues to believe that
the variance is warranted to avoid the possibility of a net environmental detriment at the
facility: no closure by waste removal and no treatment at all of h 7i rdous waste. A stay
would similarly put off the optimal closure of the surface impoundment, creating a net
environmental loss. In this regard, it is EPA’s understanding (based on conversations with
CITGO’s counsel) that CITGO in fact is working expeditiously to develop an improved
treatment system to meet the treatment standards set out in the variance, and will submit a
closure plan and resume the remediation when this task is completed. The suggestion in your
petition that the company is not pursuing its ultimate remediation effort thus appears to be
incorrect at this time.
In addition, EPA finds again that the extent of treatment of excavated waste required
under the variance is substantial, requiring removal and destruction of benzene (the most
h272rdous constituent in the sludge) to the same level as required by the existing treatment
standard, and requiring substantial treatment (greater than 90 % removal and destruction, or
immobilization) of most of the remaining h 7 rdous constituents in the waste. The treatment
process and subsequent disposal is fully regulated under federal and state standards. This
course of management will be fully protective of htim n health and the environment. There is
no suggestion otherwise in your petition, and none in the administrative record. We do not
agree that an action which results in optimal site remediation, includes substantial treatment of
the excavated waste, is fully protective of hum n health and the environment, and delay of
which would be environmentally detrimental should be stayed, or can in any way be said to be
causing irreparable injury.
R.cycI.d/RSCYCISbIS • Pflnted with Vegetable OIl Based In on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Po nsumer)
-------
EPA also disagrees with your reading that the treatability variance language in 40 CFR
268. 44 (a) requires a finding that the waste’s chemical or physical properties differ
significantly from the waste tested to develop the treatment standard in order for a eatment
standard to be “appropriate”. See generally 61 FR at 55720-21. EPA’s view is that the
“inappropriate” clause is a separate test, not dependent on whether the waste is physically
capable of being treated to the LDR level. Id .. I also note that EPA’s longstanding and
consistent interpretation was most recently reiterated in national guidance issued by EPA’s
Director of the Office of Solid Waste and Director of Emergency and Remedial Response on
January 8, 1997 (copy attached). I do not believe that a court will overturn EPA’s reasonable
reading of its own regulation and thus I do not agree that there is a substantial lik 1jhood that
the litigation will succeed on the merits.
In the course of interpreting the treatability variance ]anguage, you refer to the
settlement agreement between EPA and the ETC in the treatability variance case involving the
variances for the Craftsman and Northwestern electroplaters (no. 91-1296) (D.C. Cir.). That
settlement agreement establishes no precedent for the decision in the Citgo variance. The
Craftsman and Northwestern variances, and the settlement agreement and subsequent
correspondence, dealt snh4y with a situation where the issue was whether a waste was
physically different from the one used to develop a treatment standard, not with whether a
treatment standard was inappropriate. That settlement agreement should not be cited in
support of your arguments here regarding a different type of treatability variance.
In conclusion, I do not believe that you have presented grounds warranting the Agency
staying the treatability variance. Therefore, we must deny your petition. It is unfortunate that
you disagree with our policy in this matter. We have identified an approach that will provide
a timely, protective solution to the problem of rem&i Iing the Citgo site. This approach has
the backing of State and EPA Regional officials, and involves completion of work already
commenced. We had hoped that you would recognize and endorse the environmental benefits
of taking action to complete work at this location. In any event, we are not prepared to accept
continuation of the status quo during an uncertain period of litigation, because the status quo
involves leaving the remediation unaddressed.
Sincerely,
1i bet ’4 . Cotsworth, Acting Director
Office ¶ 5 olid Waste
2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY t’ I
t4AR2O 97
9554.1997(04)
Christophe Lawrence
209 Wharton Street
Blacksburg, VA 24060)
Dear Christophe;
You have raised the question of the applicability of RCR.A’s Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR) program to land treatment or land farming of hazardous waste. By land farming, I am
referring to the purposeful application of t ias generatedH waste water or sludge to soils in order to
promote the degradation and treatment of waste constituents. I am not referring to
bioremediation or other in-situ techniques used for the clean-up of soils at Superfund or other
contaminated sites.
Application or placement of waste into a land treatment facility is defined as land disposal,
according to 40 CFR §268.2(c). Therefore, any RCRA hs,ardous waste that is subject to the
LDR program must either meet the applicable LDR treatment standards or qualify for a variance
from those treatment standards before it can be applied in a land treatment unit, even if the
purpose of that land application is treatment. As 40 CFR §268.40(a) indicates, the table
“Treatment Standards for H , rdous Wastes” in §268.40 lists the RCRA waste codes that are
subject to LDR and the treatment standards established for each of those codes. As of February
1997, almost all RCRA waste codes are subject to LDR regulations.
The primary exemption from LDR treatment requirements available to land treatment units
is the no-migration variance. Such a variance is granted only after a petition making the detailed
demonstration outlined in 40 CFR §268.6 is approved by EPA Headquarters. All tentative and
final EPA decisions on these no-migration variances are published in the Federal Register, as
required by §268.6(j). Currently, only one no-migration variance from the LDR treatment
standards has been granted to a hzl7 rdous waste land treatment facility. That facility is the
Exxon refinery at Billings, MT. and the notice approving its variance was published in the July
27, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 40134). The number of RCRA land treatment units qualifying
for this variance from LDR will probably not increase sig ificant1y in the near future, as no new
no-migration petitions for land treatment facilities have been received at EPA Headquarters
during the past six years.
It should be noted that permits that predate all or part of the LDR regulations, and tljat allow
the application of h ardous wastes to land treatment units, do not shield the permittee or facility
DATE Pt3117/?7 i / ’ ’/I I I I I .1
ER%Forin 1320IA (1190) Prd zR c,dedPapez OFFICIAL FILE COPY
* U&GOdE IMENT PRINflNG OFRCE 1995. 9 9457
-------
from any of the LDR rules, as stated in §270.4(a)(2) and the June 1, 1990, Federal Register (55
FR 22525). Furtheimore, unlike certain other parts of the RCRA program, LDR regulations are
applicable and effectiye at the same time in all states regardless of state regulatoiy adoption and
authorization issues (40CFR 271.3(b)).
I hope this adequately addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please
contacvDavid Eberly of my staff on 703-308-8645.
Sincerely,
Sonya Sasseville, Acting Chief
Permits Branch
cc: David Eberly
Chris Rhyne
-------
9554.1997(05)
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
April 1997
2. Treatment Standards for D008
Radioactive Lead Tanks and
Containers
The land disposal restrictions (LDR) of 40
CFR Part 268 require that certain wastes
meet treatment standards before land
disposal. Treatment standards are either
concentration-based or technology-based. A
waste with a concentration-based standard
may be treated to meet LDR using any method
of effective treatment (except impermissible
dilution), while a technology-based standard
requires treatment by the spec i/led
technology. D008 radioactive lead solids
(e.g.. aliforms of lead shielding, lead “pigs”
and other ele,nentalfor;ns of/cad) must be
treated b the specific rrear,,zeizt standard of
‘nacroencapsulauoiz (MA CR0) (55 FR 22628:
June 1. 1990). The MACRO treatment method
requires application of suiface coatings or
jackezing of wastes to reduce suiface exposure
to leaching media. Macroencapsulation
speci/ically may nor be used on “any material
that would be classified as a tank or
container” ( 268.42. Table 1). What is the
LDR treatment standard for D008 radioactive
lead solids that happen to be tanks or
containers?
D008 radioactive lead solids that are tanks
or containers must be treated using the
MACRO treatment technology. The
macroencapsulation treatment standard
requires that the encapsulating material
completely surround the waste and be
unbroken (57 f . , 37235; August 18, 1992).
Placement of waste in a container or tank.
however, is not considered macroencapsulation
for purposes of compliance with LDR
( 268.42, Table 1). This provision is not
intended to preclude macroencapsulation of
hazardous tanks and containers, but rather to
prevent an owner/operator from merely placing
waste in a tank or container in order to meet
the standard. Although D008 radioactive lead
solids must meet the macroencapsulation
treatment standard, an owner/operator may use
an alternative treatment method for compliance
with LDR if it is shown that the method is
equivalent in performance to the specified
method ( 268.42(b)) ..
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9555 - PROHIBITIONS
ON STORAGE
Part268SubpartE
A.T Kearney 1/3590/Il cr
-------
OSWER Directive #955 5.OO-Oi
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4 t
‘ 28
OFFCE OF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCV RESPONSE
TO ALL NRC LICENSEES:
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE ON THE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS’ EFFECTS ON
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF CO RCIAL MIXED WASTE
The purpose of this letter is to announce the availability
of guidance on the land disposal restrictions (LDR) for NRC
licensees. The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act directed EPA to
develop regulations restricting the land disposal of RCRA
hazardous wastes. The intent of the LDR provisions is to
minimize the potential risk to human health and the environment
by requiring treatment of wastes before land disposal. Since the
hazardous component(s) of radioactive mixed waste is RCRA
regulated, mixed radioactive waste handlers may now or soon will
manage waste subject to the RCRA land disposal restrictions.
The attached guidance is intended to provide a general
overview of the land disposal restriction regulations as well as
to provide information on areas of the regulations that may
particularly affect mixed waste handlers.
As ident fied in the guidance, th land disposal
restrictions have created new responsibilities for mixed waste
handlers. Therefore, it is important that mixed waste handlers
take the time to develop a good understanding of the land
disposal regulations. This guidance should not be used as a
substitute for the land disposal restriction regulations found at
40 CFR 268 or the rules that contain the
promulgated LDR regulations. (See list of major rules at the end
of guidance). Instead it should be used as a general guidance to
familiariz, the mixed waste handler with the land disposal
restriction regulations.
Sincerely,
- S WW
Office’ of Solid Waste
U.S. Environasntal Protection
Agency
PrLc. .d Rsc 3 thd Papv
-------
S ER Directive # 555.OO-C
OVERVIEW OF
THE EFFECT OF THE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
ON
RADIOACTIVE MIXED WASTE
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resouite Conservation
and Recovemy Act (RCRA)resriict the land disposal of hazardous wastes, including mixed
waste. This overview outhnes the major aspects of the land disposal restrictions as they
apply to mixed wastes. A more detailed analysis is found in the attached guidance
document.
WHAT IS MIXED WASTE?
Mixed waste is defined as a waste mixture that contains both radioactive materials subject to
the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and a hazardous waste component regulated under RCRA.
The hazardous waste (i.e. the non-AEA material) can be either a listed hazardous waste in
Subpart D of 40 CFR 261 or a waste that exhibits any of the hazardous waste
characteristics identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261.
WHA T MIXED WA STES A RE CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO
THE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDRS)?
The LDR regulations currently apply to all hazardous waste, including mixed waste, listed
or identified as of November 8, 1984 under RCRA 3001. They also apply to several
hazardous wastes newly listed after November 8, 1984 for which ueam nt standards have
been developed. Treatment standards for radioactive waste mixed with solvents (R)01 -
F005), dioxins (R)20 - F023 and F026 - R)28) and California list wastes are currently
effective. EPA deferred issuing u eaunent standards for radioactive waste mixed with
scheduled hazardous waste until the piomulgation of the last scheduled LDR rule on May
8,1990 (the so-called Third Thin ‘ .dc). After May 8, 1990, all mixed wastes were
restricted from land disposal. However, for all mixed waste addressed in the Third Third
rule, EPA granted a two-year national capacity variance based on the lack of ticannent
capacity. This variance delays the imposition of u rn nt requirements for land disposal
until May 8, 1992. (See 55 22660, June 1, 1990.)
AFTER MIXED WASTES BECOME SUBJECT To THE LDRS
CAN THEY BE STORED?
After the effective date, the HSWA amendments prohibit any storage of a land disposal
resincted waste, inchatiing mixed waste, except for the sole purpose of accumulating
sufficient quantities in a tank or container to facilitate pioper recovay, u eannent, or
disposal of that waste. (Sec 40 CFR 268.50, the storage prohibition.) There are,
however, a few instances where continued storage of LDR waste is allowed in t nfrt or
containers:
(1) Continued storage 0 1 wastes first placed in storage ixior to the applicable LDR
dame for that waste, until the waste is removed froni storage.
-------
OSWER Directive 95.55.Oo-
(2) Storage of restricted wastes that are not prohibited from land disposal because
they are exempt from the LDRs by statute or EPA regulation or they have a two-
year national capacity variance. (See 54 , 36968, September 6, 1989.)
(3) Specified treatment standards for the waste are met.
(Note that EPA ii aware that there is currently a shortage of treatment and disposal capacity
for mixed waste which may cause mixed waste handlers to be out of compliance with the
storage prohibition. Therefore, EPA plans to issue a policy statement addressing this
matter in the fall of 1990.)
ARE THERE LDR EXTENSIONS AND VARIANCES FOR
MIXED WASTE?
National Canacitv Variances from the Effective Dates
EPA has the authority to grant an extension to the effective dazes of treatment standards for
LDR wastes, for not more than two years, until alternative treamient, recovery or disposal
capacity is available. EPA may analyze data and comments submitted during a rulemaking
in determining whether to grant a nationwide variance. EPA granted an extension for
mixed waste covered in the Third Third rule on May 8, 1990, which included mixed wastes
from the First and Second Third. A national capacity variance is also in effect until
November 8, 1990 for radioactive mixed soil and debris wastes containing solvents and
dioxins resulting from a Superfund response action or from RCRA corrective action.
Case-By-Case Extensions
EPA is allowed on a case-by-case basis to grant a one-year extension (renewable only
once) to the effective daze of a treatment standard. Such extensions are granted only on the
grounds that adequate alternative tream nt, recovezy or disposal capacity cannot reasonably
be made av il ble by $ie LDR effective daze and that such alternative capacity can be
provided upon expiration of the case-by-case extension. The petitioner should identify the
types and quantities of mixed waste he or she generates or stores to evaluate the present or
future treatment capacity for the waste(s). Applications for case-by-case extensions should
be submitted to the U.S. EPA Administrator and the Office of Solid Waste (see
40 CFR 268.5).
“ No Migration” Exemntion
EPA will consider petitions to allow land disposal of prohibited wastes that do not meet the
treatment standard., provided the petitioner demonstrates that there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the waste
remains hazardous (40 CFR 268.6). At this time, petitions sbeuld be submitted to the
U.S. EPA Admini trazor. Eventually the petitions will be handled by EPA Regional
Offices or by Stairs authorized to grant “no migration” petitions. (Note that the EPA
Regions sic audx rized to grant “no migration” petitions for underground injection wells
(Office of Drinking Water).)
Variances from the Treatment Standards
EPA recognizes that some mixed waste might not be tzc bk by d method or to the level
specified. In such situations, EPA will allow petitions to be submitted requesting a
variance from the trc 1n n& stand&d. If granted on a na na1 buis, these Variances i’esult
in the establishment of a new u t2hility group and new eitnwit standards for all wastes
in the treatability group. Variances may also be granted on a site-specific basis. Site-
specific variances may be granted niswatively4Lc., without nodce-and-co.i.iiiti*
ruleznaldng) and have no generic application to 5 iinil’r wastes generated at other ¶itC$ .
-------
OSWER DLCP’
Variance petitions should be sent to the U.S. EPA Adminisu tor and the Office of Solid
Waste (sec 40 CFR 268.44).
(For further discussion on the extensions and variances, see pages six through eight of the
attached document.)
HOW DOES STATE LA W APPL V TO MIXED WASTE?
Like other RCRA requirements relaxed to mixed waste, the LDRs will apply only in States
where EPA administers the RCRA program (unauthorized States) or in States that have
adopted mixed waste requirements as part of their authorized State programs. In other
States, the LDRs will not apply to mixed waste until the State becomes authorized for
mixed waste. States may implement their own disposal restrictions as a matter of State law
if such actions ate more sthngenc or broader in scope than the actions of Federal programs
(RCRA section 3009 and 40 CFR 27 1.1(1)). In States with more stringent or broader in
scope restrictions, State law would govern. Twenty-two States were RCRA authorized for
mixed waste as of September 1, 1990. For a list of States with mixed waste authorization
refer to pages twelve and thirtecn of the attached document.
FUR THER INFORMA TION
1. See flow chart on the following page
2. Look ax attached guidance document
3. Call your Regional EPA or State contact
-------
Defining Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous Waste for the
Purposes of Complying with the Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR Part 268)
NOTE
This flowchart is a simplified version of the Land
Disposal Restriction regulations of 40 CFR Part 268,
and should not be used in lieu of those_regulat’ c
The waste is
Mixed
Waste.
Go to FlguEO 2.
It is not mixed wait.,
nor is it a RCRA
Haz.rdous Waat..
-------
Regulation of Mixed Wastes Under the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions Program
While national capacity variance is
in effect LDR notification and certiflca-
tion requirements must still be met.
If wastes subject to the variance are
disposed of in either RCRA surface
impoundments or landfills, the units
must be in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements
(MTR) of RCRA *3004(o).
Does the
Mixed waste can be land treatment avail.
disposed alter meeting able render the mixed
applicable treatment Waste and treatment
standards. N residue
non.hazardoue?
YES
NOTES:
• If the hazardous component of the mixed waste is listed, but not listed solely
because it exhibits one or more of the characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261,
then it remains a hazardous waste regardless of treatment.
The mixed waste must be disposed of at a mixed waste facility permitted
t under RCRA and licensed by NRC or Agreement State Authority.
When the treatment
standard s are met and if
the waste is not hazardous,
the waste may be disposed
of as radioactive waste.
‘Noth: Third Third trsstm. , ,t
-------
Regulation of Mixed Wastes Under the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions Program (continued)
Current treatment
methods are unable to —
satisfy applicable
treatment standards.
Therefore, depending
upon the situation, a
mixed waste handler
may pursue the foHowing
three options:
p
/ yeatment “.
standard variance
A
I New tresitmint
standard permits
disposal of is ix. i
waste after tros
to new lsvsl.
I; Dixpoul of mixed
extension treatment until
granted? date.
The mixed waste nnmt be disposed of ata mixed waste
facility permitted under RCRA and licensed by NRC or
Agreement State Authority.
* NOTE: If the treatment standard Is.technolegy..bsaed then
apply for an equivalent treatment method purauant to 40
CFR 268.42(b). If the treatment standard Is concentration.
based then pursue a treatment standard variance (40 CFR
{268.44).
Li
Safe disposal
can be
demonstrated
in a particular
unit or units.
Request a
no migration’
variance.
Figure 3. Options Under LDR:
Variances and Extensions
Is
‘no migration’
variance
granted?
,,n,,.
Dispoasi of mixed
waste without
treatment.
The treatment
standards are
unachievable for
the particular
waste.
I
Request a
variance to
treatment
ate nd arda.’
There are two types of treat.
ment standard variances
that can be granted. They
are;
0
*
• 1) a site-specific variance; or
2) a national treatability
variance. For further
discussion on these
variances, see pages 7-8.
ite -.peclflc v.rlaoos
permit, disposal .1
mixed waste with
temat we tnstmsiit.
The treatment
standard Is
achievable but
not available.
Request a
case-by.caee
extension for one
year frein the
national effective
date (Renewable
once for an
additional year).
NOTES:
While the case-by-case and national capacity variances are in
effect, LDR notilication and certification requirements must still
be met. Also, if wastes subject to the exemptions are disposed of
in either aurface impoundments or landfills, the units must be in
compliance with the minimum technological requirements
(MTR) of RCRA, Section 3004(o).
-------
OStER Directive *9555.00-:
GUIDANCE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
- EFFECTS
ON STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL MIXED WASTE
Executive Summary
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), through the land disposal restrictions (LDR), prohibit disposal of
hazardous wastes that have not been pretreated to standards required by EPA, unless the wastes are
subject to an exemption. The HSWA amendments also prohibit any storage of a land disposal
restricted waste 1 except for the sole purpose of accumulating sufficient quantities to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment, or disposal of that waste.
The LDRs may impact the day-to-day management of mixed waste by generators. Mixed waste is
defined as a waste that satisfies the definition of radioactive waste subject to the Atomic Energy Act
and contains hazardous waste that is either listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 4.0 CFR
Part 261 or exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR
Part 261. The hazardous component of mixed waste is regulated under RCRA.
LDR regulations currently apply to all mixed radioactive and RCRA hazardous wastes. The first
group of mixed wastes subject to the LDR regulations were mixed radioactive and RCRA
hazardous wastes that contain spent solvents, dioxins, or California list wastes. The remaining
RCRA hazardous wastes were placed in three groups known as the First, Second, and Third
Thirds. EPA deferred issuing treatment standards for radioactive waste mixed with First Third and
Second Third hazardous wastes until the statutory effective date for the Third Third, May 8, 1990.
On May 8, 1990, all mixed wastes containing hazardous wastes listed or identified as of
November 8, 1984 were restricted from land disposal. However, mixed wastes that cont’in
scheduled third wastes were granted a two-year national capacity variance which is explained later
in the discussion. (Please note that mixed wastes granted a capacity variance are still considered
restricted since scheduled third mixed wastes disposed in RCRA surface impoundments or landfills
during the two-year period can only be placed in units that meet certain minimum technological
requirements. Also during the variance, these wastes ate subject to 40 CFR 268.7 waste analysis
and recordkeeping requirements, and California list prohibitions if applicable.)
When the variance expires on May 8, 1992, all mixed wastes will be prohibited from storage
except to accumulate sufficient quantities to facilitate proper recovety, treatment or disposal. (See
40 CFR 268.50, the storage prohibition.) There are, however, a few exceptions to the storage
prohibition as indiv tfd later in the discussion. Mixed wastes containing spent solvents, dioxins or
California list wastes are cwrendy subject to the storage prohibition.
EPA is aware that there is currently a shortage of tre m ent and disposal capacity for mixed waste
which may cause mixed waste handlers to be out of compliance with the storage prohibition.
Therefore, EPA plans to issue a policy statement regarding this ni r in the fall of 1990.
1
-------
OS ER Directive 49555.3 _::
Introduction
The land disposal restrictions for mixed waste, like most RCRA hazardous waste requirements,
currently apply only in States where EPA, rather than the State, runs the RCRA program (such as
in unauthorized States), or in States that have adopted mixed waste requirements as part of their
authorized State programs. In other States, the LDRs will not apply to mixed wastes until the State
becomes authorized for mixed waste.
The land disposal restrictions imposed by HSWA have created new responsibilities for those
people who handle RCRA hazardous wastes, including those who manage radioactive mixed
hazardous waste. Presented below is a simplified outline of the LDR requirements. The outline is
intended to provide mixed waste handlers with a basic understanding of the RCRA land disposal
restrictions, and to demonsuate how the LDRs will affect storage and disposal of mixed waste.
Additional information on State authorization under RCRA for mixed waste is discussed briefly at
the end of the outline.
Background of the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
Lealsiative Framework
The 1984 HSWA amendments to RCRA prohibit the continued land disposal of untreated
hazardous waste beyond specified dates “unless the Administrator [ EPAI determines that the
prohibition ... is not required in order to protect human health and the environment for as long as
the waste remains hazardous ... “(RCRA Section 3004(d)(l), (e)(l) and g(5)). This phrase is
defined as meaning that there will be “no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal
unit. . . for as long as the waste remains hazardous.”
Waste treated in accordance with treamenc standards set by EPA under Section 3004(m) of RCRA
are not subject to th C prohibitions and may be land disposed. The statute requires EPA to set
“levels or methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are minimized”. (RCRA
Section 3004(m)(l).)
Mandated Deadlines
HSWA set forth a series of deadlines for EPA action (RCRA Sections 3004(d)-(g)). EPA was
required to set u auncnt standards by these dates . If EPA failed to set tream nt standards by the
dates mandated, an automatic statutory “hammer” provision took effect, either prohibiting the land
disposal of that waste in anything but a no-migration unit (solvents, dioxins, California list, and,
after May 8, 1990, all wastes identified or listed as of November 8, 1984). or limiting disposal
options (Fu t and Second ThUd wastes for which EPA did not establish treatment standards before
May 8, 1990).
The mandated dates for prohibiting specific wastes from land disposal are as follows:
(I) Solvent- and dioxin .cont ining wastes - November 8, 1986.
(2) California list wastes - July 8, 1987. The California list includes liquid hazardous
wastes that contain designated concentration levels of free cyanides heavy metals, (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel,jclenium , and thallium), bqwd corrosive
hazardous wastes with pH less than or equ to 2.0, hazardous wastes containing PCBs
2
-------
OSWER Directive 4 5 5.OO-C
greater than or equal to 50 ppm, and both liquid and nonliquid hazardous wastes containing
designated concentration levels of halogenated organic compounds (HOCs).
(Most of these wastes are subsumed by other waste codes in the scheduled thirds ( Ic.,
if a treatment standard has been promulgated for a California list waste in the scheduled
thirds then the t e waste-specific utaunent standard takes precedence over the California
list pnThibition), and so the California list prohibitions were largely superseded on May 8,
1990, although the California list prohibitions may continue to apply during the period of a
national capacity variance for scheduled waste. For example, if a Third Third mixed waste
also meets the definition of a California list waste, it must be treated to prohibition levels
specified for the California list waste prior to land disposal, although it is subject to a two-
year national capacity variance.)
(3) At least one-third of all listed hazardous wastes--August 8, 1988
(First Third).
(4) Ac least two-thirds of all listed hazardous waste--June 8, 1989
(Second Third).
(5) Remaining wastes that were identified or listed as of
November 8, 1984--May 8,1990 (Third Third).
To find the complete list of all scheduled thirds wastes refer to 40 CFR 268, Subpart B-Schedule
for Land Disposal Prohibition and Establishment of Treatment Standards.
Newly identified and Listed Waste
EPA is required to make land disposal determinations for any hazardous waste identified or listed
after November 8, 1984 within six months of the effective date of identification or listing. Unlike
currently listed and characteristic wastes, the statute does not impose an automatic land disposal
prohibition if EPA misses a deadline for issuing treaunent standards for any newly listed or
identified waste.
In the Third mini rule, EPA promulgated treatment standards for five wastes newly listed after
November 8, 1984. Four of these wastes are within the R)02 and F005 spent solvent listing and
the other is F025 light ends and spent filters/aids and desiccants subcategory. (EPA also
promulgated treatment standards for several newly listed wastes in the Second Third rule.)
Examples of newly listed wastes where treatment standards have not been established are the
wastes newly promulgated under the TC nile. Mixed radioactive TC wastes are therefore currently
not subject to the LDRs.
Soft Hammer
HSWA established “soft hammer” provisions which are regulations for the management of wastes
scheduled in the First and Second Thirds for which EPA failed to promulgate treatment standards
by the scheduled deadlines (RCRA 3004(g)(6)). These did not include First and Second Third
wastes that EPA rescheduled to the Third Third such as mixed wastes. These provisions applied
only until May 8, 1990 when the “hard hammer” provisions described below superseded them.
Before May 8, 1990, soft hammer wastes could be land disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment, only if:
(1) The generator determined that placemeei in a landfill or surface -
was the only practical alternative to currently available vcam rn, and
3
-------
OSWER Directive 9555.OO-
(2) The landfill or surface impoundment met minimum technological requirements
set forth in RCRA 3004(o) or had an equivalent waiver.
Soft hammer wastes managed by other land disposal methods such as land treatment or deep well
injection were-not subject to the soft hammer provisions specified in 40 CFR Section 268.8.
Hard Hammer
HSWA also established “hard hammer” provisions that prohibit the land disposal of hazardous
wastes if EPA failed to promulgate treatment standards by certain statutory deadlines. On May 8,
1990, the soft hammer provisions were superseded by a hard hammer for all RCRA hazardous
wastes (other than newly listed or identified) for which treatment standards had not been
promulgated. However, in the Third Third nile, EPA promulgated treatment standards and
effective dates for fl First, Second and Third Third wastes including wastes exhibiting a
characteristic under 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. (Note that the California list statutory
prohibitions arc still in effect for (1) liquid hazardous wastes containing greater than 50 ppm PCBs;
(2) HOC containing wastes that are identified as hazardous by a characteristic property that does
not involve HOCs and (3) liquid hazardous wastes that exhibit a characteristic and contain greater
than 134 mg / i of nickel and/or 130 mg/I of thallium, see 55 ER 22674, June 1, 1990.)
Setting “Best Demonstrated Available Technologies ”
RCRA Section 3004(m) requires EPA to “promulgate regulations specifying those levels or
methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste...”. On January 14,
1986, EPA proposed an approach for developing treatment standards under 3004(m) using
technology-based levels determined by the performance of Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BDA1 ) in conjunction with risk-based standards (screening levels). After receiving
extensive comment on the proposed rule, EPA chose to promulgate only the technology-based
level or BDAT approach. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s
technology-based approach to LDR; Hazardous Waste Treatment Council vs. EPA ,
886 F. 2d (DC. Cir. 1989).
Evaluating the performance of treatment processes for BDAT is based upon the concentration of
specific constituents in treatment residuals in the land disposal environment. When establishing
BDAT, EPA sets a standard for both the wastewater and non-wastewater forms of a waste code.
Often, EPA will set a standard for waste subgroups called “waste trealability groups” which
consist of wastes with similar physical and chemical properties. EPA then determines what the
demonstrated treatment technologies are for each “treatabiity group”. To be considered a
demonstrated treatment technology, a full-scale facility should be in operation for the waste or
similar wastes. EPA then evaluates whether or not the particular demonstrated treatment
technology is available.
To be considered avnilaMc, a u aunent technology must m c c i the following criteria:
(1) The process msy be av ihblc for pwdiase or lease, if d technology is
proprietary or a patented process.
(2) The technology must substantially reduce waste toxicity or substantially reduce
the migration of hazardous constituents fr*u the waste.
4
-------
oS ’ER Directtve 9555.Oo-O
Once a treatment technology is determined to be demonstrated and available, EPA collects and
analyzes performance data from the specific treannent. EPA then analyzes how each treatment
technology substantially diminishes the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduces the kelihocci
of migration of hazardous constituents from the waster Finally, EPA chooses the “best” treatment
technology based on performance data (e.g., the levels to which the technologies can treat specific
hazardous constituents in the waste), and sets a performance standard based on this specific
technology. Where constituent specific performance data cannot be obtained or is deemed
unnecessaiy, EPA considers specifying that a technology must be used for the waste.
It is important to note that, in some cases, the specific technologies identified as the basis for
BDAT are simply those technologies which EPA used to develop the waste-specific performance
standard Any technology or combination of technologies not otherwise prohibited can be used to
achieve these standards. In other words, a specific treatment technology does not
have to be used unless the specific method of treatment is specified as the
treatment standard.
A treatment standard can be expressed as:
(1) Concentration Levels - any treatment technology may be used, as long as
hazardous constituents in the waste arc treated to specific concentration levels
(2) Treatment Technologies - the standard specifies which technology must be used
to treat the waste before land disposal.
(3) Deactivation - the treatment standard for a number of subcategories of DOO1-D003
wastes which specifics the removal of the characteristic of ignitability, corrosivicy or
reactivity. Recommended technologies that may be used to achieve deactivation ace
referenced in Appendix VI of Part 268.
To date, EPA has set special treatment standards for four categories of mixed waste. They include:
(1) radioactive lead solids with a BDAT treatment standard of macrocapsulation;
(2) radioactive elemental mecvwy with a BDAT treannent standard of amalgamation;
(3) radioactive hydraulic oil contaminated with meivucy and a BDAT standard of
incineration and,
(4) radioactive high level wastes generated during the reprocessing of fuel rods with
a BDAT standard of vitrification,
The remaining mixed wastes are subject to those promulgated treatment standards that apply to the
hazardous portion of the waste unless EPA publishes specific standards for mixed waste
treacabilhty groups in the future. (For fwTher discussion on imxcd waste utatment standards see 55
, 22532 and 22626, June 1, 1990.)
Effective Dates for Land Disposal Restrictions
As soon as EPA sets a treatment standard, wastes subject to that standard are automatically
prohibited from land disposal, unless the wastes meet the veitment standard or are disposed in an
EPA approved no-migration unit (3004(hXl)). EPA may through rulemaking revise a treatment
standard after the statutoly date If no vea1m nt capacity is available, EPA may defer the effective
date of the standard, as explained below. Also, if wastes are generated that cannot be ti azed to the
5
-------
OSWER DLrectlve #95 5.OO-O
specified treatment levels or using the specified treatment methods, the regulations allow a
generator or owner/operator to submit a petition to the Administrator requesting a variance from the
treatment standard. Most variances are granted through a rulemaking which requires publication in
the Federal Register and public comment.
Variances that Delay a Prohibition Effective Date
National Capacity ExtensIon of Effective Date
After establishing BDAT, EPA determines if sufficient “national capacity” exists to adequately
treat, recover, or dispose of each type of waste. If there is insufficient capacity, RCRA Section
3004(h)(2) allows EPA to grant an extension to the effective date for a specific land disposal
restriction until adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity will be available, but
for no more than two years. This “national capacity” variance cannot exceed two years beyond the
applicable statutory deadline. During the two year period, the waste is not subject to the storage
prohibition, the dilution prohibition or the treatment standards. However, during the extension
period certain recordkeeping requirements under 40 CFR 268.7 must be met. Also, if the waste is
disposed at a landfill or surface impoundment, then the disposal unit must be in compliance with
minimum technological requirements of RCRA Section 3004(o), (i.e., the disposal unit must
normally have two or more liners, a leachate collection system and ground water monitoring). On
the other hand, if a waste such as mixed waste is treated to meet the applicable treatment standard
during the extension period, it may be disposed in a Subtitle C landfill or surface impoundment
without the unit meeting minimum technological requirements. It should be noted, however, that
separate RCRA provisions may require such waste to be disposed in units that meet minimum
technological requirements
Currently the surface disposed scheduled third mixed wastes are subject to a two-year national
capacity variance. In addition, EPA has granted a two-year extension to naturally occurring
radioactive materials that are mixed with RCRA hazardous wastes. EPA is not granting this
variance to underground injected mixed radioactive wastes because EPA has received no
information that these wastes arc being injected. A national capacity variance is also is effect until
November 8, 1990 for radioactive mixed soil and debris wastes containing solvents or dioxi’is
resulting from a Superfund response action or a RCRA corrective ac&n.
Case-By-Case Extensions
According to RCRA Section 3004(Ji)(3), in cases where adequate alternative treatment, recovery,
or disposal capacity cannot reasonably be made available by the effective date of a land disposal
restriction, any person who generates or manages a restricted waste may submit an application to
EPA for an extension of the effective date if such alternative capacity can be provided at a later
date. Case-by-case extensions arc granted for one year, and are renewable for one additional year.
EPA will allow an extension if the applicant can demonstrate that he has made a good-faith effort to
locate and contract with facilities nationwide to manage his waste, and that he has entered into a
binding contract to construct or otherwise provide such alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal
capacity at the end of the extension. The applicant must also demonstrate that, due to
circumstances beyond his control, such capacity reasonably cannot be made availahic by the LDR
effective date. Other provisions also apply, such as submitting a compliance schedule and
certifying that the capacity being constructed is sufficient to handle the total quantity of waste that is
the subject of the application. A draft 1988 guidance document on case-by-case extensions U
available by calling the EPA’s RCRA/Superfund Hodine at 1400-424-93&
6
-------
OSWER Directive 4 9S55. O-Oi
Variances From the Prohibition
No Migration Petition
In carrying out the directives of RCRA Sections 3004(d)(l), (eXI), and (g)(5), EPA will consider
petitions to allow land disposal of untreated restricted waste, provided the petitioners demonstrate
“to a reasonable degree of certainty that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from
the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the wastes remain hazardous”. For underground
injection wells, EPA has interpreted this to mean the concentration of hazardous constituents must
not exceed safe levels at the unit boundary. (EPA has not yet formally interpreted the statutory
standard with respect to surface disposal units, although regulations for non-migration petitions
currently exist at 40 CFR 268.6.) This demonstration can be made through site-verified modeling
and monitoring, and must include an evaluation of air, surface water, ground water and soil
exposure scenarios.
EPA expects that there will be relatively few cases in which this demonstration can be made,
however EPA is proposing to grant a conditional variance for ten years to the Department of
Energy’s (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico. This is the first
such proposal to grant a no-migration petition to a unit other than an underground injection well. If
granted, the conditional variance will allow DOE to place transuranic or alpha-emitting mixed
radioactive waste in the WIPP (an underground salt formation) without regard to LDR treatment
standards for testing and experimentation purposes only.
Petitions for surface land disposal units arc to be submitted to EPA Headquarters and petitions for
underground injection wells to the Regional Mministrator. EPA draft interim final guidance on no
migration petitions for surface units is available for petition applicants. 2 A notice of availability for
this document will be published around October 1990 concurrently with a proposed rule on no-
migration vanances for surface units. A final version of the guidance is scheduled for release
around October 199 1 concurrendy with the final rule on no migration variances.
Variance From the Treatment Standard
EPA recognizes that w . tes may exist that cannot be treated to the levels specified as the treatment
standard (or, in some cases, by the method specified). In such cases, a petition may be submitted
requesting a variance from the treatment standard. EPA envisioned that wastes may be subject to a
treatability variance in cases where the treatment standard for a particular waste cannot be met
because the waste does not fit into one of the BDAT treatabilhty groups. A particular waste, such
as a mixed waste stream, may be significantly different from the wastes considered in establishing
treatability groups because the waste contains a more complex matrix, making it more difficult to
treat Variance petitions most denxmstate that the ue fnient standard established for a given waste
cannot be met. This demonstration can be made by showing that attempts to treat the waste by
available techno1ogies were not successful, or through appropriate analyses of the waste, which
demonstrate that she waste cannot be treated to the specified levels. Variances are not granted
based on a showing that adequate BDAT treatment capacity is unavailable
Treat bility variances can be divided into two categories; a national u’eaxability variance and a site-
specific variance A national treatablllty variance must be based on a demonstration that the
waste is significantly different (physically or chemically) ( m the waste or treatablhty group used
to set the treatment standard, such that the existing ueiim nt standard cannot be met. The nati I
treazability variance:
(1) Establishes a new treasability group and treamient standards for a waste and all
similar wastes.
7
-------
OSWER Directive #9S55.cy ...
(2) Is processed by a notice-and-comment rulem2idng.
A site-specific treatability variance is used when there are site-specific factors that exist
which cause or coninbute to difficulty in meeting standards. Unlike a national treatability variance,
a site-specific variance:
(1) Does not establish a new treatability group.
(2) Is processed by non-rulemaking dminisuative procedures, which includes
public notice and opportunity for comment.
EPA granted the first site-specific treatability variance to Allied-Signal Inc. for debris and certain
non-debris materials generated from the dismantlement of the Allied-Signal’s Baltimore Works (see
55 f. 20190, May 15, 1990).
Waste Testing and Recordkeeplng Requirements
Generators must test or use their knowledge of the prohibited hazardous waste to demonstrate
compliance with the LDR treatment standards or California prohibition levels prior to land disposal
(see 40 CFR 268.7). Generators who treat prohibited wastes in 90-day tanks or containers to meet
treatment standards, must test these wastes at a frequency specified in their waste analysis plan.
Similarly, treatment and disposal facilities are required to test their wastes according to the
frequency defined in the facility waste analysis plan.
Each tune a restricted waste is shipped to an off-site treatment, storage or disposal facility,
notification must accompany the waste. If a waste meets a treatn nt standard, then certification by
the generator or treatment facility is required verifying that the trea nent standard has been achieved
and the waste has not been irnpermissibly diluted. (Cestain reccrdkeeping recpiirements also apply
to restricted wastes that remain on-site, cease to be solid or hazardous wastes and are not land
disposed.)
Notification and certification arc not required to accompany characteristic wast’ rendered non-
hazardous to Subtitle D facilities. However, appropriate notification and certification for these
wastes must be sent to the EPA Regional Administrator or authorized State. If the characteristic
wastes rendered non-hazardous are sent to a Subtitle C Facility, then the appropriate notification
and certification must be sent to the Subtitle C facility. Note that a one-time notification and
certification is allowed for sn ll quantity generator shipments subject to tolling agreements outlined
in 40 CFR 262.20(e)(2).
Treatment In Surface Impoundment Exemption
Treatment of wastes that arc normally prohibited from land disposal is allowed in a surface
impoundment or a series of surface impoundments that m c c i the technological requirements of 40
CFR 268.4(aX3). After anncnt, if the residues do not meet the applicable treatment standard (or
statutory prohibition level if the treatment standard has not been established), then the residues
must be removed for subsequent management within a year of enuy into the unit and may not be
managed in another surface impoundment. Also, a certification that attests that the technical
requirements arc met and a modified waste analysis plan that incorporates 40 CFR 268.4 residual
testing requirements must be sent to the Regional Administrator.
8
-------
OSWER DLrect].ve 9555
Dilution as Troatmea’g
Under the LDRs, dilution is prohibited as treatment for both listed and charact istic wastes (see
40 CFR 268.3). However, exceptions to the prohibition were made foc
(1) Ccrtain characteristic wastes generated and managed in waste treatment systems
regulated by the Clean Water Act (Sec 40 CFR 268.3(b)). (Note that prohibited wastes
treated by inappropriate methods are considered impermissibly diluted.)
(2) Listed and characteristic wastes that are aggregated for legitimate treatment in
centralized treatment systems. (Note that centralized treatment of incompatible
wastestreams is not considered legitimate tream nt and is viewed as impermissible
dilution.)
(3) Characteristic wastes that are disposed into hazardous or non-hazardous Class I
injection wells regulated under the Safe Drinking Waxer Act and do not exhibit any
prohibited characteristic of hazardous waste at the point of injection.
(4) Prohibited non-toxic ignitable, reactive and corrosive wastes that are treated by dilution
to meet a treatment standard.
Storage Prohibition
In addition to prohibiting the land disposal of hazardous wastes, Congress also prohibited the
storage of any waste which is prohibited from land disposal unless “such storage is solely for the
purpose of the accumulation of such quantities of hazardous waste as are necessary to facilitate
proper recovery, treatment, or disposal” [ RCRA Section 3004(j)]. The intent of Congress was to
ensure that long-term storage was not used as a means of avoiding a land disposal prohibition.
Currently a capacit shortage exists for treatment and disposal of mixed wastes that may cause
mixed waste handlers to be in violation of the storage prohibition. As a zesult EPA plans to issue
a policy statement regarding this matter in the fall of 1990. (For further discussion on storage
issue see 55 ER 1 22673, June 1, 1990.)
The implementing regulations that address the prohibitions on storage of LDR waste are found in
40 CFR 268.50. This regulation essentially restates the statutory language.
Allowed Storaae TImes
It is apparent from the language in HSWA that Congress wished to prohibit extended storage of a
LDR waste in lieu of treatmenL There are, however, a few instances that allow for the storage of
LDR waste in tanki or ccntainera
(1) Continued storage of wastes first placed in storage prior to the applicable effective date
of a LDR, until the wastes are removed from storage.
(2) Placement of wastes in storage after the applicable effective date , only if the untreated
wastes are stored solely for accumulation in the amounts necessary to facilitate proper
trea nt, recovery or disposal.
(3) Storage of restricted wastes that are not prohibited from land disposal because they are
exempt from the land disposal restrictions by statute or EPA regulation. (see 54 36968,
September 6, 1989.)
9
-------
OS ER DLrective )555.OO-Oi
(4) Specified treatment standards for the waste are met.
EPA interprets the land disposal restrictions as applying prospectively to affected wastes.
Therefore, wastes disposed of or placed in storage prior to the LDR applicable effective date are
not subject to LDR. If however wastes are removed from storage or a land disposal unit after the
applicable effective date, and are subsequently placed in or on the land, then they are subject to
LDR.
The LDR implementing regulations, at 40 CFR 268.50(b), state that: “an owner/operator of a
treatment, storage or disposal facility may store [ LDR waste) for up to one year unless the Agency
[ EPA] can demonstrate that such storage was not solely for the purpose of accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as are necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment or disposal”.
This provision puts the burden of proof on EPA to demonstrate that storage is improper, if it takes
place for less than one year; however, this should not be interpreted that an LDR waste can be
stored for up to one year for any reason. This allocation of burden of proof was upheld in
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA . 886 F. 2d (D.C. Cir. 1989).
The regulations further state in 44) CFR 268.50(c) that: “an owner/operator of a treatment, storage
or disposal facility may store [ prohibited waste] beyond one year; however, the owner/operator
beam the burden of proving that such storage was solely for the purpose of accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as are necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal.”
The preamble to the November 7, 1986 final rule also discusses the point at which storage is
considered to begin. As stated in 51 ER 1 40583, “to implement the storage provisions the Agency
[ EPA] is requiring owners/operators to comply with the same requirements for dating containers as
set forth for generators under 40 CFR 262.34(a)(2).” The requirements in 40 CFR 262.34 allow a
generator to store a Land disposal restricted waste (as any other type of waste) in a satellite
accumulation area until 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous waste a xe
accumulated. Satellite areas are defined as “places where wastes are generated in the industrial
process or laboratory and where those wastes must initially accumulate prior to removal to a central
area” (49 ER, 49569, December 20, 1984). Therefore, the accumulation date for storage starts
when the waste is moved to the central accumulation area. (Also, under the 40 CFR 262.34
requirements, a generator can store hazardous waste for up to 90 days without a permit.)
Disposal of certain restricted wastes such as those wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.1(c) is allowed by
statute or regulation. For example, small-quantity generators of less than 100 kilogram of non-
acute hazardous waste per month or less than 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste per month are
not subject to the LDR. In addition, exempt wastes such as those with an approved case-by-case
extension under 40 CFR 268.5, an approved no migration petition under Section 268.6 or a
national capacity variance under Part 268 may continue to be land disposed under certain
conditions and ate not subject to the storage prohibition during the period of the exemption. These
wastes are not subject to the storage prohibition because the storage prohibition only applies to
wastes that are prohibited from land disposal. (For further discussion see 54 .R, 36968,
September 6, 1989 and 55 22660, June 1, 1990.)
Status of the Land Disposal Restrictions
As discussed above, HSWA required EPA to set treatment standards for solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes and California list wastes by certain dates. On November 7, 1986, EPA
promulgated a final rule (51 E& 40572) that established the general framework for the land
disposal restrictions program and established uea mnt standards for the solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes. On July 8, 1987 EPA promulgated a final rule (52 ER1 25760) b1isM $
treatment standards for California list wastes containing PCBs and certain halogenated org$
10
-------
OSWER Directive #95 5.OO-O1
compounds, and codified the statutory prohibitions on liquid corrosive wastes. Also on this date,
statutory prohibitions went into effect for liquid hazardous wastes containing certain metals and
free cyanides. The California list standards were set up as interim u eatment standards until more
waste-specific standards could be established.
These two rules prohibit the land disposal of mixed waste that contains RCRA solvents or dioxins
or California list wastes unless treatment standards developed for the hazardous waste portion are
met. In other words, a spent solvent, dioxin or California list mixed waste must be treated to those
concentrations or using the treatment method specified for its hazardous component prior to land
disposal. For example, if i non-liquid mixed waste is identified as hazardous under 40 CFR Part
261 and it contains greater than 1000 mg 1cg halogenazed organic compounds (i.e., it is a California
list waste), it must be incinerated as specified in Section 268.42
HSWA also required EPA to prepare a schedule for restricting the land disposal of all hazardous
waste listed or identified as of the daze of the enactment of HSWA, excluding solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes. On May 28, 1986, EPA published a schedule (51 EEh 19300) for setting
treatment standards for the listed and identified hazardous waste. This schedule placed each of the
listed and identified wastes in one of the “Thirds”.
EPA promulgated the final rule addressing the First Third wastes on August 17, 1988 (53 F l
31137). In the First Third rulemaking, EPA postponed establishing treatment standards for mixed
waste to the Third Third. (See 53 f , 31137 and amended Section 268.12.) The final rule
establishing treatment standards for the Second Third wastes was published on June 23, 1989 ($4
26594). As was the case for mixed waste in the First Third, EPA postponed establishing
treatment standards for mixed waste coveted under the Second Third until the Third Third.
The Third Third rule was published on June 1, 1990 (55 Fl 22520). In the rule, EPA granted
mixed wastes containing scheduled third hazardous wastes a two-year national capacity variance.
EPA also established eaunent standards for four categories of mixed waste outlined on page five.
After May 8, 1992, the hazardous portion of all mixed waste must meet the appropriate treatment
standard for all applicable waste codes prior to disposal.
Effect of the LDR on the Stor” e and Disposal of Mixed Waste
Consistent with the intent of these regulations, the major impact of the land disposal restrictions on
mixed waste disposal is that, on May 8, 1990, all waste must meet treatment standards prior to
land disposal unless a variance or extension to the effective daze is granted. It may be difficult or
impossible to treat land disposal restricted mixed waste because a shortage of mixed waste
treatment capacity exists; therefore, variances may be necessary.
Restricted wastes that arc exempt from (e.g., wastes granted a national capacity variance) or not
subject to a land disposal prohibition (e.g., wastes that meet specified treatment standards) ate also
exempt front or not subject to the storage prohibition. Wastes that do not meet a specific treatment
standard and axe not exempt fiunt LDR by statute or regulation axe prohibited from storage unless
such storage is solely for the puxpose of accumulation of such quantities of hazardous waste as are
necessary to facilitate pro ier recovery, treatment, or disposal. The storage prohibition does not
affect those scheduled third mixed wastes that arc disposed or stored prior to May 8, 1992.
Instead 1 the prohibition nddresses storage of scheduled third mixed wastes tim placed into storage
after May 8, 1992 unless these wastes axe giintcd an adth onaI riancc.
It is important to note that mixed waste is not the only category of waste where treatment capacity
is or may not be available on an LDR effective dltc. For example, no incinaators axe currently
p mitted to treat alxeady-stored prohibited dioxin wastes.
11
-------
OSWER Directive 49535.OC
Since all mixed waste is restricted, EPA encourages mixed waste handlers to determine the types
and quantities of mixed waste presendy stored or generated and to evaluate the current and future
capacity to treat their wastes. Mixed waste generators may obtain EPA guidance documents on the
definition and identification of mixed waste from the RCRA/Superfund Hodine at 1-800-424-
9346.
State Authorization and Mixed Waste
EPA formally clarified its position that the hazardous component(s) of mixed waste is subject to
RCRA regulation (see 51 E 24504, July 3, 1986). In the notice, EPA called for authorized States
to revise their base programs and incorporate the authority to regulate the hazardous components of
mixed waste. States authorized for the base program were allowed a maximum of two years from
the promulgation of the notice to incorporate the mixed waste authority (i.e., until July 3, 1988).
The July 3, 1988 deadline was extended one year to reflect new deadlines promulgated for all State
hazardous waste program modifications called “clusters” on September 22, 1986 (51 ER 33712).
To date, there are still a number of States that have not received authorization for the mixed waste
authority. In those States that are authorized for RCRA’s base program but which have not
received mixed waste authority, mixed waste is gj subject to LDRs including the storage
prohibition until the State is authorized for mixed waste. However, in those States that are not
authorized for RCRA’s base program and in States authorized for mixed waste, EPA’s LDR
regulations take effect immediately. States and territories granted mixed waste authorization as of
September 1, 1990 are:
(1) Colorado
(2) Tennessee
(3) South Carolina
(4) Washington
(5) Georgia:
(6) Nebraskp
(7) Kentucky
(8) Utah
(9) Minnesota
(10) Ohio
(11) Guam
(12) North Carolina
(13) Michigan
(14) Texas
(15) New York
(16) Idaho
(17) illinois
(18)Mkansas
(19) Oregon
(20) Kansas
(21) New Mexico
(22) North Dakota
Information on a State’s RCRA authorization status may be obtained from the State’s hazardous
waste agency or by calling EPA’s RCRA/Supcrfui 1 Hodine at 1-800-424-9346.
12
-------
OSWER Directive #9555.00-0
Summary
All mixed waste was subject to the RCRA land disposal restrictions on May 8, 1990 unless it was
disposed of in land based units prior to that date stored, without being removed from storage after
the effective daze, is in a State that is authorized for RCRAs base program but has not yet received
authorization fotmixed waste, or is a newly identified or listed waste after November 8, 1984 for
which treatment standards have not yet been promulgated. Currently, solvent- and dioxin-
containing mixed wastes and California list mixed wastes have to be treated to the treatment
standard for the hazardous portion of the waste. Treatment standards for radioactive mixed waste
that contains scheduled third wastes are not effective due to a two-year national capacity variance;
however, if these wastes are disposed of in RCRA surface impoundments or landfills the units
must meet minimum technological requirements. These wastes are also subject to 40 CFR 268.7
reporting and recordkeeping requirements and the California list prohibitions if applicable.
The first step in dealing with LDRs is to determine whether the waste is a RCRA hazardous waste.
Next, it must be established whether a treatment standard has been promulgated for the waste. If
so, it is a restricted waste and subject to certain recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR 268.7.
Third, it must be determined whether the waste is destined for a prohibited form of land disposal
and whether the treatment standard is in effect for the waste. If so, then the waste is a prohibited
waste subject to all LDR requirements unless the generator or treater has obtained a variance or
extension from the LDRs. However, each mixed waste handler needs to identify the types and
quantities of mixed waste he or she currently generates and stores to evaluate the present and future
treatment capacity for the waste(s).
13
-------
OS ER DirectLVe 9535.OO- y
Major Land Disposal Restriction Rules
(1) November 7, 1986, (51 ER 1 40572). Final Rule on spent solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes.
(2) June 4, 1987, (52 ft 21010). Corrections to the November 7, 1986 final rule.
(3) July 8, 1987, (52 ER 1 25760). Final rule on California List hazardous wastes.
(4) July 26 , 1988, (53 ER 28118). Final rule on spent solvent-containing wastes for the
Underground Injection Control Program.
(5) August 16, 1988, (53 ER 1 30908). Final rule on California List hazardous wastes and
certain scheduled First Third wastes for the Underground Injection Control Program.
(6) August 17, 1988, (53 fR 31138). Final rule on First Third scheduled wastes.
(7) October 24, 1988, (53 ER, 41601), Corrections to the August 16, 1989 final rule for
the Underground Injection Program.
(8) June 14, 1989, (54 ER 25416). Final rule on additional First Third scheduled wastes
for Underground Injection Control Program.
(9) June 23, 1989, (54 ER 1 26594). Final rule on Second Third scheduled wastes.
(10) September 6, 1989, (54 ER 36967). Corrections to August 17, 1988 final rule.
(11) June 1, 1990, (55 ER, 22520), Final rule on Third Third scheduled wastes.
14
-------
U.S. EPA “Case-By-Case Extensions: A Guidance Document to Support the
Land Disposal Restrictions”
2 U.s. EPA. “No Migration Variance to the Hazardous Waste Land Disposal
Prohibition: A Guidance Manual for Petitioners, Draft Interim Final”,
March 1990, NTIS No. PB 90-204-736.
3 U.S. EPA, “Joint EPA/NRC Guidance on the Definition and Identification
of Commercial Mixed Low Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste”,
January 7. 1987. OSWER Directive Number 9432.00-2.
U.S. EPA. “Guidance on the Definition and Identification of Commercial
Mixed Waste Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste and Answers to
to Anticipated Questions”, October 4. 1989.
15
-------
UNITED STATE3 I.S VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9555.1.987(01)
October 2, 1987
Ut. . tavne Pibhitts, rirector
rnvircnMental Protection Division
Dec rtt”ent of rercy
Cak Didce ( eratlons
Post Of’ic. Pox
Oak Pidae, Tennessee 37 1l
rear Mr. Pihhitts’
I an ’ rec’nondino to your letter to Lee Thomas, datel uat, IP,
19°7, reaue t1ne an extension o the effective late 0 the storan
orohthition irnosed by the lane’ riisposal reetric’tinns. rp . golvent
wastes for which the extension is re. ueated are oeneratel at
sites in Tennessee, Ohio, and entucIcy. ‘hey poe* an uruau il
problem because they are eo—contar’inated with rallonuelileg
we are not aware of any dlsr’osal facilities that accent low—level
radioactive mixed wastes. An incinerator to dia os. of these
wastes is haina built and a draft peririt has been iesuee ‘or
Dublic eo,ri’ ent. The reouested extension covers the time ne. 4
to hrfrio the incinerator to operational readiness and conduct
trial burns. The incinerator is exp.ct.d to be oDerational by
3anuary of l°EP..
The Acency realizes that 3ow—level radioactive t”fxe ’ 4 wast q
pose a soecial oroblem for aeneretors, since there are no faci]1—
ties at this tire permitted to treat or disoose of these we.t, .
Unfortunately, the Resource Conservation and DpeoveIP.y Act
contains no provision authorizina extension of the e9feetiv. e’ te
of the section 3004(j) storaae prohibitIon, (42 U.F.r. Q t’i)l,
so we are unable to arant your recuest.
As our staffs have discussed, however, C A section 3fl(l4(h)( )
provides for en extension of the land disoosal restrictions
effective dat. for specific wastes on a case—hy—case bes1 . ‘e
are thus tr.ating this petition as one for a case—by—case extension
of the effectiv, date. To reiterate the telenhone conv.rsatf on
held by our staffs on S•ot.mher 20, IQP7, we need the fo]Jowlnn
in format ionr
-------
OSWFR Directive e9555.QO-C
IP7 % 9555.1990(01)
P UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTiON AGENCY
‘ L WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
p 28
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
TO ALL NRC LICENSEES:
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE ON THE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS’ EFFECTS ON
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL MIXED WASTE
The purpose of this letter is to announce the availability
of guidance on the land disposal restrictions (LDR) for NRC
licensees. The 1984 HazardouS and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act directed EPA to
develop regulations restricting the land disposal of RCRA
hazardous wastes. The intent of the LDR provisions is to
minimize the potential risk to human health and the environment
by requiring treatment of wastes before land disposal. Since the
hazardous component(s) of radioactive mixed waste is RCRA
regulated, mixed radioactive waste handlers may now or soon will
manage waste subject to the RCRA land disposal restrictions.
The attached guidance is intended to provide a general
overview of the land disposal restriction regulations as well as
to provide information on areas of the regulations that may
particularly affect mixed waste handlers.
As identified in the guidance, the land disposal
restrictions have created new responsibilities for mixed waste
handlers. Therefore, it is important that mixed waste handlers
take the time to develop a good understanding of the land
disposal regulations. This guidance should not be used as a
substitute for the land disposal restriction regulations found at
40 CFR 268 or the g E g .j2 .tgE rules that contain the
promulgated LDR regulations. (See list of major rules at the end
of guidance). Instead it should be used as a general guidance to
familiarize the mixed waste handler with the land disposal
restriction regulations.
Sincerely,
lvia K. Lovrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
u.s. Environmental Protection
Agency
Pri,A.d R.c ckd Papr
-------
Ar r’ injstratfve Infor,ratior
I. recifY the amount o time ne°de’j to cor’nlet alt rnstI ’
ca acfty for the waste.
2. Provide information about the process neneratino the
waste and about the physical/chemical proo.rties of the
waste, ir,c]udjr,o,
• A descriotlon of the process oeneratino the waste.
• The EPA Razarc ous Waste Number.
• A descriotion of the comoositlon and ohvsfcal form of
the waste stream.
• The cuantity of waste aenerated o r veer.
• The certification that the in’ormation is true, accurate,
and comolete. sianed by en authorized renresentatfvci.
Demongt rat ions
1. Submit caoacity flaures for the incinerator.
2. Submit canacity fic’ures for the maximur auanttty of weate
that would he subject to the extension.
3. Submit descrintions and PCDA erwit numbars nf the storaoe
facilities where the waste wil] be stored orlor to incineration.
Aithouch we have initiated action on your reauest, we will
not he able to oropose our decision until we reedy. the rern,eetmd
information. You should he aware that a case—by—ease e tengjon
of the effective date is a rulemakina orocedure, recvuirino nuhif—
cation of the Aoency’. tentative decision to allow the oubtic an
opportunity to comment on your rerTuest. After considerinct their
comments, the final decision must also he oublished in the ederal
Peal ster.
We will make every effort to orocess your erinlieation in a
timely manner. In the interin, if you have further r’ueatlons or
problems, feel free to contact Phonda Crab at (?C 2)
Sincere lv,
/3,
Marcia t”il]lams
flireetor
‘ ffiee of oY1d W qte
-------
9560 — WASTE
MINIMIZATION
AT Kearney 1/3590/12cr
-------
9560.1985( 01)
? MORANDUM
SUBJECT: Waste Minimiga tiana Permit Certifi cation
and Joint Permitting
‘p
FROM: Bruce R. W.ddle, Director
Permits and Stat. Programs Division (WH—563)
?Os Bazardous Waste Division Directors
Regions I-X
a.
a
The purpo.. of this randum is to provid. guidanc. to
permit writers for incorporating th. 13005(h) waste mi’ 4 ga-
t.ion certification requirement of the Barardous nd Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (EStO or the Amendments) into RCRA
permits. It is also intended to clarify joint permitting
of this requirement. Waste mi’ (ration has a uniqu. effect
on the joint permitting process which was d.scrib.d in RCRA
Statutory Interpretation (RSI) #5 dat•d July 1. 1985. because
it does not mandate any technical efforts or substantive
judgments.
0
Permit Certification
ECRA 13005(h), as amended by RS% 224. requires that all
RCRA permits for on-sits treatment, storage or disposal issued
after September 1, 1995, include a condition requiring the
permittee to certify in th. facility operating record that,
o The generator of the bass.rdous waste has a program in
plac. to reduce the wl e or quantity and tozicity of
such waste to the degre. determined by the geàerltor s
to be .cononically practicable and
o The proposed method of treatment, storag. or disposal
is that practicable method currently availabi. to the
g.n.rator which 44.4ges the present and futur.
threat to b’ ” health and th environment.
me legislative history of these provisions clearly
indicates that 8 511k waste ‘ 4 sation r.quirem*tts are
not meant to impose a significant new borden to gem.-
raters, nor at. they meant to form the basis for specific
waste minij.tration standards or regulations at this
time. Bath.r. Congress intended that th. substantive
-------
—2—
judgments as to what is .conomically pracUcable and what is
tb. mot practicabls method currently availsble are to be
made by the generator in LiØt of his or her n particular
circiie 5t S 5.
Lu addition, 18002 requires that the 1A 4 tstrator
•u1 t a Report to Congress by October 1, 1986, on th. feasi-
bility of establishing stanA.zds or taking other action. to
ensure that hazardous vast. generators er. taking steps to
___ the waste they produce. - -
Th, new waste minimization permit certification
r.quirements ar. intended to be an interim measur. pending
deLivery of the Report to Congress in October, 1986. The
conclusions reached in thf Report will Lu large part
determin b.thsr specific • subetantivs vests 4 r.etion
stanAards or r.gulatio.n.s are necessary or feasible.
Permit Writers’ Guidance
Th. Pii’al Codification Rule published in the Federal
Register on July 15, 1985, added a new provision tI T 73(b)
riquiring the permitte. to r.cord at least annually a waste
minimization certification statement in the written operating
record kept at the facility. Pursuant to this requiremPTit.
permit writers should incorporate into any on-sits treatment,
storage or disposal permit issued after September 1, 1985, a
condition requiring that a waste minimization certification
statement be included Lu the facility operating r.cord.
W r.co.mend incorporating this condition into the permit
by adding to Ploduls fl(L)(1) (General Facility Conditions.
Recordkeeping and Reporting. Operating Record) the language
and (9 Con—site only)). Th. revised model permit condition
will read as follovss
MODULE ZI—GZWERAL FACILITY COUDZTI 01$
C • .• •• C
L. Recordk.epiflg and Reporting
1 • a Record • Th. P.raittee shall maintain a written
• opera r.cor at the facility in accordance with
40 crI 264.73 (a), (b)(1). (2). (3). (4), (5), (6), (7 Coff—
sits only)). (8). and (9 ten—sits only)).
-------
-3—
Joint permitting
The joint permitting guidance (PSI #5) states that where
facilitiea are affected by ESWA. aint Federal—State permits
will be issued for thee. provisions for which the State has
not yet been authorired. This implies that there are same
facilities that will not be affected by USWA at all. Dowever.
the waste ai? 4M tr.atiOn certification is required for all en—
site facilities ven where no other provisions of the enduen ...
apply. This leads to the question of how the waste mi” 4 4 ration
reqiiiTeP flt will be addressed in permits.
The guidanc . states that in those cases where permits
are not issued similtaneonsly (see PSI #5 for those exceptions).
EPA mist issue•a public notice when it determines the appli-
cability of ESWA. The State-issued permit will became a full
RCRA permit only after EPA issues a permit addressing the
waste i.(r4miration requirement and any other applicable ESWA
requiremPnts.
In all other permitting situations. EPA and the State
will issu, permits similtar*e isly. however, when it is
clearly determined that 3OO5 (h) is the only applicable SSWA
requirement. and the State has the authority to impose permit
conditions r.quirin9 this certification. EPA does not intend
to issue a separate Federal permit (or offer separate public
notice).
The procedure for implementing this approach is for EPA
to write a generic letter to the Stat. on how to proceed
whenever this situation oc rs. Specifically, the letter
mist explain that the State has authority to address 3OO5(h)
and that the Stat. will use its authority tO include this
requirement. This letter will apply to waste minimiratian only;
where other DSWA r.quire’e”ts are applicable to a partionlar
facility a joint Federal—State permit mist still be issued.
Finally, the letter mist explain that EPA always has the
authority tø insert additional permit conditions as necessary
to protect iman health and the enviro lt. Where informatice
became. available to EPA which demonstrates the need for such..
additional permit conditions • EPA will exercise that authority
The Stat. shaald place a copy of EPA S generic letter in thG
public docket of saab facility permit for which this approach is
used. In this way. the public will have access to information
abont EPA’ s decision • Following these procedures will allow for
States to issue RCPA permits by incorporating the waste
miTLL lLatiOfl requirement. withont the need for a separate Federal
permit.
-------
If yu .v. qu. ti L.. Ot .rsqulz. f rthsr i.nfoztjii
r.çardibq w tm t.4tiO . p1w. .s t.at ?*p i of
th.. Psr Lta bz i ch at r ig UI—44 7.
CC I *rdo’iza gta l iz -
aa.t. P.x Lta I.vtLo .tsf., *agiw I-Z
-------
1EO Sr .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
• WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
pç , 1 $
9561.1994(01)
n OFFICE OF
JuL 0 50110 WASTEANOEMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Charles St. John
BKI< Landfill
2210 South Azusa Avenue
West Covina, California 91792
Dear Mr. St. John:
Thank you for your February 7, 1994 letter inquiring about
EPA’s position on federal waste minimization requirements for
hazardous waste disposal facilities, and for Clarence Gieck’s
January 10, 1994 letter to Administrator Browner describing your
company’s efforts to reduce the toxicity of landfill leachate.
This letter responds primarily to your February 7 letter
addressed to me.
You inquired about the waste minimization requirements of
Section 3002(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) . This section requires generators of large quantities of
hazardous waste to certify on their hazardous waste manifests
that they have “a program in place to reduce the volume or
quantity and toxicity of such waste to the degree determined by
the generator to be economically practicable; and.. . the proposed
method of treatment, storage, or disposal is that practicable
method currently available to the generator which minimizes the
present and future threat to human health and the environment.”
In addition, there is a similar certification requirement under
RCRA Section 3005(h) for permitted hazardous waste facilities
which are treating, storing, or disposing (TSD) hazardous waste
on the premises where the waste was generated.
We understand from your description that the F039 is
“generated” at the Class I landfill and according to our Region 9
office, there is a RCRA permit for the F039 leachate treatment
plant at the site. Therefore, the requirement of Section 3005(h)
that permitted TSD facilities certify that they have a waste
minimization plan in place applies. In addition, if the
hazardous waste quantities generated per month cause your site to
be classified as a large quantity generator, the RCRA Section
3002(b) certification requirements also apply (i.e., the manifest
Q Recycled/Recyclable
Q <9 P 1nted with Soy CanOia Ink on papef thaI
cont InS it least 50% recycled ilber
-------
2
certification), as long as you are sending the F039, or other
hazardous waste generated at your landfill site, off-site.
We agree that a landfill leachate generation scenario may
not easily lend itself to “reduc(ing] the volume or quantity and
toxicity of [ leachate],” especially for a landfill which is no
longer accepting waste. However, we believe there are certain
measures which can reduce the quantity of leachate and we
encourage you to investigate these fully. For example, any
measures you have taken to reduce run-on and precipitation
infiltration (e.g., from a major storm) to the Class I hazardous
waste landfill are positive waste minimization efforts.
With respect to the statutory. waste minimization
requirements appearing to be directed toward primary generators,
such as manufacturers, we agree that there is no statutory
exemption for a site generating hazardous waste as a result of a
remedial type of activity.
We believe that the statute affords hazardous waste
generators flexibility to determine which waste minimization
activities are economically practicable. This flexibility,
combined with opportunities for waste minimization even in a
remediation situation, leads us to conclude that the statutory
waste minimization certification requirement is flexible enough
to accommodate a party conducting a remediation. However, we are
continuing to assess the issue, and we will consider the comments
you provided in your letter.
Again, thank you for your letter and your interest in waste
minimization requirements.
Sincerely,
1 Shapiro, Director
of Solid Waste
-------
1 =‘1 V ‘ BKK Landfill
J J N ‘ \. 2210 Sourn *.zusa Avenue
CORPOR ATIONJ Ca ’ o a 91792
(818) 965 -09n
Faji (818) 965-9569
Michael Shapiro February 7, 1994
Director of the Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code # 5301
401 “M” Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro,
Recently, I had a conversation with Ms. Becky Cuthbertson of your branch, regarding the recent
regulations concerning Waste Minimization. Ms. Cuthbert.cov, suggested I explain to you our
position and how this rule will affect our facility.
As you are aware, Ms. Carol Browner of the EPA sent out notifications last December (1993)
to Large Quantity Generators of hazardous waste of the new requirements regarding waste
minimization. The list of Large Quantity Generators was derived from the biennial reports
which are submitted to the EPA.
BKK Landfill is composed of an operating Class III Municipal Solid Waste Facility and a closed
Class I hazardous waste facility. The Class I facility accepted hazardous waste from 1972 to
1984. As a result of on-site groundwater contamination, BKK and USEPA Region LX entered
into an Order on Consent, under RCRA § 3008 (h). In this agreement, BKK is performing site
investigation and remediation activities to control or eliminate the extent of on-site
contamination. Included in this remediation activity is a plan to treat on-site groundwater and
landfill liquids contained within the Class I and Ill landfills. This is performed in BKK’s
Leachate Treatment Plant which utilizes a Bio/Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment system.
A treatment residual of this system is a filter cake material which carries the waste code of the
leachate from the Class I facility: F039 multi-source leachate. The filtercake is transported off-
site for incineration at an appropriate facility.
Our dilemma is that the requirements of the waste minimization rules are directed toward
primary generators, such as manufacturers, not secondary generators, such as we. In our
conversation, Ms. Cuthbertson recognized that there was no “exit” mechanism in this statute for
facilities which would not otherwise be considered a Large Quantity Generator. In the context
of site remediation, the requirements of waste minimization should not apply.
Waste minimization requirements regulated by the California EPA, Department of Toxic
Substance Control, are similar to the federal standard. In November of last year, I..discussed
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro - USEPA
February 7, 1994
Page 2
this issue with members of Cal-EPA in Sacramento and Region 3, who came to the same
conclusion as Ms. Cuthbertson and me.
In summary, even though the waste minimization regulations are directed at primary generators,
secondary generators who are performing remediation activities are included in the same
category. As regulations currently exist, there is no distinction between wastes which are
generated in a manufacturing process, or a waste which must be generated in an effort to protect
human health and the environment.
Therefore, to resolve this issue may we suggest the following:
1) Provide for facilities which generate waste in their efforts to remediate a
environmental medium a means to exit the rule.
2) Recognize site remediation as a form of waste minimization and therefore exempt
from the rule.
3) Some form of certification from the EPA which recognizes that waste minimization
does not refer to remediation activities.
I look forward to hearing from you and hope that we may work together in the future to resolve
this issue. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (818) 965-0911.
Sincerely,
BKK Landfill
Charles St. John
Compliance Specialist
CC: Stan Lau - Office of Pollution Prevention Technology and Development, CAL-EPA
- Chief of Waste Minimization Branch, USEPA
Laura Yoshi - Deputy Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Division, USEPA,
Region IX
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
July 1994
956]. .1994(02)
RCRA
1. Waste Minimization and Recycling
Activities That Resemble
Conventional Waste Management
Practices
Large quantity generators of hazardous
waste and trearmelu, storage, and disposal
facilities who generate and manage hazardous
waste on-site are required to certify that they
have a waste minimization program in place.
Do recycling activities class jf led as burning
for energy recoverj as defined in 40 CFR
§26! 2(c)(2) or use consrizusing disposal as
defined in 40 CFR §2612(c)(1) qualify as
waste minimization?
Burning for energy recovery and use
constituting disposal do not qualify as waste
minimization. The scope of the waste
minimization program encompasses source
reduction and environmentally sound recycling
practices (58 , 31114; May 28, 1993).
Souzvc reduction involves decreasing the
amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant,
or contaminant entering any wastestrealu prior
to recycling, treatment, or disposal, while
recycling includes the use, reuse, or
reclamation of hazardous waste. Recycling
activities closely resembling conventional
waste management activities do not qualify as
waste minimization (58 EB 31115; May 28,
1993): Burning for energy recovery is
considered a recycling process that closely
resembles incineration, a conventional waste
management practice. Much like incineration,
burning for energy recovery disposes of
hazardous constituents by destruction as well
as by releasing to,dc constituents into the air
(53 f 522;
January 8, 1988). Similarly, any activity in
which hazardous waste is recycled by being
placed on the land, for example as a dust
suppressant or soil conditioner, is considered
use constituting disposal, and is analogous to
conventional waste disposal in land-based
units, such as landfills and surface
impoundments (50 EE 628; January 4, 1985).
Since burning for energy recovery and use
constituting disposal are similar to
conventional waste disposal practices, neither
activity would qualify as waste minimization.
L
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
I..
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
June 1995
RCRA
2. RCRA Waste Minimization
Requirements
RCRA subjects generators of hazardous
waste and crea neiu, storage. and disposal
facilities (rSDFs) that manage their own
hazardous waste on site to waste minimization
requirements. What are the spec jfic
requirements?
Generators who generate 1,000 or more
kilograms per month of hazardous waste
(“large quantity” generators) and owners and
operators of hazardous waste TSDFs who
manage their own h2wdous waste on site
must comply with cin ihr waste minimi’2riOn
requirements. RCRA §3002(b) requires large
quantity generators who uansport waste off
site to certify on the manifest that they have
established a “program in place” to reduce the
volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous
waste generated to the extent economically -
practicable. For owner/operators, that manage
waste on site in a penuined TSDF, §3005(h)
requires that a certification that a waste
minimiz non program is in place be prepared
annually and maintained in the facility
operatingiecord. IntheMay28,1993 ,
Federal Register (58 31114), EPA
published interim final guidance on the
elements of a waste minimization “program in
place” to assist generators and TSDFs in
fulfilling these requirements. The guidance
provides latitude for a facility to tailor
program elements to meet the individual
9561.1995 (01)
facility’s needs. EPA has published a Facility
Pollution Prevention Guide . EPA600-R92-
088, to ç ig generators in tailoring the
guidance to the individual facility’s needs.
RCRA §3002(aX6) also requires large
quantity generators to submit biennial reports
describing their waste minimization efforts.
Specifically, large quantity generators must
describe the efforts undertaken to achieve
waste niinimi auon and the actual changes in
the volume and toxicity achieved relative to
other yeats ( 262.41(a)(6)-(7)). The biennial
report requirements for TSDFs that generate
waste parallel those specific to large quantity
generators (if 264/265.75(h) and (i)).
Small quantity generators who generate
greater than 100 kilograms but less than 1,000
kilograms of hazardous waste per month are
not subject to the same “program in place”
certification requirement as large quantity
generators. instead, they must certify on their
hazardous waste manifests that they have
“made a good faith effort to minimize” their
waste generation (Si EE 35190; October i
1986).
L
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9570 SUBTITLE D
AT Kearney 1/3590/13cr
-------
Subtitle D
-------
9571 — MINING
WASTES
Subtitle D
ATK1/1 104171 kp
-------
9571.1985(0 1)
t T3
Mr. Donald A. Robbins
Deoartnent of Environ enta1 Sciences
ASARCO Incor’ orated
3422 South 700 tlest
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119—4191
Oear tr. Robbins:
Thank you for your recent letter and suriqestions on aoDroache.c
to the difficult problem of requlatinq the nanaqement of those
mining wastes which pose a hazard if improperly managed. We share
your concerns both with respect to the suitability of using the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to identify
which mining wastes warrant RCRA regulatory control and the need
for tailored management standards for hazardous mining wastes.
The TCLP was developed primarily to simulate the leachabilitv
of an industrial waste co—disposed with sanitary refuse or other
putrescible materials. Mining wastes,because of the relatively
large volumes of material involved, are not likely to encounter
such disposal conditions even if not regulated. However, although
mining wastes are generally not acidic, many mining wastes contain
pyritic minerals which generate an acidic leachate unon exposure
to air. Thus, the acidic environment modeled by the EP/TCLP may
be appropriate for mining wastes even if the model environment
used to develoo the TCLP is not. In fact, the leachate generated
by mining wastes can often be more acidic than the refuse derived
leachate. Thus, a different leach procedure (which, for some
mining wastes, could be more aggressive than the TCLIP) might he
appropriate.
No decision has yet been made as to what type of test
procedur, to use in identifying which mining wastes require
regulation under Subtitle C of RCR.A. A decision tree process is
one approach that is being considered. Any such decision tree
will require a method for determining the waste’s acid generation
poten ial. While we do not presently have any work ongoing to
develbp test methods for determining a waste’s acid generating
potential, we welcome your thoughts on this problem. We would
also be villirig to work with you and other interested parties in
a cooperative effort to develop such a test.
-------
As to your request for tail’ red ‘ianaqer ent standar’Js, we
acree with the need to c evelop teilored v ana e’1ent stan’iards
for ‘-iintnq wastes e ore uhjectin1 the” to S,i ,titj, C cor tr
nd will, indicate sa’ie in the 19R6 leport to Co,v- rese.
I preciate SA CO’s otfer of assista’ico in develonini
rotocols to assess the leschirtq potential of rttninq wastes,
I would suc -jest that you corttect Alan Corson or David Frio ” an
(202/382—4770) to follow up on develoDinq a coor)erative
roqrai in this area.
3incerelv yours,
Uarcia £. Ui11a .
Di rect’,r
( ffice of Solid ‘iaste
WH—562B/DFRIEDMAN/ma/zm SE 248/382—4770/10—1—85
Disk MA:7:20 OSWER—07135
-------
9571.1986(04)
RCRA/SUPERFTJND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU)Q( y
JULY 86
4. Mining Waste, ‘(064, and §3004(x )
EPA oublished a proposed rule in the Otober 2, 1985 Federal Reqister
(50 FR 40292). The proposed rule u1d reinterpret the minim waste
exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(b) (7) as it aoplies to Processing wastes.
Only large volume, relatively low toxicity Processing wastes uld
be excluded, soecifically phosogyps n, bauxite refining muds,
or imary metal smelting slags, and s1 from elemental ohosphorus
reduction. The reinterpretation also proposed to rel. ist six smelting
wastes previously listed as hazardous. One of the six smelting
wastes proposed to be relisted is ‘(064, acid plant bl own slurry/
s1uã e resulting form the thickening of blo own slurry form primary
copper production.
If EPA finalizes the listing of ‘(064, can EPA modify existing Subtitle
C requirements under Section 3004(x) of RA for units handling ‘(064?
Section 3004(x) authoriizes EPA to modify existing Subtitle C require—
T?ents to take into account the special characteristics of mining
wastes, the practical difficulties associated with implementation of
such requirements, and site—specific characteristics.
Only large volume, relatively low toxicity processing wastes u1d
be excluded, specifically, phosohpoypsum, bauxite refining muds,
primary metal s 1ting slags, and sleq frau elemental nhosr,horus
reduction. The reinterpretation also proposed to relist six smelt inc
wastes eviously listed as hazardous. One of the six smelting
wastes proposed to be relisted is ‘(064, acid plant blo down slurry/
sludae resulting fran the thickening of h1a adown slurry fran orimary
copper oroduct ion.
If EPA finalizes the listing of ‘(064, can EPA modify existing Subtitle
C requirements under S3004(x) of RA for units handling ‘(064? Section
3004(x) authorizes EPA to modify existing Subtitle C requirements to
take into account the soecja l characteristics of mining wastes, the
practical difficulties associated with implementation of such require-
ments, and site—specific characteristics.
No; §3004(x) authority culd rot aooly to ‘(064. Section 3004(x)
authority ortlv applies to wastes temporarily excluded under S3001(b)
(3)(A)(ii) (the “Bevill Amendment”), i.e., solid waste fran
the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and
minerals, that subsequently become subject to Subtitle C of
RA based on the results of a §8002 study. If finalized, the
proposed reinterpretation uld narrow the scone of the “9ev ill
Mendnent.” stes that are no longer encau assed by the
exclusion, including this primary copper smelting waste (if
listed in the final rule), ould rot be mining wastes (solid
wastes fran the extraction, beneficiation, and Processing of
ores and minerals). Therefore §3004(x) uld not apply.
Source: Meg Silver (202) 382—7706
Research: Jcevin iss
-------
9571.1987(0 1)
OCT b
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Decision Deadlines for Retrofitting Waiver Requests
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director ,‘ 2’
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Robert Greaves, Acting Chief
Wast• Management Branch, Region Ill
In your mmorandum of April 20, 1987, You raised tvo issues
concerning the applicability of R RA section 30 04(u) te coal
combustion fly ash unit., and on decision deadlines ROE tiOfitlUL
ting waiver request.. This memorandum provides guidcna on
waiver requests deadlines; we expect resolution of t ippUaabL ty
of 3004(u) issu. within the next few we•ks, and will p owide I
separate guidanc. on that issue.
The issue raised in your memorandum conc.rna thea iic 1ine
for making a decision on interim status surface i.poidm t
retrofitting waiver requests filed under section 300 (jj(13).
EPA no longer needs to address this issue for the SC M Corp.
facility you describe becaus, it has been determined that the
wastes SCM manages in its impounda.nt are .ining wastes excluded
from Subtitle C undsr the ‘Bevjll’ amendment, section 3001(b)(3).
We are responding, however, in cas. other facilitie, apply for
waivers under section 3005(j)(l3). While procedural deidljnes in
section 3 005(j)(S) address waiver requests filed in accowd, nc. with
section 3005(j)(2), (3), and (4), no reference is made to requests
filed under section 3005(j)(13). However, as stated on page 1—5 of
the July 1986 Interim Status Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Vari-
ances Guidano. cv.snt, EPA believes it is appropriat, to establish
deadlines a procedure, for (j)(13), including public notice and
comment proádur.s, equivalent to the other exemptions. The reason
for this poesy is that the November 7, 1988 deadline for retrof it—
tirig applies to those facilities seeking a section 3005(j)(l3)
waiver as well as to thos. seeking the other waivers. Therefore,
as a matter of policy, you should make a final decision on any
request for a varianc. under section 3005(j)(13) by November 7,
1987, in order to provide th, facility with adequate time to
retrofit, if the waiver request is denied. However, since the
November 7, 1987 date is not required as a statutory condition
-------
for waiver. und. 3005(j)(13), you do hays
ity not Pro,L4.d v .r i.ctions 3005(j)(2), (3), arid (4). If you
find tiiat y m unabi. to make a final decision Of) a S•ction
3 005(j)(]3) . .t by Ievsii br 7. 1987. due to compelling
reasons (•. ,, t s n d for additional monitoring data), Some
minor • 1 jppao (such a. a few weeks) could be acceptable, as
long as it dess not j.opardize the facility’s ability to
retrofit by tk. 1 $8 d.adline. The owner/operator Should be
qade aware that delaying the final decision will not affect the
1988 deadline.
If you have any further questions on this issue, please
contact L)ave Ebony at FTS 382—4497.
cc: Dave Ebenlv
Paul Casaidy
-------
9571.1989(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 89
1. Ore and Mineral Extraction. Beneficiation and Processing Exdusion
Applicability
The owner/operator of a taconite ore mining and processing facility uses several
different processes to inaease the taconite ores concentration. These processes
include a gnnding and ntagnetic separation process that constitutes beneficiation.
This beneficiation process incorporates the use of Wh tmore grease for
mechanical lubrication. The Whitmore grease is removed once every ten years
and is sent for disposal. Is this grease, which exhibits the characteristic of El’
toxicity, exempt from being a hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261 4
(b)(7)?
In the November 19, 1980 Federal B gister (45 E .g. 76620), the EPA
promulgated regulations excluding solid waste from the extraction.
beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals from the definition of
hazardous waste. The preamble to this f j stated this exclusion
applied to wastes produced in, and unique to the exploration, mning,
milling, smelting and refining of ores and minerals. The exclusion did not
apply to solid wastes, such as spent solvents, pesticide wastes, and di aided
commercial chemical products, that were not unique to the minhr g and
processing operations (45 f .76619).
Since 1960, common mining and processing operations have included the
long-term application of Whitmore grease to heavily used machinery, gears
and other difficult to access equipment. However, Whitmore grease is not
limited to the mining industry, but can be used on any industrial equipment
where short term grease applications are limited by difficult access and heavy
use. Therefore, because the Whitmore grease is not unique to mining
operations, it is not excluded pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261.4 (b)(7). The
grease that can no longer be used for its intended purpose and that is going for
disposal would be a solid waste pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261.1 (c)(1) and 40
CFR Section 261.2, respectively [ see January 4, 1985 Federal gj tg (50 ER
663)]. This solid waste will be a hazardous waste if it meets a listing under 40
CFR Part 261 Subpart D or exhibits any characteristic under 40 CFR Part 261
Subpart C.
Source: Bob Hall (202) 475-8814
Research: Jace Cuje (202) 382-3000
-------
9571.1989(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1989
5. Notification Requirements for New Wastes Not Covered by the
Bevill Exclusion
In the September 1, 1989 Federal Register (54 36592), EPA significantly
modified the Bevill Exclusion. (40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)) This final rule narrows
the scope of the exclusion by identifying, under Section 3001 of RCRA,
additional substances as hazardous wastes subject to Subtitle C. Since
these regulations are not being imposed pursuant to HSWA, they will not
be effective in authorized States until the States revise their programs to
adopt equivalent requirements. In an authorized State, when must a
generator or transporter of such substances or an owner/operator of a
facility which treats, stores, or disposes of such substances notify under
Section 3010 of RCRA?
Under Section 3010(a) of RCRA, “not later than ninety days after
promulgation of regulations under Section 3001 identifying any
substance as hazardous waste subject to this subtitle, any person
generating or transporting such substance or owning or operating a
facility for treatment, storage, or disposal of such substances shall
notify the implementing agency of their activity.” However, also
under this section, EPA was given the option of waiving the
notification requirements following the revision of any regulation
promulgated under Section 3001, at the discretion of the
Administrator.
Since the final rule published in the September 1, 1989, Federal
Register (54 f . 36592) revises regulations promulgated pursuant to
Section 3001, the Administrator may use the provided waiver option.
The Administrator did, in fact, use the option (see 54 E 36592) as it
was intended; persons who have previously notified of their
hazardous waste activity and have received an EPA I.D. number need
not re-notify. All other persons, regardless of the authorization status
of their State, who generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of any
substance now subject to Subtitle C as a result of this final rule, must
notify under section 3010; that is, not later than November 30, 1989
(ninety days after the promulgation of the final rule).
Source: Dan Derkica (202) 382-3608
Research: Kevin Dunn
-------
9571.1990(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
t R I 5 1990
Mr. Richard Davis
Brush Wel]inan, Inc.
1200 Hanna Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Dear Mr. Davis:
On November 30, 1989, at Brush Weliman’s request,
representatives of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste (OSW) met with
representatives of Brush Weliman at EPA Headquarters. At this
meeting, Brush Wellman requested clarification of the Bevill
status of each of the three wastes addressed in the September 1
final rule, and provided additional information on the nature of
the beryllium production operations conducted at the Delta, Utah
plant. (Meeting minutes and a copy of Brush Weilman’s written
statement may be found in the docket for the September 1, 1989,
final rule.)
At the November, 1989 meeting Brush Wellman requested that
beryl plant discard and raffinate discard (processing raffinate)
be reclassified as beneficiation wastes, and provided several
statements supporting this position. First Brush Weliman
reasoned that, in an operational sense, the beryl ore and
bertrandite ore circuits produce identical intermediate products
and very similar waste streams; to subject them to different
regulatory requirements would therefore be arbitrary and
unreasonable. Second, the key production steps that distinguish
the beryl and bertrandite circuits (melting and fritting) involve
only physical changes to the ore; nothing is added to or removed
from the beneficiated ore during these operations, and they do
not generate any waste streams (except for APC dusts). Indeed,
it was stated that the purpose of the melting-fritting sequence
is merely to change the crystalline structure of the mineral to
make it more amenable to the leaching (beneficiation) that
follows, rather than to purify or refine the mineral value.
Finally, Brush Weliman contended that the two wastes that were
removed from the Bevill exclusion by the September 1 final rule
had been explicitly studied in the Report to Congress on
extraction and beneficiation wastes, and hence were g facto
beneficiation wastes; i.e., their regulatory status had already
been established.
-------
—2—
In the September 1, 1989, final rule, EPA established the
final definitions and criteria that would be used to determine
which mineral processing wastes are eligible for the Bevill
exclusion, and applied these criteria to all wastes for which
existing information was adequate to make Bevill exemption
status determinations. Based on public comments and additional
analyses found in the dockets, the final definitions of mineral
beneficjatjon and processing differed markedly from those
employed in the November, 1988 and April, 1989 proposed rules.
One of the key distinctions between the two types of mineral
industry operations, as discussed in the preamble to the
September 1, 1989, final rule, is that beneficiation operations,
including those using heat, may alter the physical/chemical
characteristics of or remove water and/or carbon dioxide from the
ore or mineral but do not change its basic physical structure,
while processing wastes are generally not earthen in character
and are physically dissimilar to the ore or mineral (or
berieficiated ore or mineral) that entered the processing
operation.
Among the industry sectors (and associated wastes) that were
addressed in the September 1 final rule was the primary beryllium
industry, which consists solely of the Brush Weilman facility
near Delta, Utah. In conducting its evaluation, EPA used
information submitted by Brush Weilman in the form of public
comments on notices of proposed rulemaking addressing the Bevill
exclusion and in your response to the 1989 National Survey of
Solid Wastes from Mineral Processing Facilities. The process
flow diagram (enclosed) provided by Brush Weilman with its survey
response indicates a dual beryllium production circuit, in one
circuit beryl ore is used and in the other circuit bertrandite
ore is used; each mineral undergoes a different series of steps
that yield a “pregnant leach solution” that is combined and
subjected to further purification steps.
In deciding whether the solid wastes generated by this plant
were eligible for the Bevill exclusion, EPA evaluated bach of the
production steps in order to determine whether and where mineral
beneficiation operations end and mineral processing operations
begin at the Brush Weliman facility. In the case of the
bertrandite ore circuit, the facility’s flow diagram indicates
that essentially all of the operations from initial crushing and
grinding through solvent extraction and stripping could be
considered beneficiation operations, according to the Agency’s
final definition of beneficiation. In the beryl ore circuit,
however, EPA’s interpretation of the production steps employed
was that the ore undergoes a mineral rocessina operation
(melting) relatively early in the production sequence; hence, all
steps following this initial processing step are, by definition,
processing steps. Moreover, because the beryl leach solution
arising from the beryl ore circuit is combined with that from the
bertrandite circuit, all subsequent steps in the operation would
-------
—3—
be defined as processing operations, and all wastes generated
from these steps would be defined as processing wastes, and hence
subject to the high volume criteria.
After review and analysis of the new information provided by
Brush Weilman in the November 30, 1989 meeting, EPA now concludes
that all operations associated with the beryl and bertrandite ore
circuits upstream of the iron hydrolysis step are beneficiation
operations. As a consequence, the waste streams that are
generated by these two production circuits, including beryl plant
discard and processing raffinate, are mineral beneficiation
wastes rather than processing wastes. Wastes generated
downstream of the iron hydrolysis step, such as sludge leaching
slurry are considered low volume mineral processing wastes, and
are removed from the Bevil]. exclusion as of the effective date of
the September 1, 1989, final rule.
EPA stresses that this decision reflects the application of
the same criteria that were enunciated in the September 1 final
rule. The Agency’s change in position on the status of the
wastes generated at the Delta, Utah facility is due solely to
receipt of detailed information on the operations of that
specific facility and was not available previously. This
information suggests that EPA’S previous determination was in
error, in that the Agency’s assumption (based on the response to
the National Survey) was that the melting step resembled smelting
or similar pyrometallurgical (processing) techniques, rather than
serving as a means of recrystallizing the beryl ore
(beneficiation) prior to leaching.
If you have any further questions concerning the Bevill
status of these wastes, please contact Dan Derkics or Bob Hall of
my staff at 202—382-3608 or 202—475—8814, respectively.
Sincerely,
Robert Tonetti
Acting Deputy Director
Waste Management Division
Enclosure
-------
9571.1990(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 91990
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Erast Borissoff
Executive Director
American Coal Ash Association, Inc.
1000 16th Street, NW Suite 507
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Borissoff:
This letter is written to follow up on the August 2, 1989,
meeting between you and other representatives of the American
Coal Ash Association (ACAA) and representatives of the Office of
Solid Waste concerning the status of coal ash as a “solid waste”
(and your June 23, 1989, letter to the EPA administrator). I
apologize for the delay in getting this letter to you and hope
the delay has not inconvenienced you. In the meeting, you
presented substantial evidence of the beneficial uses for coal
ash as alternatives to its disposal. We applaud your efforts
toward reducing the amount of wastes being land disposed.
As you know, EPA has been amenable to supporting coal ash’s
beneficial use, as evidenced by publication of the 1983 Guideline
for Federal Proc.arement of Cement and Concrete Containing Fly
Ash, and the use of fly ash as a stabilizing medium in setting
treatment standards that certain hazardous wastes must meet prior
to land disposal.
While EPA is very interested in furthering such beneficial
recycling efforts, we do not believe that the designation of coal
ash as a “solid waste” is the most important issue; the issue, as
we see it, concerns ensuring that recycling activities are
conducted using environmentally sound practices. As was stated
in the meeting, coal ash is defined as a solid waste in the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); consequently, t •
change you request is statutory rather than regulatory. EPA’S
authority is limited to regulatory changes.
You also request that L.PA “preclude States and political
subdivisions from establishing or continuing in effect any
requirement applicable to beneficial use of coal ash which would
be inconsistent with any rule prescribed by the Administrator
applicable to such beneficial use.” This is beyond EPA’S
authority. For example, Fedc:al regulations p.. :mulgated under
Subtitle C of RCRA (i.e., hazardous waste regu1 ations) are the
minimum hazardous waste management requirements to p ’ tect human
PrLisad a’ *.qciad P.
-------
—2—
health and the environment. States that are authorized to
implement RCRA Subtitle C programs are able to, and sometimes do
exceed Federal requirements in terms of stringency. Even in
nonauthorized States, State regulations governing hazardous
wastes must be complied with in that State. The regulation of
Subtitle D wastes (e.g., coal ash) is primarily managed by State
and local governments. Although EPA can encourage States to
promulgate regulations that reflect the growing need to encourage
beneficial recycling of solid wastes it cannot reauire a State
regulatory Agency to be less stringent.
As RCRA reauthorization is being considered in Congress,
waste minimization and recycling are already a strong focus.
Should you have information you wish to share with the Congress
on the environmentally sound recycling of coal ash and its
beneficial uses, the appropriate time to do so is now. I thank
you for your interest in the beneficial use of coal ash and
encourage your continued marketing of such uses as an alternative
to disposal. If you have further questions br need additional
information, you should contact Mr. Pat Pesacreta, of my staff,
at (202) 382—7915.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
APR 6 1990 9571.1990(03)
Mr. Richard McQuisten
Project Manager
Department of Energy
P.O. Box 1189
Laramie, Wyoming 82070
Dear Mr. McQuisten:
Thank you for your letter on March 12, 1990, concerning
environmental regulations applicable to the use of retorted oil
shale and coal fly ash. I have been asked to reply.
on March 8, 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) submitted to Congress a report entitled Wastes from the
Coin-bustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. This
report presented the results of studies carried out pursuant to
Section 8002(n) of the Resource Conservation an Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA), as amended (42 U.S.C. § 6982(n)). This report
is available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia, 22161. Their phone number is (703)487-
4650. The report number is PB88-177977 and the Appendices
number is PB88—177985.
This report indicates that EPA has concluded that coal
combustion waste streams generally do not exhibit hazardous
charactistics under curent RCRA regulations, and that EPA does
not intend to regulate under RCRA Subtitle C fly ash, bottom ash,
boiler slag and flue gas desulfurization wastes. These wastes
are currently subject to RCRA Subtitle D, which pertains to solid
(non-hazardous) wastes, and which is administered by State Solid
Waste regulatory agencies. A list of State Solid Waste Directors
can be provided by the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials. The Association may be contacted by
phone at (202)624—5828.
In 1985, EPA issued a Report to Congress entitled Wastes
from the Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic Ore, Phosphate
Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining and Oil Shale.
-------
2
This report is also available from NTIS (report number PB88-
162631). On July 3, 1986, EPA issued a Regulatory Determination
that stated that solid wastes from the extraction and
beneficiatiOn of ores and minerals were best regulated under RCRA
Subtitle D, not under Subtitle C. 51 24496, CO
enclosed.) EPA staff is currently developing a draft Subtitle D
regulatory approach known as the “strawman” (copy enclosed) which
if finalized as a rule, would place minimum standards on oil
shale extraction and benefiCiatiofl wastes. At present, however,
EPA does not have any RCRA regulations specific to oil shale
retort wastes until EPA finalizes, in early 1993, its Subtitle D
rule on extraction and benefiCiatiofl wastes.
It should be noted that the U.S. Synthetic Fuels
Corporation, an office in the Treasury Department, currently
provides financial support to the Union Oil Shale Project in
Colorado. synthetic Fuels maintains excellent files on the
environmental effects of the plant and may have data on retorted
shale. They can be contacted at (202)634-2506.
Thank you for your interest in fly ash and oil shale. If I
can be of further assistance, feel free to contact me, at
(202)382—6972.
sincerely,
/5/
Robert Tonetti, Acting chief
special Waste Branch
Enclosures
-------
JUN 2 7 1990
9571.1990(04)
Karl. T. Johnson
Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Programs
The Fertilizer Institute
501 Second st. N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Dear Mr. Johnson
This letter is in response to the two Concerns OU raised in
your April. 16, 1990 letter to Dan Derkics, and which staff also
discussed at their April 18, 1990 meeting with you.
The first issue you raised concerns the status of corrosive,
low volume secondary materials such as precipitates and spilled
materials that are generally recycled in the phosphoric acid
plants’ recirculating water systems. You are correct in your
interpretation of the impact on these wastes from the recent
rulemakings on the mining waste exclusion. The Agency
interpretation of the mixture rule as it applies to mineral
processing wastes could result in the entire water circulation
system losing its exempt status if there is continued circulation
of the corrosive secondary materials through the system.
In your letter, you suggest that the upcoming Report to
Congress (RTC) may result in a determination that the co- -
management of secondary materials with process wastewater is
appropriate and would not endanger the exempt status of the
entire water system. The Agency does not believe that the RTC is
an appropriate vehicle to recommend such changes, due in part to
the severe time constraints the court has imposed on the Agency
for completion of the report. Instead, any Agency action
addressing these issues would have to be in the form of a
proposed and final rulemaking amending the mixture rule.
Undertaking such a rulemaking by the Agency at this time,
however, is unlikely due to other court ordered, higher priority
deadlines. In addition, it is unclear what impacts such a
rulemaking would have on other industries.
-------
—2—
Consequently, it would be prudent for the phosphoric acid
industry to take the steps necessary to comply with the
requirements of the recent Bevill rulemakings.
The second issue raised in your April letter concerns the
mixture rule and the use of phosphoric acid process wastewater in
the production of ammoniated phosphate fertilizer. You are
correct in your interpretation of the rule. The mixture of non-
hazardous ammoniated phosphate fertilizer waste with process
wastewater does not make a phosphoric acid plants water
recirculation system a hazardous waste management unit when the
mixture of process wastewater and non—hazardous ammoniated
phosphate wastes is returned to the system.
If you have any additional questions concerning these
matters, please contact Bob Hall or Dan Derkics at (202) 475—8814
or (202) 382—3608, respectively.
Sincerely,
Robert Tonetti
Acting Branch Chief
Special Waste Branch
-------
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG
____ WASHINGTON D.C. 20450 9571.1990(04)
M V ‘
in -
OFFICE OF
$01.10 WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. T. S. Ary
Director
Bureau of Mines
2401 E. St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20241
Dear Mr. Ary:
Thank you for your letter dated April 6, 1990, concerning
iron and steel slags, and their status in the upcoming Report to
Congress (RTC) on Mineral Processing Wastes. EPA appreciates the
contributions that the Bureau of Mines has made to the RTC to
date, and we would be pleased to meet with you to discuss issues
related to these slags.
Although the RTC has not been completed yet, based on the
information the Agency has collected to date on iron and steel
slags it is likely that the Agency will recommend that these
wastes remain within the Bevill exclusion —- that is, we believe
these wastes will become permanently exempt from regulation as
hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Iron and steel slags which are used in a manner constituting
disposal are currently considered “discarded materials” and thus
meet the definition of solid wastes under Section 1004(27) of
i RCRA. See 40 CFR § 261.2 or 53 Fed. Rag. 31,198 (Aug. 17,
1988) for details. EPA is further considering, however, whether
such slags are similar enough to virgin aggregate that they
should not be classified as solid waste. EPA will address this
issue in greater detail in the upcoming Report to Congress, as
already promised in the final “Bevill Rule” (54 Fed. Req. 36,615
(Sept. 1, 1989)). In any event, if these slag materials were to
continue to be exempt from Subtitle C regulation, I would expect
the use of slag materials would continue. Please let us know,
however, if the Bureau of Mines has reason to believe that
continued classification of these slags as solid wastes would
cause market disruptions and harm to the slag recycling industry.
-------
—2—
EPA is committed to furthering beneficial reuse and
recycling of materials such as iron and steel slags, to the
extent that these activities are conducted using environ-
mentally sound practices. Our search for documented cases in
which mineral processing wastes may have endangered human health
and the environment has revealed at least one instance where
blast furnace and basic oxygen furnace slag is believed to have
caused ground water and surface water contamination from the use
of the slag as fill and a landfill liner (see enclosure). Infor-
mation such as this must be analyzed before the Agency can make
an informed decision concerning wastes.
Regulation of these slags as hazardous might have an effect
on their rate of utilization. The current process (RTC, followed
by public comment, regulatory determination and, if necessary,
the development of a regulatory program) is the appropriate
mechanism for addressing the environmental concerns and the
concerns about encouraging beneficial use in a safe manner.
Toward that end, Bob Hall of my staff will be in touch with
Larry Miller to arrange a mutually agreeable time for a meeting,’
preferably in early June. Bob can be reached at (202) 475—8814.
Sincerely,
fr.. Sylvia K. Lovrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
a Enclosure
cc: Bob Hall
-------
JUN 2 7 1990
9571 .1990(05)
Karl T. Johnson
Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Programs
The Fertilizer Institute
501 Second St. N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Dear Mr. Johnson
This letter is in response to the two concerns you raised in
your April 16, 1990 letter to Dan Derkics, and which staff also
discussed at their April 18, 1990 meeting with you.
The first issue you raised concerns the status of corrosive,
low volume secondary materials such as precipitates and spilled
materials that are generally recycled in the phosphoric acid
plants’ recirculating water systems. You are correct in your
interpretation of the impact on these wastes from the recent
rulemakings on the mining waste exclusion. The Agency
interpretation of the mixture rule as it applies to mineral
processing wastes could result in the entire water circulation
system losing its exempt status if there is continued circulation
of the corrosive secondary materials through the system.
In your letter, you suggest that the upcoming Report to
Congress (RTC) may result in a determination that the co-
management of secondary materials with process wastewater is
appropriate and would not endanger the exempt status of the
entire water system. The Agency does not believe that the RTC is
an appropriate vehicle to recommend such changes, due in part to
the severe time constraints the court has imposed on the Agency
for completion of the report. Instead, any Agency action
addressing these issues would have to be in the form of a
proposed and final rulemaking amending the mixture rule.
Ur.dertaking such a rulemaking by the Agency at this time,
however, is unlikely due to other court ordered, higher priority
deadlines. In addition, it is unclear what impacts such a
rulemaking would have on other industries.
-------
—2—
Consequently, it would be prudent for the phosphoric acid
industry to take the steps necessary to comply with the
requirements of the recent Bevill rulemakings.
The second issue raised in your April letter concerns the
mixture rule and the use of phosphoric acid process wastewater in
the production of ammoniated phosphate fertilizer. You are
correct in your interpretation of the rule. The mixture of non-
hazardous ainmoniated phosphate fertilizer waste with process
wastewater does not make a phosphoric acid plants water
recirculation system a hazardous waste management unit when the
mixture of process wastewater and non-hazardous ammoniated
phosphate wastes is returned to the system.
If you have any additional questions concerning these
matters, please contact Bob Mall or Dan Derkics at (202) 475-8814
or (202) 382—3608, respectively.
Sincerely,
Robert Tonetti
Acting Branch Chief
Special Waste Branch
-------
July 1993
RCRA
1. Natural Gas Condensate:
Regulatory Status
Drilling fluMç produced waters, and other
wastes associated with the exploration,
developmeiu, and production of crude oil,
natural gas and geothermal energy are
exempifrom the definition of hazardous waste
under 40 CFR §261.4(bX5). Natural gas
conder sate Lv a light hydrocarbon liquid that
sometimes forms through con4en.sanon of
natural gas (hydrocarbon) vapors when
naiw-al gas Lv conveyed through apLpeline.
Does natural gas conder sate fall within the
scope of this exenipnon when discarded?
Natural gas condensate meets the
exemption in 26L4(b)(5) if is is produced
by activities related so the exploration,
development, and production of natural gas.
It does not meet the exemption if is is produced
by other activities, such as post-production
u ansporsaDoo. While not a drilling fluid or a
produced waxer, natural gas condensate can be
produced by activities associated with locating
natural gas, removing it from the gxouhd, or
purifying is. Natural gas is usually removed
from the ground using an array of wells in one
gas field. The natural gas from all wells is
then aggregated and often sent to a gas plant to
remove impurities such as waler. This
removal of impurities is considered a
necessary pars of the production process,
and any wastes resulting from natural gas
operations up through this point are exempt
If condensate forms in a pipeline carrying
natural gas from the gas field to the gas plant,
this natural gas condensate is exempt as an
associated waste under §261.4(b)(5). The key
is that the activity producing the natural gas
condensate must be uniquely associated with
natural gas exploration, development, or
production operations for the exemption to
apply. Natural gas production operations
encompass all processing facilities up to and
including the gas plant, but not beyond.
If the natural gas condensate is generated by
transportation or manufacturing operations
beyond the production process, is is not exempt
and would be regulated as a hazardous waste
when discarded if it displays one or more
characteristics of hazardous waste (38
15284; March 22, 1993). For example, if
condensate forms in a pipeline transporting the
natural gas from the gas plant to market, this
natural gas condensate is not exempt since it is
generated during post-production transportation
and not production operations.
I
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
9571.1993(01)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE PjCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9571. 1993(02)
NOV — 5 1993
C)FF ICE OF
SOLI.. WAS rc. A D ME R(FN ’v RESPONSE
Mr. H. Michael Dorsey
Assistant Chief
Compliance Monitoring/Enforcement
Office of Waste Management
Division of Environmental Protection
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, West Virginia 25301-1401
Dear Mr. Dorsey:
I am responding to your August 30, 1993, request to clarify
certain issues regarding oil and gas wastes. I understand that
you have corresponded and have had extensive conversations with
Mike Fitzpatrick of my staff regarding the March 22, 1993,
Federal Register (FR) notice that clarifies the scope of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C
hazardous waste exemption for oil and gas exploration and
production wastes. I further understand that, at the invitation
of David Flannery (representing the Appalachian producers), Mike
visited certain sites in West Virginia with you and industry
representatives to gather information relative to the issues you
have raised. I am responding to the issues that were raised in
your letters and conversations with him. I believe that you have
raised three principal issues, which I will address below.
The first issue concerns the application of the language in
the March 22, 1993, FR notice that addresses gas plants to
natural gas compressor stations in West Virginia. The scenario
used for defining the scope of the exemption in the regulatory
determination and subsequent FR clarification does not precisely
correspond to the typical natural gas production process used in
Appalachian States. It has been our position that, while natural
gas exploration and production (E&P) occurs at the welihead, up
through the gas plant, and at natural gas storage fields, E&P
does not include transportation of gas once it has left the gas
plant, compressor stations located downstream from the gas plant,
or manufacturing activities. Since the Subtitle C exemption
applies only to E&P activities, solid wastes generated from these
transportation, compression or manufacturing activities would not
be exempt from subtitle C regulation.
The FR notice did not intend to imply, however, that wastes
from all compressor stations are outside the E&P exemption; only
those wastes from compressor stations that are part of
transportation are subject to Subtitle C. In EPA’S opinion,
those compressor stations on main trunk pipelines handling any
-------
2
natural gas produced outside the state (or produced outside of
“local production”, as described below) would be considered to be
part of transportation and would be regulated. In Appalachia,
those compressor stations handling only “local production” 1 would
qualify for the exemption as the equivalent of gas plants.
As used in this letter, the term “local production” refers
to gas produced from a single nearby gas field or several nearby
fields, as determined by the state oil and gas regulatory agency.
Once gas from outside the local production area (again, as
defined by the state regulatory agency) is commingled with gas
from within the local area, then the pipeline facilities and
compressor stations beyond that point would no longer be E&P
operations, and wastes generated are no longer considered exempt
wastes (with the footnoted exception for gas storage fields) even
if additional local production feeds into the system downstream
from the point of commingling. Similarly, once gas leaves the
gathering system for transportation or sale to a consumer, it
would no longer be part of E&P and any wastes generated would be
subject to Subtitle C if they exihibited one or more hazardous
characteristics.
The second issue concerns exempt wastes that are mismanaged
and that may pose an environmental threat. You have expressed
your desire that the environmentally unsound handling or disposal
of exempt wastes should result in the loss of the exemption for
these wastes since there are no other regulatory schemes designed
to address the hazardous nature of these wastes.
In light of Congressional intent, EPA does not classify a
waste as exempt or not exempt based on the way in which that
particular waste is managed (or mismanaged), nor does EPA base
its definition of what constitutes an exempt waste on whether or
not the waste is managed in compliance with state regulations.
As far as Federal regulations are concerned, once a particular
exempt waste was generated, that waste would remain exempt
regardless of the treatment or disposal method employed (unless
mixed with certain regulated hazardous wastes). The mishandling
of exempt wastes is a state regulatory and enforcement issue.
States are free to develop regulations which are more stringent
As discussed in the FR notice, operations to recover natural
gas stored in underground natural geological formations (not
underground tanks) are considered part of production, not
transportation. This is because these facilities are operated in
the same way as if the gas were being produced for the first
time. Therefore, uniquely associated wastes from compressor
stations dedicated solely to the retrieval of natural gas from
underground storage facilities are exempt regardless of the
origin of that gas.
-------
3
or broader in scope than Federal Subtitle C regulations. Also,
state requirements may be developed to address the mismanagement
of wastes which are exempt from Subtitle C -- that is, the
state’s solid waste or hazardous waste regulations can be used to
regulate the management of federally exempt wastes, if the
state’s legislation provides such authority.
The third issue concerns the regulatory status of certain
oil and gas wastes, including unused commercial chemnic al
products. In the FR clarification notice, EPA stated a general
“rule of thumb” that, in order for a waste to be considered
exempt, it must either come from “down—hole,” or come in contact
with the production stream for the purpose of removing produced
water or some other contaminant. (Generally, when a product is
used in E&P and becomes a uniquely associated waste, it has
either been sent down-hole or has come in contact with the
production stream.) The Agency stopped short of saying this rule
of thumb was more binding than a general guideline. However, we
believed that it was useful to provide the rule of thumb as a
general, easy-to-understand guideline that can be used by
operators as a first step in determining if a waste is exempt or
not.
The industry view is that the rule of thumb limiting exempt
wastes to those that have come from down-hole is too narrow in
that it does not include unused materials spilled or left as
residuals on site. The Agency disagrees, however, with the view
that discarded unused materials are, or should be, exempt wastes.
First, EPA does not believe that placing excess and unused
materials that exhibit one or more of the hazardous
characteristics in a reserve pit is an environmentally Sound
practice. Moreover, it continues to be the Agency’s position
that, in general, a waste must either have come from down-hole or
have otherwise come in contact with the production stream for the
purpose of removing contaminants in order to be considered
uniquely associated with efforts to locate or remove oil or gas
from the ground. Regardless of the intent in preparing the
material, only used, and therefore uniquely associated, wastes
are exempt.
Although this interpretation may cause a shift in some
previous industry practices that have routinely placed some
unused materials in reserve pits, it may also encourage operators
to practice waste minimization and pollution prevention by
planning more carefully for the volumes needed, looking for ways
to conserve resources and increase recycling of unused materials,
improving housekeeping procedures, and selecting less toxic
ingredients for formulations whenever possible. We recognize
that it will not, however, eliminate all excess materials since
not all contingencies can be planned for when mixing drilling and
workover fluids.
-------
4
Nonetheless, the Agency continues to assert that unused
chemical products, if disposed of, are not exempt from hazardous
waste regulation. This position is consistent with the language
of the Regulatory DetermInation (53 FR 25454, July 6, 1988) and
subsequent clarification notice (58 FR 15286, March 22, 1993).
Only a reopening of the Regulatory Determination, through a new
rulemaking process, could change the Agency’s position on unused
material. Such an effort is not being contemplated by EPA.
To the extent that unused materials are hazardous only
because of their corrosivity (e.g., completion and workover
fluids), these unused acids can be treated (neutralized) by
“totally enclosed treatment 4 ’ (in the same tanks used to hold the
workover fluids prior to use) without subjecting operators to
Subtitle C jurisdiction. In that case, the neutralized waste
likely would not exibit a hazardous characteristic. There are no
federal prohibitions on placing non-hazardous unused products in
the reserve pit.
If you have any additional questions concerning these
matters, please call Mike Fitzpatrick at (703) 308-8411.
Sincerely,
, 4taJ
2 j Bruc( )R. Weddle, Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Davia N. Flannery, Robinson & !4cElwee
Ramona Trovato, Director
Ground Water Protection Division, Headquarters
Randy Hill, Office of General Counsel
Water Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
Theodore M. Streit, Chief
Office of Oil and Gas, West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
-------
dDSTi,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9573. 1994( 01)
JAN I 0 994 OrFICkOr
S h lL WASTE AND EMf GEr CY PESPONSE
SUBJECT: Inquiry on Southwestern Portland Cement
To: William E. Muno, Director
Region 5 j J t N agem Tkt Division
FROM: 1ch 1 Shapf ë r
K. ..-”ozvce of Solid Waste
This memorandum is in response to your July 30, 1993
memorandum on the Ohio Regional Air pollution control Agency’s
(RAPCA’s) inquiry regarding the impact of the Draft Hazardous
Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy on its implementation
of air regulations.
Our understafld iflg is that Region V is preparing to call in
the Part B for the Southwestern Portland Cement (Southdown)
facility’s RCRA permit, and that RAPCA has public noticed a draft
air permit to operate. RAPCA asked the general question of
whether U.S. EPA su ports the inclusion of the particulate matter
(PM) and dioxin lirnits referenced as targets or goals in the
Draft Strategy in the air permit for the Southdowfl facility prior
to controlling PM a nd dioxins in the RCRA permit, and also posed
a number of specifi c questions on these limits.
We think it would be appropriate for RAPCA to address the
concerns about dioxins and particulate matter through their air
permit to the extent possible under their legal authorities. It
should be recognized that the Draft Strategy provides no new
authority to implement such limits, so RAPCA would need to use
their authorities under state law. In addition, the State should
also be aware that ‘some RCRA permits may include varying limits
on dioxins and fur ns and particulate matter, since the limits
will be implemented through R RA permit authority that takes
site-specific factors into account. The 30 ng/dsca dioXifl/furafls
and the 0.015 gr/dscf particulate matter limits are being
considered as goals or targets within the RCRA program.
Regarding the State’s question on what the basis was for the
dioxin and particulate matter target levels in the Draft
Strategy, the targót levels were derived from those applicable to
-------
new municipal waste combustors (MWC) larger than 250 tons/day
capacity as set forth in 40 CPR Sections 60.50 through ti0.59.
EPA has not specified specific control equipment or measures that
facilities 3hOUld use to meet regulatory Itmits. Facilities are
free to propose a control strategy they believe will enable their
system to meet the açprOpriate levels and must demonstrate
through a trial burn that they ieet their permit limits. The MWC
standards are based on implementation of Best Demonstrated
Technology (BDT) as set forth in the aforementioned regula .ons.
BDT includes the implementation of Good Cogibust on Practices s
well as the installation of a spray dryer and a bag house to
remove particulates. Attached is a copy of the February Ii., £99 1.
Federa1 Rt jister for the final rule for MWC standards.
Interestingly, the interim status compliance certifications t t
have been received for cement kilna burning hazardous wastes
indicate that about 50% are below the 30 ng/dscm level
established for MWC’s.
The Draft Hazardous Waste Minimization/Combustion Strategy
does not discuss the method and frequency of measuring dioxin or
particulate matter levels. However, under current RCRA
regulations for boilers and industrial furnaces, 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A, Method 5 is used for particulate matter testing; with
respect to dioxin/furan testing, 40 CFR Appendix A, Method 2)
can be used. There is no national guidance at this pcint
regarding stack testing frequency other than during the trial
burn. BIFs operating under interim status are required to
re-certify compliance every three years. We are aware that soiie
permits for commercial incinerators require retestirtg every t’ o
to three years. As you know, in order to assure continued
compliance, RCRA permits (or BIF interim status compliance
certifications) set operating cor.ditions to assure that the
combustor continues to operate within the bounds of the trial
burn conditions at which it successfully demonstrated compliance.
Municipal waste combustors are regulated under a slightly
different framework, and are required to retest for dioxins
annually.
The Draft Hazardous Waste Minimizati3n/CombUstiofl Strategy
is the starting point for evaluating our national policies on
combustion and minimization of hazardous wastes. We intend to
have a broad dialogue on these issues. The Draft Strategy does
not change the current permitting process and leaves the final
individual permit decisions to the Region and State involved.
However, we expect all BIF permits to be fully protective of
human health and the environment, and we appreciate RAPCA’s
interest in imposing relevant conditions through their air
permit. Feel free to contact Sonya Sasseville or Dwight Hiustick
at 703/308—8647 if you have further questions.
Attachment
cc: Karl Bremer
Waste Combustion Permit Writers’ Workgroup
-------
bcc: Dev arties
Matt Ha.e
J rfl MichaeL
Matt StrauB
Fred Chanania
-------
9572 — STATE
PROGRAMS
Subtitle D
ATKI/3 104172 kp
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE
#9572.00—2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OPPICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
EP 22 iCb-
THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO ALL STATE AND TERRITORIAL ENVIRONMEWTAL
COMM 155 lONERS
De a r:
As discussed in se,veral recent meetings with State and local
officials and wth the State/EPA Committee, the Administrator
and I believe it is important to renew our efforts to develop
strategies for management o municipal solid wastes. We
particu 1 ar].v beliøve that statewide solid waste planning is
an important step in assuring safe and adequate solid waste
manaaemeflt capacity.
In this renard. I want to encourage you to review and, where
appropriates update your State’s solid waste plan. In these
plans. we believe States should identify a general strategy
for protecting health and the environment from adverse
effects associated with solid waste disposal. I believe that
the following areas warrant particular attention in solid
waste management plans:
o An indication of current and projected quantities
and locations of solid wastes generated in the
State
o The expected future roles of source reduction,
recycling incineration/energy recovery, landfilling
and/or other management approaches
• A su ry of key regulatory and permitting
requirements which apply to solid waste management
in your State
• An indication of the role of the public and various
political subdivisions in solid waste planning
-------
OSW POLICY DIRECTIVE #9572.00-2
2
The abbve and related information would he very helpful as
we jointly develop a national perspective on solid waste
management. To assisb in this local—State—Federal effort. I
would be interested in receiving the latest version of your
plan, if available, in the next few months. I also would
request that copies of plans be sent to the appropriate EPA
Regional Offices.
I am aware that you have also been contacted in recent months
by your regional EPA office and requested to certify
:omp)iance with Section 400 5(c) (1) of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1986. This section requires States
to develop and implement permit programs or other systems of
prior approval for facilities which receive household
hazardous waste and hazardous waste from small quantity
generators. Many of .you have responded, or are in the
process of responding to this request, and we are grateful
for your cooperation. This system, together with Sound
long—range planning, should help lead us toward more efficient
and environmentally sound methods of handling solid waste in
the future.
An enclosure to this letter lists a number of documents which
may be of use when developing or revising your State solid
waste plan. For your additional information, I am also
enclosing a copy of a speech on solid waste management which I
delivered January 29 at a conference sponsored by the Council
of State Governments in New York City. The speech is similar
to testimony I presented last December 3 before the Subcommittee
on Toxic Substances of the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Thanks very much for your help. Please let me know if EPA can
provide any assistance in responding to this request.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9572.00-2
SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
0 Guidelines for Development and Implementation of State Sol.Ld
Waste Management Plans (40 CFR Part 256) — 44 FR 45066,
July 31, 1979, amended at 46 FR 47051, September 23, 1981.
0 Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Faci1 ties
and Practices (40 CFR Part 257) — 44 FR 53460, September 13,
1979; amended at 46 FR 47052, September 23, 1981.
0 Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Report to Conqress,
June 1987 (Available from NTIS — Publication No. PB87—206074).
0 Testimony of Dr. 3. Winston Porter before the Subcommittee
on Toxic Substances, Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, Detember 3, 1987.
-------
572. 1986( Qj)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU)O ARY
SEPTEMBER 86
4. State Proqraits
40 CFR 271.1(j) all ,s a state’s authorized R A zcçr n to be broader
in or n re stringent than the Federal A ogr n. What is the
difference between state pcgrat el nents that are broader in scogs
and nore stringent than Federal requira ents? What are sai exanples?
The best available guidance distirçujshjng between “ncre stringent”
and “broader in scoga” is rogran im . entation guidance (PIG)
84—1 • A state rcqr n that is broader in scogs than the Federal
ogrw either: 1) exgsnds the size of the regulated cairtunity ; or 2)
incorp)rates xogr n elanents that do not have a Federal caintergart.
canpLes of requirwents that are broader in scoge are gsrm.its for
Federafly-exang* wastewater treatnent units, sgacial licenses for
transp,rterg, and listing of wastes which are not listed Federally.
A state zogran requiranent that is nore stringent has a direct Federal
gogrw% countergart. Exanples of nore stringent requiranents are
requiring generators to subetit an annaal, rather than a biennial re rt;
shorter duration çeriods for garmits; and stricter rnen anent standards
for gsDnitted or interun status tanks and containers.
The distinction between broader and nore stringent state requiranents
is significant because EPA iney enforce a nore Stringent state require—
lent but not a state requirai nt that is broader in scope. J RA S3008
(a)(2) aUc r.s EPA to enforce any Irwision of an authorized state’s
apçzoved gt gran. More stringent state requireents fall into this
category. State o ,isjons that are broader in scope are not pert of
the Federally ap ’oved A xogran, accø ding to 40 CFR 271.1(j), and
are therefore not enforceable by EPA (see also PIG 82-3).
Source: Marty Madison (202) 382—2229
search: Jennifer Brod
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEN AL PROTECTION 9572.1988(03)
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
DEC 23 1988
•MC AOMIP.115TRAtQR
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy Regarding Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
and RCRA Consistency Issues
TO: Regional Administrators
In recent months we have focused on two parallel, but
overlapping, issues in the hazardous waste management area. One
issue has been the development of guidance for the State hazardous
waste capacity assurance process called for by Section 104 (c) (9)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). The other has been the issue of EPA’S
approach to State actions which may be inconsistent with the
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program.
This past June a task force on these RCRA consistency and
CERCLA capac-ity issues presented their findings to me. In
additLorr we have now completed our guidance to the States for
th CERCLA capacity assurance process. 3ased on an evaluation of
the findings and guidance, I now want to present to you EPA’s
policy in the area of RCRA consistency and CERCL.A capacity
assurance
First, we will rely on the CERCLA process as our primary
vehicle for ensuring that States have adequate capacity to manage
their hazardous wastes. As our CERC! A capacity guidance indicates,
the States must provide EPA with a good knowledge of their current
and projected waste amounts and management practices, including
correlation of imports and exports between States; description of
waste minimization programs; and discussions of laws and regulations
which y affect the state’s ability to manage wastes. EPA must
approve these State assurances In order for EPA to provide Superfund
remedial actions in a State after October 17, 1989.
Secondly, the Regions should use the procedures for withdrawal C
authorized State RCRA programs in the case of failure to use the
RCRA uniform manifest system, or for unreasonable restrictions on
-------
—2—
int erstate vSSte movements. The CERCLA capacity assurance process
should be used as an initial response to State actions which
proh2bit waste management within State boundaries without environ-
mental justification. States may be able to resolve issues
related to such actions themselves during the interstate discussions
that the CERCLA process will foster. The Regions should, therefore,
decide whether to initiate proceedings to withdraw State RCRA
programs for prohibitory actions after determining that the CERCtJ
process has proven ineffective.
I believe the above dual approach to be a positive one
allowing us to work within the legal authority provided, and to
assist States in developing needed waste management capacity.
Lee K. Thomas
-------
9573 - MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTION
Subtitle D
ATK1/1104f73 kp
-------
OS R Policy Directive
9573.00—01
.#1t0
‘1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mi .; WASHINGTON, D.C. 20440
c
SEP 181992
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Regional Administrators
SUBJECT: Exemption for Municipal Waste Combustion Ash Yroz
Hazardous Waste Regulation Under RCRA section 3001(j)
PURPOSE
This memorandum sets forth the United States Envirorunental
Protection Agency’s (“EPA” or “Agency”) decision under sectic.n
3001(i) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”),
42 U.S.C. § 6921(i), ’ to treat ash generated from the combustion
of nonhazardous municipal solid waste at resource recovery
facilities (hereinafter “MWC ash”) as exempt from hazardous waste
regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. EPA believes that MWC ash can
be regulated in a manner that will be protective of human health
and the environment under RCRA Subtitle D. The determination set
forth herein supersedes the Agency’s earlier view of sec.zion
3001(i) as not exempting MWC ash frr%m hazardous waste regulation.
See 50 Fed. Reg. 28702, 28725—26 (1985).
As part of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, Congress amended RCRA by adding section 3001(i), which
provides, in pertinent part:
(i) Clarification of household waste exclusion
A resource recovery facility recovering energy
from the mass burning of municipal solid waste shall
not be deemed to be treating, storing, disposing of, or
otherwise managing hazardous waste for purposes of
regulation under (Subtitle C) if . . . such facility
receives and burns only . . household waste
and solid waste from commercial or industrial sources
that does not contain hazardous waste .
RCRA section 3001(i) (1), 42 U.S.C. S 6921(i)(l). Section 3001(1)
is codified in EPA’S regulations as part of the household waste
exclusion. 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b) (1).
Pa’rn:ed on Recycled Pa. ,er
-------
—2—
AN .LYSI8
Text of the Statute
EPA’S determination that MWC ash is exempt from hazardous
waste regulation is consistent with the text of section 3001(i).
As proclaimed by the title of section 3001(i) -— “Clarification
of household waste exclusion” —— in enacting that provision,
Congress was building upon the regulatory framework it earlier
had established. In enacting RCRA.in 1976, Congress indicated
that solid waste from households, which frequently includes
materials that may contain hazardous constituents, should not be
regulated as hazardous waste under Subtitle C. S. Rep. No. 94—
988, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1976). EPA codified Congress’
intent in the so—called “household waste exclusion,” promulgated
in 1980, which provides that “any material . . . derived from
households . . . is not hazardous waste . . . .“ 40 C.F.R.
261.4(b) (1)
In the preamble to the Federal Register notice announcing
the household waste exclusion, EPAclearly stated that the
exclusion extends to ash remaining after household waste is
incinerated: “Since household waste is excluded in all phases of
its management, residues after treatment (e.g., incineration,
thermal treatment) are not subject to regulation as hazardous
waste.” 45 Fed. Reg. 33066, 33098 (1980). The Agency justified
its determination that ash derived from the incineration of
household waste is subject to the exclusion on the ground that
Congress intended to “exclude waste streams generated by
consumers at the household level.” Id . (emphasis added).
In enacting section 3001(i), Congress arguably extended the
regulatory exclusion for ash derived from the incineration of
household wast , e to similar residues generated by resource
recovery facilities from the incineration of household waste
nonhazardous commercial and industrial solid waste. To the
extent that household waste alone is incinerated, section 3001(i)
coincides with EPA’s earlier interpretation of the household
waste exclusion as exempting ash derived from such waste from
haz; r us waste regulation. The inclusion in section 3001(i) of
non;;a:ardous commercial and industrial waste, along with
hou r.oid waste, suggests that Congress may have intended that
MWC h resulting from the combustion of those combined wastes
als.. bhould not be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste.
In addition, congressional intent to exempt MWC ash from
hazardous waste regulation is suggested by the portion of section
3001(i) which provides that a resource recovery facility shall
not be deemed to be “treating, storing, disposing CL or
otherwise managing” hazardous waste. (Emphasis added.) Nothing
-------
—3—
ordinarily is “disposed of” when a resource recovery facility
receives or stores a nonhazardous solid waste, and the burning of
such waste generally is regarded as a type of treatment under
RCRA. RCRA sections 1004(3) and (34), 42 U.S.C. S 6903(3)
and (34) (definitions of “disposal” and “treatment”). As a
result, since MWC ash ordinarily is the only waste “disposed of”
by such a facility, Congress arguably intended that MWC ash not
be regarded as a hazardous waste.
For the foregoing reasons, EPA believes that the text of
section 3001(i) is consistent with the Agency’s determination
that MWC ash is exempt from hazardous waste regulation.
Legislative Eistorv
EPA’S determination that MWC ash is exempt from hazardous
waste regulation also is consistent with the legislative history
of section 3001(i). First, a Report of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works addressing section 3001(i)
specifically states that “(a]ll waste management activities of
such a (resource recovery] facility, including the generation ,
transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of waste shall be
covered by the exclusion.” 2 S. Rep. No. 98-284, 98th cong., 1st
Sess. 61 (1983) (emphasis added). 3 Since MWC ash ordinarily is
the only waste “generated” by a resource recovery facility,
Congress arguably demonstrated its intent that MWC ash not be
regarded as a hazardous waste.
2 Unlike the legislative history for section 3001(i),
the statute does not ecpressly state that the “generation” of
waste by a resource recovery facility is included within the
exemption. At most, the absence of that term reflects that
Congress did not expressly address the precise issue of whether
KWC ash should be exempt from hazardous waste regulation, and
does not indicate that Congress intended that MWC ash be
rec’_lated as a hazardous waste. In such a circumstance, the
Ag r-y has discretion to adopt a reasonable interpretation that
be Y servesthe goals embodied in section 3001(i). EPA has
ex ised that discretion in adopting the interpretation set
fo . herein, as discussed more fully below.
The Senate Report is entitled to special weight
because the Conference Committee adopted, without change, the
Senate version of section 3001(i). H.R. Rep. No. 98—1133, 98th
Cong., 2d Sess. 106 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. &
Ad.min. News 5677. In passing the Senate version of section
3001(i), Congress also impliedly adopted the Senate’s
interpretation of that provision set forth in the Senate Report.
-------
—4--
Second, the Senate Report states that section 3001(i) was
enacted to “encourage commercially viable resource recovery
facilities and . . . remove impediments that may hinder their
development and operation.” S. Rep. No. 98-284, 98th Cong., 1st
Sess. 61 (1983). As noted above, one of the significant features
of section 3001(i) is that it applies to resource recovery
facilities that burn both household waste nonhazardous
commercial and industrial waste. If section 3001(i) were
interpreted as not exempting MWC ash derived from the
incineration of combined househo1d waste and nonhazardous
commercial and industrial waste from regulation as hazardous
waste, the policy goal stated in the Senate Report could be
substantially frustrated. As a practical matter, the cost
benefit to a resource recovery facility in being able to burn
both household and nonhazardous commercial and industrial waste
would be significantly reduced if MWC ash must be disposed of as
a hazardous waste, as discussed more fully below.
Third, the Senate Report refers to the wastes being
incinerated in resource recovery facilities as “waste streams,”
as follows:
Resource recovery facilities often take in
“household wastes” mixed with other non-hazardous waste
streams from a variety of sources other than
“households.” . . . New section 3001(i) clarifies the
original intent to include within the household waste
exclusion activities of a resource recovery facility
which recovers energy from the mass burning of
household waste and non-hazardous waste from other
sources.
Id . (emphasis added). As noted above, the Agency justified its
determination that ash derived from the incineration of household
waste is excluded from hazardous waste regulation on the ground
that Congress intended to “exclude waste streams generated by
consumers at the household level.” 45 Fed. Reg. 33066, 33098
(19E0) (emphasis added). In also using the term “waste stream”
in t :e Senate Report, Congress arguably demonstrated its intent
that section 3001(1) be construed as extending the household
“waste stream” exclusion to the entire “waste stream” at a
resc rce recovery facility, including MWC ash derived from the
bui-; ng of combined household and nonhazardous commercial and
industrial waste.
In sum, the legislative history of section 3001(i) is
consistent with the Agency’s determination to exempt MWC ash from
hazardous waste regulation.
-------
—5—
Policy Considerations
As discussed above, EPA believes that the text and
legislative history of section 3001(i) are consistent with the
Agency’s view that MWC ash is exempt from hazardous waste
regulation. Since Congress did not in the statute or l gis].atjve
history expressly address the precise issue of whether MWC ash
should be exempt from hazardous waste regulation, the Agency has
discretion to adopt a reasonable interpretation that best serves
the goals embodied in section 3001(i). EPA has exercised that
discretion in adopting the interpretation set forth herein. EPA
believes that the two statutory goals embodied in section 3001(i)
—— protecting the environment and promoting resource recovery
from rionhazardous solid waste —- are best served by exempting MWC
ash from hazardous waste regulation.
EPA has determined that MWC ash can be regulated in a manner
that will be protective of human health and the environment under
Subtitle D. In particular, EPA recently promulgated new criteria
for municipal solid waste landfills at 40 C.F.R. Part 258, 56
Fed. Reg. 50978 (1991). Municipal landfills and monofills
receiving MWC ash must comply with those criteria.’ The Part
258 criteria impose requirements on municipal landfills that far
exceed those previously imposed, including more stringent
location restrictions, facility design and operating criteria,
ground-water monitoring requirements, corrective action
requirements, financial assurance requirements, and closure and
post-closure care requirements. The Agency believes the disposal
of MWC ash in municipal landfills subject to the Part 258
criteria will be protective of human health and the
environment. 5
In the preamble to the Federal Register notice
announcing the final Part 258 criteria, EPA stated that “(t)he
purpose of part 258 is to establish minimum national criteria for
municipal solid waste landfills, including (such landfills) used
for . . disposal of northazardous municipal waste combustion
( 1WC) ash (whether the ash is co—disposed or disposed of in an
as .onofill).” See also response to comment document nos. 155,
i6 ., 171, 172, and 199 in the public record for the Part 258
ru1. : king (docket number F—9l—CMLF-FFFFF).
The promulgation of the Part 258 criteria is an
important step in ensuring that MWC ash can and will be regulated
in a manner that will be protective of human health and the
enviroru ent under Subtitle D. The promulgation of those criteria
also has served as an impetus for the Agency’s reevaluation of
its earlier view of section 3001(j) as not exempting MWC ash from
hazardous waste regulation. 50 Fed. Reg. 28702, 2872 5-26 (1985).
-------
—6—
If information comes to EPA’S attention Suggesting that MWC
ash is being managed or disposed of in a manner that is not
protective of human health and the environment under Subtitle D,
the Agency w 0 11 consider additional actions, including providing
technical assistance, issuing guidance documents, and, if
appropriate, promulgating additional regulations to address those
situations. In addition, at individual sites, if the disposal of
MWC ash may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
human health or the environment, E PA may require responsible
persons to undertake appropriate action under section 7003(a) of
RCRA, 42 U.s_c. S 6973(a).
Resource recovery from municipal solid waste is an important
component of EPA’s integrated waste management approach, which
involves the complementary use of a variety of practices to
safely and effectively manage municipal solid waste. 6 Such
activity advances the statutory objective of RCRA (the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act) to reduce the volume of waste that
requires disposal. See id . at section 1002(b) (8), 42 U.S.C. S
6901(b) (8). It also advances the statutory objective of
recovering significant amounts of energy from solid waste.
id . at sections 1002(d) (2), 42 U.S.C. 5 6901(d) (2), and
1003(a)(ll), 42 U.S.C. S 6902(a)(11). For those reasons, EPA
agrees with Congress’ view, set forth in the Senate Report
discussed above, that impediments hindering the development and
operation of commercially viable resource recovery facilities
should be eliminated where practicable.
For nonhazardous municipal solid waste that can be disposed
of either in a Subtitle D landfill or combusted in a resource
recovery facility, the comparative economic desirability of those
two alternatives significantly is impacted by the application of
6 That approach establishes a hierarchy that prefers
sou:ce reduction (i.e., the design, manufacture, purchase, or use
of - terials to reduce the amount or toxicity of solid waste
gen . ated) and recycling (i.e., the process by which materials
arc collected and used as raw materials for new products) over
so.Ld waste combustion (including combustion for resource
recovery) and landfilling. Solid waste combustion, however, has
played and will continue to play an important role in the
Agency’s integrated waste management approach because the entire
solid waste stream cannot be reduced through source reduction and
recycling. EPA encourages communities to choose the mix of solid
waste options that are most appropriate for them, considering
local economic, environmental, and other factors.
-------
—7
section 3001(i) to MWC ash. 7 If MWC ash is not exempt under
3001(i) from hazardous waste regulation, a strong economic
incentive may exist to dispose of raw municipal solid waste in
Subtitle D landfills, rather than combust that waste in resource
recovery facilities. The costs associated with the disposal of
MWC ash in Subtitle C facilities are dramatically higher than in
Subtitle D landfills. Although costs vary significantly from
region to region, when averaged on.a national basis there is over
a ten—fold difference between the cost of disposal of MWC ash in
a Subtitle C facility compared to a Subtitle D landfill: the
cost of transporting and disposing of MWC ash in a Subtitle C
facility is approximately $453.00 per ton; the cost of doing so
in a Subtitle D landfill is approximately $42.00 per ton. For
states that combust substantial portions of their solid waste (in
resource recovery and other combustion facilities), such as
Connecticut (65%), Massachusetts (47%), and Maine (45%), this
cost differential could be enormous.
CONCLUSION
In sum, exempting MWC ash from hazardous waste regulation is
consistent with the text and legislative history of section
3001(i), and best serves the statutory goals embodied in that
provision of protecting the environment and promoting resource
recovery from northazardous solid waste. For the foregoing
reasons, EPA has determined that MWC ash is exempt from
regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA S title C.
cc: Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS-l00)
F erbert H. Tate, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement (LE-133)
Raymond B. Luduiszewski, Acting General Counsel (LE-l30)
In addition to cost, Subtitle 0 landfill capacity
1ii itations also may be a significant factor in determining
whether municipal solid waste is combusted in resource recovery
facilities.
-------
(0 1)
ui 21 6
Mr. Steve Stander
do Department of Plant
and Soil Sciences
Stockbridge Hall, Room 10
University of tassachusettu
Artherst, Massachusetts 01003
T)ear r. Standers
This is in respons. to your Jun. 9, 1936, request for
infor natieri reqarding municiDal waste incinerator ash anag. .nt,
resourc, recovery, and regulatory statutes applicable to such
incineration.
Disposal of solid residues from municipal waste combustion
(P4WC) processes is generally accomptish.d by landftlling. Fly
sh as well as other r•sidu.s from MWC processes sometimes
exhibit th. characteristics of hazardous vast, and, thórefor.,
are regulated under the spplicable disposal tandar s in 40 CYR
Put. 260 through 265. Other then those occasions when the MWC
residues meet the definition of hazardous i te, the Federal
regulations that apply an, the sams as those for any non —nazar Ous
waste. Theue regulations are tne ‘Criteria or Cl ssificat1on
of Solid Waste Disoosa] Facilities and Practic.s (40 CFR Part
257) which were ?ro4lulgated on Septs nb.r 13. 1979, under authocitj
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCR ). A copy of
these Criteria is enclosed for your information.
On the State l.v.l, regulatory itrategi.. re;ardinq disoosal
of MWC residues sr. r.atly varied. Currently, your note itate
of Massachusetts has no •p•cific restrictions addressing ‘iienoi.il
of .MciC zesi 1ues. However it is y understan 4 incj that future
l’ a .sachusetts regulation. ay require that disnoaal f the
r.situ.. os restricted to landfills which are lined 4nd ave
sachate collection systems. For adlitionat inforrnation, you
may wish to contact i
Mr. Williaja 7. Cass, Director -
Division of Solid and Hazardous a.te
Department of nviron mental Quality
Engineering
On. Writer Street 5th Floor
Soston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292—5589
-------
2
In r.spons. to the various Congregejo mandates written
into the Hasardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently initiated
several projicts in an effort to address subject areas pertinent
to your inquiry. The Agency is currently developing a technical
information document for use by State and local governments in
evaluating municipal waste combustion projects. IflClud.d in
this document will. b• the results of a study to determine the
characteristics of ash from MWC processes. We anticipate that
this document will be available in February 1987. EPA is also
evaluating the potentj i1. health and environmental impacts from
the disposal of these residues. Th. results of this ase.aa t ,nt
should be availabl, within the year.
EPA’S lunicipal and Environmental Research Laboretory in
Cincinnati, Ohio, is currently invastigatjn ; ash sampling and
analytical techniques. Should you require technical information
at this level, you may contactz
U.S. EPA
Center for Environmental Research
Znformatjon/ORD
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
I am also enclosing a list of ref.rerlce3 which address a
broad range of topics which should be perti ient to your study.
I ‘lope this information is useful to you. If you have
further inquiries, please o not hesitate t3 contact me.
Sincerely.
Gerrj Dorian
Special Wastes 3rancn
Enclosures
cc: 9ob Jann.y, EPA (yb enclosures)
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU?O ARY 57319
MARCH 87
9. Subtitle D Survey
U der the &ab itle D Survey, the EPA is evaluating solid waste
di.sposa.l facilities ir response to the E azardous and Solid Waste
Miencb ents o 1984. The authority EPA is using to obtain the
survey in.forn j is sited in 3OO7(a) of R A. Fb. ver, this
authority only access to facilities which handle or have
handled h ” rdou, waste. Where does EPA get its authority to
access and obtain information at a facility that does not or has
flOt handled hazardous waste?
EPA gets its authority to access entry and cb a.irt information at
solid waste d.isposaJ. facilities fran 3O07(a) of A. This
section requires any person who handles or has handled hazardous
wastes to furnish to EPA infozmation relating to such wastes
and to all , access to the facility and its records to EPA or
authorized State officials, for the purpose of developing or
assisting in the develop t of any regulation or for enforce-
r nt purposes. The s e of EPA’S inspection authority is not
limited ir er the statute to hazardous wastes identified or
listed under Subtitle C but rather extends to any waste that
the Agency believes n y mast the statutory definition of a
hazardous waste under 1004(5). As defined by C grese, the
term hazardous waste maans solid waste that EPA reasonably
believes
‘because of its quantity, concentration or ysical,
c.hanicsl, or infectious d aracterjst ice -
(A) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in
riortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or thcapacitat.tng
reversible, illness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to - n
health or the envircrrmnt when inproper] .y treated, stored,
transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.” ( içhasis
added)
Solid wastes which may contain any oE the hazardous constituents
listed in 40 261, Appendix VIII which may form the basis
for listing actions under 40 ‘R 261.11 sculd fall within the
statutory definition of hazardous waste and ald be subject to
EPA’s information gathering and inspection authorities.
These authorities also apply to hazardous waste fran households
and nall quantity generators which are often placed in rr!irLicipal
landfills and other Subtitle D disposal facilities.
seque&1y when EPA needs information to facilitate regulatory
develop t or enforcesent, EPA can use Section 3007 to obtain
informa on fran Subtitle D facilities.
Source: JUn aig (202) 382-3410
Research: Joe Nixon
-------
40
‘TI
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRflTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 9573.1990(01)
FEB 161990
OrC.CE O
SOLID WASTE AI O E\IERGE%CV q 5PoN5
Guy Sutherland
Managing Director
Lomax Development Corporation
P.O. Box 41206
Houston, TX 77241
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
This s in response to your letter of January 12, 1990, in
which you inquire about any regulations which may apply to you
should you choose to export municipal solid waste (i.e., non-
hazardous waste) from the United States to an unspecified country
in Central America. At the present time, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) does not have the authority to control the
export of this type of waste; therefore, there are no EPA
regulations that apply. (For your information, EPA does regulate
the export of hazardous waste under section 3017 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)). Thus, there is no
requirement that you provide written proof of acceptance by the
receiving country.
As you may be aware, the U.S. government is in the process of
deciding whether to sign the Easel Convention. The Basel
Convention governs the transboundary movement of wastes. Should
the U.S. sign and ratify the Convention, certain new requirements
will apply to persons exporting municipal wastes. Such
requirements would include a notification and consent procedure for
the export of municipal solid waste.
In addition, there is legislation currently pending before
Congress, which, if passed, would regulate exports of municipal
solid waste. The legislation would ban the export of solid waste
unless it was made pursuant to a bilateral or regional agreement
with the receiving country. The exporter would also have to obtain
a permit from EPA to export the waste under the proposed
legislation.
Although there are no EPA regulations that apply at the
present time to the export of wastes such as those referred to in
your letter, this situation could change should the U.S. become a
signatory to the Basel Convention or should pending legislation
pass. You may find it valuable to keep informed on legislative
developments in this area.
R.c thd Papsr
-------
Should you have questions regarding this letter you may
contact Emily Roth of my staff at (202) 382-4777.
Sin . rely,
S v’ia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9573.1990(02)
I . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
29 199
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Julie Sullivan
9 Bittersweet Court
Centerport, New York 11721
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
I am writing in response to your March 6 letter to Sylvia
Lowrance regarding the Environmentai Protection Agency’ 5 (EPA)
interpretation of the regulatory status of municipal waste
combustion ash.
As you noted, EPA articulated its interpretation of
Section 3001(i) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments in
the July 15, 1985 Federal Register (pages 28725—26). The
Agency stated that there was no specific legislative language
or history indicating that ash generated by energy recovery
facilities accepting non—hazardous wastes from commercial or
industrial sources would be exempt from regulation under
Subtitle c it such ash exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous
waste. Because the Section 3001(j) exemption did not extend to
the ash from energy recovery facilities, ash generated by the
combustion of non-household wastes is required to be handled
like any other waste — if it exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic, it must be managed accordingly.
Recently, Sylvia Lowrance reiterated the Agency’s position
regarding the regulatory status of ash, in testimony before the
House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Ms. Lowrance indicated that although the statute is ambiguous,
EPA continues to believe that its interpretation of existing
law is correct. The testimony also makes clear, however, that
EPA believes that ash could be managed safely as a special
waste under RCRA Subtitle D, with the use of management
controls such as disposal in lined monof ills, leachate
collection systems, and groundwater monitoring. Accordingly,
the Agency supports Congressional legislation that would
provide EPA with clear authority to regulate ash from municipal
waste combustors under Subtitle D.
Two recent court decisions (enclosed) have rejected EPA’s
statutory interpretation and concluded that Section 3001(i) of
RCRA does exempt ash from regulation under Subtitle C.
PrLrgad a R.q,ckd Papr
-------
a
Environmental Defense Fund. Inc. V. Wheelabrptor Technologies.
Inc. No. 88 Civ. 0560 (S.D.Ny. Nov. 21, 1989). Environmental
Defense Fund. Inc. V. City of Chicago No. 88 C 769 (N.D.IL.
Nov. 29, 1989). The Agency is Considering the appropriate
response to these decisions.
I hope that this information sufficiently addresses your
questions. Thank you for your interest.
- Sincerely,
Doreen Sterling \
chemist
Municipal Solid Waste Program
-------
9573.1991(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 1991
2. Regulation of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash
Two cities have recently constructed combustion facilities to manage municipal solid
waste. The first city has an energy recovery plant, while the second has a non-
energy recovery incinerator. Both units generate ally and bottom ash. Would these
types of ash be subject : RCRA hazardous waste regulation if the ash exhibited a
toxicity characteristic?
No. The ash would not be subject to the 40 CFR 261.24 toxicity characteristic
(TC) regulation. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted on
November 15, 1990; Section 306, entitled “Ash Management and Disposal,”
established that for a period of two years after the date of enactment, MWC
ash from “solid waste incineration units” would not be regulated as a RCRA
Subtitle C waste should it exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic of
igriitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C.
(Note: MWC ash would not be regulated as a hazardous waste in 40 CFR
Part 261, Subpart D since it is not a listed source.) The term “ash from solid
waste incineration units burning municipal waste” includes fly and/or
bottom ash from both energy recovery and incineration facilities managing
municipal waste. During the two year moratorium, however, MWC ash
would be subject to: 1) current federal regulations in 40 CFR Part 257
governing the disposal of solid waste, 2) state regulations governing solid
waste disposal; and 3) state regulations governing municipal waste
combustion ash disposal or utilization/reuse, where they exist. See also
Environmental Defense Fund 1 Inc . v. Wheelabrator Technologies Iiic . Docket
No. 90-7437 (2d Cir. April 24, 1991).
Source: Andrew Tepli ky , 05W (202) 3824536
Research: Cynthia Hess
S
-------
9574 - HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Subtitle D
ATX1/1 104 /74 kp
-------
OSW POLICY DIR !E NO. 9574.00-1
to
1- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
.
1..
L
NOV I 1988
3F CE F
SOLID WA5 E AND EMERGENCY q SPO .
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Issues Pertaining to Household
Haz,, 5 dous W Collection Programs
FROM: J. W3 toi PorEer
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
TO: Waste Management Division Directors,
Regions I-X
As you know, the Agency enthusiastically supports
household hazardous waste (HHW) collection and management
programs. As part of this support, EPA has sponsored annual
HHW conferences since 1986. The first collection programs
began in 1981. As of October 1988, over 1300 collection
programs have been set up in 44 States and more programs are
being planned all the time. EPA believes these programs are
important because they: (1) promote citizen awareness
regarding proper handling of HHW; (2) reduce the amount of HHW
in the municipal solid waste stream which ultimately is
taken to municipal waste combustors or landfills; (3) limit
the amount of HHW which is dumped down a drain and ultimately
discharged to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), or is
dumped indiscriminately; (4) remove a greater amount of Ifl W
from the home, thereby reducing potential safety hazards; and
(5) help to reduce the risk of injuries to sanitation workers.
Several issues have been raised pertaining to 11MW
collection programs. These issues include the liability of
collectiom program sponsors under the Resource Conservation
and Recov y Act (RcRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, penaation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); EPA’S
recommendations regarding the management of BMW: and the
regulatory status of 1*1W that contains dioxin.
-------
—2—
This memorandum clarifies our position on these issues.
You should note, however, that State positions may vary; the
State agency should be contacted for details on the State’s
policies or regulations regarding HHW.
1. What does EPA recommend regarding manaaement of HHW
collected in HHW collection programs ?
As you know, all household wastes are exempt by
definition from the Federal hazardous waste regulations
promulgated under Subtitle C of RCRA. Section 261.4(b) (1)
unconditionally exempts household wastes, including IffiW, from
the Subtitle C regulations even when accumulated in large
quantities. This exemption also applies to HHW collected
during an HHW collection program. However, when household
wastes are mixed with hazardous wastes from small quantity
generators, this resulting mixture is subject to tJ e small
quantity generator rules in Section 261.5. For this reason,
sponsors of HEW collection programs should be careful to limit
the participation in their programs to households to-avoid the
possibility of receiving regulated hazardous wastis from
commercial or industrial sources and triggering all or some of
the Subtitle C controls on this waste.
Household waste, including HEW, is subject to the
regulations under Subtitle D of RCPA. The current Subtitle D
regulations governing the disposal of any solid waste are the
“Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices” (40 CFR Part 257). These
regulations are general environmental performance standards
that are implemented by the States. On August 30, 1988 (see
53 33314) EPA proposed new rules for municipal solid waste
landfills at 40 CFR Part 258. HEW can legally be disposed in
any solid waste disposal facility, including a municipal solid
waste landfill, that is in compliance with the existing
“Criteria” and State and local requirements.
Although HEW is exempt from the Federal RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waite regulations, EPA recommends that sponsors of
HHW collection programs manage the collected HEW as a
hazardous waste. When a community has already gone to the
effort and expense of collecting these materials, Subtitle C
controls provide a greater level of environmental protection.
In selecting a management option, the Agency recommends that
program sponsors follow the waste management hierarchy of:
-------
—3—
(1-) Reusing arid recycling as much waste as possible;
‘2) Treating waste in a hazardous waste treatment
facility; and, finally,
(3) Disposing of remaining waste in a hazardous waste
tandf ill. 1
The Agency also recommends the use of licensed hazardous
waste transporters who will properly identify, label,
manifest, and transport the collected wastes for r cycling,
treatment, or disposal. Although sponsors are not required to
nanage HHW as a hazardous waste, it is clear from seeing the
programs in action, that, in fact, sponsors usually contract
with hazardous waste management professionals to run the
programs. These contractors generally manage the HHW as a
hazardous waste and usually make efforts to reuse and recycle
the waste.
2. What is the reaulatorv status of HBW that contains dioxin ?
As stated above, HHW is unconditionally exempt from
Federal RCRA Subtitle C regulation. This exemption includes
HHW that contains dioxin, such as pesticides. Like any
household waste, fliW that contains dioxin must be disposed
of in accordance with EPA’s rules under Subtitle D of
RCRA.
The RCRA land disposal restrictions rule issued
November 8, 1986, applies only to those dioxin-bearing
wastes that are specifically listed as hazardous wastes
under Subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, this rule does not
apply to any !*!W and does not prohibit hazardous waste land
disposal facilities from receiving any IffiW, even those
potentially containing dioxin.’ Although dioxin-containing
HHW are exempt from EPA’S land disposal restrictions rule,
we understand that, due to public perception concerns,
some Subtitle C hazardous waste management facilities
currently do not accept dioxin-bearing liliW. EPA will
explore options with State and local governments so that a
solution to this problem can be found. For example, we
are looking at ways to encourage the waste management
industry to reconsider their position and accept these
wastes. Some communities have chosen to temporarily
store this dioxin-bearing HHW until a more permanent
management option can be found.
_ _ —
1 To the extent that non-hazardous liquids are not
containerized in accordance with Sections 40 CFR 264.314(d),
265.314(c), 264.316, and 265.316, such liquids are subject to
the non-hazardous liquids restrictions set forth at Sections
264.314(e) and 265.314(f).
2 Likewise, the land disposal restrictions do not apply to
any other IDIW.
-------
—4—
3. What liability do HHW collection programs sponsors have
under Subtitle C of RCRA ?
As stated above, Section 261.4(b) (1), exempts household
wastes, including HHW, from the Federal Subtitle C
regulations. As a result, handlers of MHW are not potentially
liable under Subtitle C of RCRA for failure to follow the
reg, .llations and are not required to manage col1ect d HHW in
Subtitle C hazardous waste management facilities. As
previously mentioned, however, EPA recommends that this waste
be handled as a Subtitle C hazardous waste.
4. What liability do sponsors of HHW collection roprams have
under CERCLA ?
CERCLA does not contain an exclusion from liability for
household waste or an exclusion based on the amount of waste
generated. Any waste that qualifies as a hazardous substance
under CERCLA is subject to the liability provisions of Section
1.07. Hazardous substances are defined under Section-l01 .(14)
and designated under Section 102(a) of CERCLA. }UIW may
qualify as a “hazardous substance” if it contains any
substance listed in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302. If a
household waste contains a substance that is covered under
these CERCL sections (whether or not it is a RCRA hazardous
waste), potential CERCLA liability exists.
Communities should recognize that potential liability
under CERCL applies reaardless of whether the }fliW was picked
up as part of a community’s routine waste collection service
and disposed of in a municipal waste landfill (RCR.A Subtitle
D) or if the HBW was gathered as part of a special collection
program and taken to a hazardous waste landfill (RCRA Subtitle
C). The additional safeguards provided by 11MW collection and
Subtitle C management may reduce the likelihood of
environmental and human health impacts and, therefore, may
also reduce potential CERCLA liability.
I hope this information will assist you in addressing
questions regarding HHW collection and management programs.
We are providing copies of this memorandum to States and the
major vast, management trade associations. I request that you
make this information available to any other interested
parties in your Region. If you require additional information
or clarification on these issues, please contact Allen Maples
of the Municipal Solid Waste Program at (202) 382—4683.
cc: State Solid and Hazardous Waste Directors
Bryan W. Dixon, ASTSWMO
Dana Duxbury, Consultant to Tufts University, CE)!
William Forester, APWA
H. L.anier Hic) an, GRCDA
Sheila Prindiville, NSWMA
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Subtitle D Coordinators, Regions I-X
-------
9574.00—02
iIQ St 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
?4 .qoitC
JUL 22 1992
OFFICE OF
SOL’O WASTE A%O EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Subtitle C Requirements Applicable to Household Hazardous
Waste Collection Programs Collecting Conditionally Exempt Small
Quantity Generator Waste
FROM: Syl’.’ia K. LowranCe, Directq , \. /}(
Office of Solid Waste .—‘—
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I- X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify that state-approved Household
Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Programs (HHWCPs) that manage both
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) waste and HHW are not
subject to the full RCRA Subtitle C requirements merely because they mix these two
types of wastes together. Based on the numerous questions we are receiving, it is
apparent that there is a great deal of uncertainty among members of the regulated
community and implementing agencies about this issue.
Background
This clarification is necessary for several reasons. First, many communities are
addressing the issue of CESQG waste management because they want to assure that
these hazardous wastes are appropriately managed. As with HHW, some
communities are interested in separating and collecting CESOG waste from the
muv :ipal solid waste stream to minimize the input of hazardous constituents to their
lanc ; and combustors. In addition, many CESO generators (the majority of which
arc s a!l businesses) are addressing the issue of how to best manage their waste to
re’ e potential future liability for cleanup of facilities where wastes have been
rn :— naged. CESO generators are interested in participating in HHWCPs even
th ’ugh they, unlike HHW generators, typically must pay a fee. Often CESQ
generators do not have alternative options other than disposal in the solid waste
stream for their wastes. Their quantities are too small to economically manage using
hazardous waste disposal firms and these generators usually lack the expertise and
resources to manage their wastes under Subtitle C.
Pruned on Recycled Paper
-------
PD;: 9574.00—02
The regulations governing the management of CESQG waste are found at
§ 261.5 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This provision describes
a conditional exemption from the full hazardous waste regulations for CESQG waste
as long as certain requirements are met.’ The issue raised to the Agency concerns
state-approved programs that collect both HHW and CESOG waste. Household
waste, including HHW, is excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under
40 CFR 261 .4(b)(1).
Problem
Uncertainty about RCRA regulatory requirements prevents communities and
businesses from making cost-effective decisions about management of HHW and
CESOG waste. The question raised to the Agency by communities and companies
considering developing or participating in collection programs that collect both HHW
and CESOG waste is:
If a collection program accepts and manages both HHW and CESOG
waste and mixes these two types of wastes together (e.g., pours spent
solvents from households and small businesses into the same drum),
how is the resultant mixture regulated?
This question is prompted specifically by 40 CFR § 261.5(h), which states that CESOG
waste may be mixed with non-hazardous waste (e.g., HHW) and remain subject to the
reduced requirements for CESO generators, even though the mixture exceeds CESOG
quantity limitations, only so long as the mixture does not meet any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste in 40 CFR Part 261.
If § 261.5(h) were to apply to collection programs where CESOG waste and
HHW are mixed, these programs would be faced with the substantial burdens and
costs associated with full Subtitle C requirements. The only way to reduce these
burdens would be to manage CESQG waste and HHW separately (i.e., not mix them
in the same container). Even this approach would have significant downsides. For
example, managing the wastes separately greatly increases paperwork requirements,
increases the space required to store the wastes, increases packaging costs, and
Jnder 40 CFR 261 .5(f)(3) and (g)(3), CESQGs must send t:ieir wastes to either
a fe : . -&ly permitted or interim status hazardous waste management facility, a state
aur - :ed hazardous waste management facility, a recycling facility, or a facility
per d, licensed, or registered by a state to manage municipal or industrial solid
wa (For further detail concerning state approval, see attached letter dated October
9, 1986 from Mark A. Greenwood, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. EPA, to Joan H.
Peck, Chief, Waste Evaluation Unit, State of Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.)
2
-------
PD#: 9574.00—02
increases both shipping and disposal costs. This increased burden comes with no
increase in environmental protection. To avoid either of the above scenarios -- full
Subtitle C regulation or increased costs associated with separate management of
CESQG waste and HHW -- many collection programs are refusing to accept CESQG
waste. This represents an unnecessary barrier to communities and companies who
are seeking environmentally sound methods of managing CESGQ waste.
Clarification
The CESQ generator regulations were not intended to impose barriers to
collection of CESQG waste and, thus, to the removal of these wastes from the
municipal solid waste stream. In fact, the discussion in the preamble when § 261 .5(h)
was promulgated (45 .EB 33102 - 33104) indicates that collection of CESOG waste was
not envisioned at that time and, thus, was not addressed by the regulations. The
Agency’s intent Dehind the Subtitle C regulations concerning HHW and CESOG waste
was, as with municipal solid waste, to allow States to determine what controls are
necessary for management of CESOG waste and HHW within the state. See 45 f
33104. Therefore, to apply § 261 .5(h) to collection programs that mix CESOG waste
and HHW would create an unintended barrier to programs whose intent is to dispose
of these wastes economically and in an environmentally sound manner.
Based on the above discussion, and the fact that § 261.5 generally provides
direction to the CESO generator rather than to others managing CESOG waste, it is
our interpretation that § 261.5(h) applies to the CESQ generator and not to the
subsequent managers of the CESOG waste described in § 261.5(0(3) and (g)(3).
Programs and facilities receiving and mixing CESOG waste and HHW are subject to
requirements imposed by States through the States’ municipal or industrial waste
permit, license, or registration programs, but are not subiect to the full hazardous
waste Subtitle C regulations, even if the mixed CESOG and household hazardous
wastes were to exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous waste. The collection facility
does not become the generator of the mixture merely by mixing CESOG waste wi:h
nonhazardous waste, and regardless of the quantity of the mixture of wastes, is nc’
subject to the 40 CFR Part 262 generator regulations. By contrast, CESQ generators
that mix hazardous and nonhazardous waste and whose resultant mixtures exceed the
§ 261.5 quantity limitations and exhibit a characteristic, are no longer conditionally
exem2t and are subject to the applicable Part 262 hazardous waste generator
rec.) onS.
At ment
cc Bruce Weddle
David Bussard
Regional Implementation Team
3
-------
PD#: 9574.00—0:
i O 5’i.
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
wASHINGTON 0 C 20460
OCT 9
O ’.C C 0’
Ms. Joan H. Peck, Chief
Waste Evaluation Unit
Hazardous Waste Division
St;te of Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason 8uildiri
Box 30028
Lansing, tI 48909
Dear Ms. Peck:
I a responding Co your September 15, 1986 request for
clarification on how 40 CFR 261 .5(g)(3)(iv) applies to
facilities chat temporarily store hazardous wastes produced by
generators of Less than 100 kg/mo.
The condition under which the hazardous waste produced by
these generators would be exempc from full regulation under
S261.5(g)(3)(iv) is that the generator must either Credc or
dispose of his hazardous waste in an onsice facility or ensure
delivery to an offsite scora8e. treatment or disposal facility,
either of which is permitted, licensed or registered by a State
to manage municipal or industrial solid waste. The purpose
behind imposing this condition was to ensure that the facilities
managing the waste are approved by the State to handle the
particular waste. This would allow the States more flexibility
in dealing with small quantity generators, since the State
cculd deal, directly with situations such as where it determines
t z certain cype of waste should not be managed in a particular
r :--hazardous facility. See 45 Fed. Reg. 33104 (May 19, 1980).
The requirement that the facility be permitted, licensed
cr registered by a State was not intended to impose upon the
States any particular procedure for approval of the facility.
All that is required is that the State have some mechanism for
approving facilities that propose to manage the exempt waste.
Since the underlying intent of the requirer ent is that the
State assess the risks associated with particular facilities
handling the exempt ‘aste, any mechanism that the State chooses
-over-
-------
PD : 9574.OO—C2
-2-
to accoi p] .ish this is. i our view, acceptable under the
regulations. Thus, we would not judge an exchange of letters
to be an inappropriate way Co achieve “registration” of a
facility. *1
If you have any further questions, feel, free to contact
r e or Maureen Sr ith of y staff at (202) 382-7703.
Sincerely,
/)7h O4L
Mark A. C eenwood
Assistant General Counsel
Solid Waste & Er ergency Response
Division
I The regulations do not define the ter2 “registration”.
-------
9574.1985(01)
JAN 22 1985
Mr. Kevin Brcmber
all business Mministration
1725 I Street, S.W.
Washington, 0. C. 20416
Dear Mr. Srombsrgs
I am responding to the December31, 1984, letter that I
recsived from Mr. Chuck liarshall (JACA Corporation) requesting
information on th. disposal of nonhazardous liquid vastewaters
and sludges in sanitary landfills undsr the old RCRA lav and
new RCRA 1aw.
Tb. Federal Government has no spscific regulations on th.
disposal of bulk or containerized nonhazardous liquids in
sanitary (nonhazardous vast.) landfills. The EPA ‘Criteria or
guidelines regarding sanitary landfills were issued under
Subtitle D of RCRA on September 13, 1979, in 4 0 CFR Part 257.
These Criteria, in general, establish performance standards
for sanitary landfills. Specific design and operating practices
needed to meet the performance standards must be determined by
the facility owner or operator and may be specified by the
State through Stat. regulations or State. issued permits.
Restrictions on liquids or certain liquids in landfills may be
needed at specific sites, depending on the facility design and
location, in order to meet the Criteria prformanc. standards.
To get current information on State requirements, you should
check with the State agencies (list of State agencies is
enclosed).
Under the recent RCRA amendments, EPA is to review the
adequacy of the Criteria in protecting human health and the
environment and to make revisions as necessary. The RCRA
amendments do not specifically address the issue of liquids at
sanitary landfills.
Regulations regarding the disposal of nonhazardous liquid
wastes at hazardous waste landfills were issued under Subtitle C
ot RCRA in4O CFR 264.314 and 265.314. EPA’s current requirement
is that nonhazardous liquids, in a bulk form, cannot be placed
0 into a hazardous waste landfill unlessi
It
I
-------
1) The landfill has a synthetic liner and a functioning
leachate collection and removal system, as per
5264.301(a), or
2 ) S .f or. disposal, the bulk liquid, or fre. liquid.
are treated or stabilized so that free liquids are
no longer present.
In regard to the disposal of containerized rionhagardous
liquids in hazardous waste landfills, EPA ’s current requirement
is that all free-standing liquids must be removed from th.
container before the waste is placed in the landfill,
The RCP.A amendments will change the rules regarding the
disposal of nonhazardous liquids in hazardous vast, landfills.
The amendments require that months after •nactment
( ov.mb.r 9, 1985), the placement of any liquid that is not
a hazardous waste in a landfill for which a permit is required
under 53005(c) or which is operating pursuant to interim status
granted under 53005(e) is prohibited, wtl.ss the owner or
operator demonstrates specific items to the Administrator (a..
•nclosure).
If you have any further questions concerning this letter,
you may contact r. Paul Cassidy of my staff at 382-4682.
Sincerely.
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid haste
Enclosure -
cci Chuck Plarshall
-------
UNe.&!D STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9574 1990(01)
NOV 28 1990
Marilynne Wilson, RN
Quality Assurance Coordinator
Family Home Care
P.O. Box 2145
Spokane, Washington 99210-2145
Dear Ms. Wilson:
Thank you for your letter dated October 12, 1990 regarding the
proper disposal of old medications.
Expired medications from households may fall into the category
of household hazardous waste. Household hazardous waste (HHW) is
appropriately identified by applying two criteria. First, the
waste must be generated by individuals on the premises of a
temporary or permanent residence for individuals. Second, the
waste stream must be composed primarily of materials found in the
waste generated by consumers in their homes. Other items that may
fall into this category may include excess household cleaners, lawn
and garden products, and paint thinners, among others, when
intended for disposal. Based on the information in your letter,
it is not clear whether the medication you manage qualifies as HHW.
However, you should be able to determine the regulatory status of
the material based on the aforementioned criteria. At the Federal
regulatory level, HHW is excluded from hazardous waste regulations
under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Please note that state or local regulations may be more
stringent than Federal regulations.
Although household hazardous waste is excluded from
Subtitle C regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
shares concerns such as yours regarding household hazardous waste.
In fact, EPA attempts to address some of these concerns in the
enclosed publication entitled A Survey of Household Hazardous
Wastes and Related Collection Proarams . This report contains the
results of a comprehensive nationwide survey of HHW. In this
publication the Agency identifies: existing information on the
types and quantities of HHW; the impacts of MHW on homeowners,
solid waste collection and disposal personnel, and the environment;
and existing collection programs at the state and local levels.
You may also be interested in the enclosed publication Household
Hazardous Waste: Bibliography of Useful References and List of
State ExDe which lists resources and contacts for HEW programs.
-------
3
would be extremely helpful: 1) the types and quantities of
cadmium and nickel used in batteries in the United States, 2)
current management practices for spent NiCds, 3) collection and
storage systems currently in place and planned, 4) recycling
processes currently in use and planned, and 5) quantities of
batteries reclaimed within the U.S. and overseas.
Second, as you are aware, we are currently conducting a
comprehensive analysis of the RCRA regulations to determine how
they could best be modified to encourage environmentally sound
recycling of hazardous wastes. In particular, one of the issues
being studied is how to address reverse distribution systems that
involve the return of hazardous wastes to product manufacturers.
Thank you for your continued interest in increasing the
environmentally sound recycling of NiCd batteries and how RCRA
regulations impact such efforts. Should you have any further
questions regarding the household waste exclusion, please contact
Mike Petruska at (202) 475-8551.
ncere y,
David ‘ ussard
Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
With regard to disposal of old medications, rinsing the
bottles and flushing this type of waste down a toilet may be the
most appropriate method of disposal. Additionally, most
pharmacists recommend flushing expired tablets and capsules down
the toilet. By disposing of these normally minute quantities of
household waste in this fashion, the possibility of exposing
children that might be attracted to the potentially harmful
materials while in the trash is removed. Federally, any mixture
of domestic sewage and other wastes that pass through a sewer
system to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for treatment is
not regulated under Subtitle C.
I suggest you consult your local publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) to determine if local limits or general/specific
prohibitions are applicable when disposing of expired medications
in this manner. I also suggest you contact your state solid waste
program office to determine if they can provide additional HHW
disposal guidance. The address in Washington is:
Solid And Hazardous Waste Management Division
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-ll
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 459—6316
Thank you for your interest in proper waste management. I
hope this information is useful when determining the appropriate
disposal options for expired medications.
Sincerely,
Mike Petruska, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosures
-------
—3—
exceedenceS are attributable to naturally occurring levels,
laboratory error, or broken product lines running beneath the
LTF. We believe that Sun has failed to prove conclusively that
the migration did not, in part, result from LTF operations.
Additionally, we believe that Sun has failed to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a)(4). Specifically, Sun has not
demonstrated that the ground-water monitoring system at the LTF
is capable of detecting (and differentiating) releases at the
earliest extent practicable. Sun’s 1990 annual report on ground-
water monitoring (dated July 19, 1990) presented a map showing
three pipelines buried approximately three feet below the ground
surface within the treatment zone of the Central treatment area
of the LTF. These pipelines transport a wide range of petroleum
products from crude oil to gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. The
map also showed that the downgradient wells of the Central and
West areas are located adjacent to these pipelines. Sun stated
that these pipelines could leak and that several leaks, which
were indeed identified during 1989, could have influenced ground-
water monitoring results, as with MW32 where the concentration of
total organic carbon (TOC) has consistently increased from 20 ppm
in 1986 to 79 ppm in 1988.
The ramifications of the contamination from ruptured product
lines in regard to ground-water monitoring of the LTF are
unclear. Sun has not provided detailed analytical results that
describe the known contamination, nor have they proposed an
adequate plan whereby releases from the LTF can be differentiated
from the known contamination. Because the constituents of a
weathered petroleum product plume would be very similar to a
release from a LTF that contains petroleum wastes ( e.g.,
benzene, toluene, and xylene), it will be difficult to
differentiate between the two releases and therefore, conclude
that Sun’s ground-water monitoring system will be able to detect
constituent releases at the earliest extent practicable.
Maintainifla Minimum SeparatiQfl
Federal regulations require that the depth-to-ground water
at land treatment facilities be no less than three feet from the
bottom of the treatment zone to the seasonal high water table (40
CFR 264.271(c) (2)). Based on the discussion below, we do not
believe that Sun has demonstrated that the required minimum
separation is maintained throughout the entire year.
Sun stated that the ground-water table can fluctuate up to
four feet in elevation in a year, and that the seasonal high
water table is more than eight feet below ground surface at the
LTF. Although Sun supported its claim by providing the ground-
water elevation profiles in ExhibitS 3.3—1 to 3.3-3 (V.1, pages
3-28 to 3-30), the changes in ground-water table, as reported in
Exhibit 3.3-1, were based on observations recorded in a period
-------
—4—
from 1983 to 1984. We believe that data taken in this relatively
short period is not sufficient to represent the long-term,
temporal variation of the water table beneath the LTF. In
addition, the average depths to ground-water table at MW15 and
MW17 were shown to be 8.2 feet and 8.5 feet, respectively (V.1,
Exhibit 3.3-2, page 3-29). Since Sun has stated that the
potential fluctuations of the water table could be four feet over
the course of a year (or roughly ± two feet from the mean), it is
possible for the water table at these two wells to rise to an
elevation within six feet of the ground surface.
Furthermore, Exhibit 3.3—2 (V.1, page 3-29) presents average
depths to ground water using measurements made in August 1984,
May 1985, and December 1986. As stated above, the depth to
ground water during this period in the East LTF ranges between
8.2 and 8.5 feet. We note, however, that the petition stated
that the ground-water table is at the highest levels during April
— June (V.1, page 3-27). The petition also stated that the level
of the ground-water table fluctuates with rainfall. Because the
greatest amount of precipitation generally occurs during May,
June, and September, ground—water table elevation measurements
collected during these three months may show that the minimum
required separation of three feet between the bottom of the
treatment unit and the top of the seasonal high water table is
-not maintained (V.1, page 3-33).
We are also concerned that the aquifer beneath the LTF is
hydraulically linked to the Arkansas River, and the ground-water
table can be further affected by the water level variations in
the river. A 100—year flood could cause “underground flooding”
at the LTF due to its proximity to the river and the moderately
permeable alluvial soils in the unsaturated zone. That is, the
excessive hydraulic head generated outside the levee by flood
waters could reverse the ground-water flow direction and cause
the water table to further rise beneath the LTF. Our concerns
are supported by Sun’s acknowledgment that during heavy flooding
in October of 1986, the Arkansas River level was at the same
elevation as an abandoned waste site adjacent to the West unit
for at least a week, temporarily reversing the ground-water flow.
We, therefore, conclude that the minimum separation between the
treatment zone and the water table is affected by water level
variations occurring in the Arkansas River.
Air Modelina for Arsenic
Sun performed air modeling to predict the airborne
concentrations of arsenic at the unit boundary. This modeling,
based on historic and projected data, showed that arsenic would
be found at the unit boundary at a concentration of 1.2 x l0’
g/m 3 and 1.0 x iO g/m 3 , respectively. Sun compared these
predicted concentrations to a health-based level (HBL) for
arsenic of 2.3 x 10 j g/m 3 (for inhalation) as reported in Table
-------
—5—
9.5-3 of the petition. However, the HBL value cited in the
petition b 5 y SUn 3 iS higher than that found in EPA’S IRIS database
(7.0 x 10 g/m). Since both the historic and projected
concentrations modeled for arsenic exceed the HBL of 7.0 x l0
,hg/m 3 , Sun has failed to demonstrate that this constituent will
not migrate at hazardous concentrations beyond the unit boundary.
Incomplete petition
Finally, our review indicates that the petition is
incomplete and that information and clarification in areas beyond
those highlighted above would be needed to complete the petition.
However, because of the problems discussed above, we believe we
have sufficient information at this time to move toward a denial
of your petition.
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of
withdrawing their petitions to avoid a negative publication in
the Federal Register . If you prefer this option, you must send
us a letter withdrawing your petition and acknowledging that the
petitioned wastes are still considered to be restricted wastes
subject to the Third Third Land Disposal prohibitions. This
letter should be forwarded to the following address within two
weeks of the date of receipt of today’s correspondence:
Patricia Cohn, Acting chief
Assistance Branch (OS—343)
u.s. Environmental protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
If you choose not to withdraw your petition, we will
recommend that a proposed denial decision be published in the
Federal Register .
Any questions regarding our findings may be submitted in
writing to Mr. James Michael of my staff.
Sincerely,
Jeffery D. Denit, Deputy Director
Office of Solid Waste
Attachments
cc: Patricia Cohn, PSPD, OSW
James Michael, PSPD, OSW
Fenton Rood, Oklahoma State Department of Health
Bill Honker, Region VI
-------
ATTAcIUtUT I
$01 1-Por. Noni tar Ir , à er . I z es Detectod at Back rou d _ 1 Act I v. Ares Lyslters
Ia C .aitrst Ion ( b)
Pac0gro i Ly.Iest.rs
NonttorIi Period LI-I LI-S LT-6 1.1-16 LI-IT
Nsrch-AprIt 1987 0.97 12 0.5 0.6 0.8
Active Ares Lyslester.
Non1tor1i PerIod 1.1-2 1.1-3 1.1-4 L V- ? LT-8 LI-Il 1.1-14 LI-IS LI-IN
Narcti-Aprlt 1987 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.2 0.6
Jti . 1988 33•4
Jitie 1989 4.0 3.0 5.0
Au uot 1989 3.6 2.6
October 1989 4.0 5.0
-------
6T1&CIUIENT I
Soil-Pore N idtorims sabers Ueszei s Detected at Rackgrolhld esd Active Ares Lysiesters
•ol olbe C.LestFat Ion ()
Iad grola Lye inter.
Non ltorln PerIod LT-1 LV-5 LT-6 LT-16 IT-IT
Perch-AprIl 1987 0.97 12 0.5 0.6 0.8
Active Ares Ly .Itsrs
Nonitorln Period LT-2 LT-3 LY-4 LV? LT-8 LY-Il LT-14 tV-I , LT-I8
N.rch-AprIl 1987 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.6
Jit%e 1988 33.4
J zie 1989 4.0 3.0 5.0
At uat 1989 3.6 2.6
October 1989 4.0 5.0
-------
f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9574.1991(01)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4’,.—
MAY 30 99I
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Lynn L. Bergeson
Weinberg, Bergeson, and Neuman
1300 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 600 East
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Ms. Bergeson:
This letter responds to your April 12, 1991 letter on behalf
of the Battery Products Alliance (BPA) requesting clarification
of the scope of the 40 CFR 261.4(b) (1) household waste exclusion
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Specifically, you have raised the issue of the applicability
of the exclusion to nickel-cadmium batteries (NiCds) removed from
household products by service centers where the household
products are taken to the service center by a consumer. Further,
you express concern that the Agency’s interpretation of the scope
of the household waste exclusion is contrary to both the
legislative and regulatory histories of the exclusion.
First, thank you for your interest in developing recycling
programs for NiCd batteries and in the applicability of RCRA
regulations to these programs. We are considering the points
that you and BPA member companies have raised in your letters
concerning the difficulties involved in implementing NiCd
recycling programs if the batteries exhibit the Toxicity
Characteristic.
Turning to the Agency’s interpretation of the household
waste exclusion, you are correct in understanding our
interpretation to be that batteries removed by consumers in their
homes are within the exclusion and are exempt from the hazardous
waste regulations, and batteries removed by service centers from
appliances taken to the service centers by consumers are not
within the exemption.
This means, of course, that if spent NiCds generated by
service centers exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, they are subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations. Service centers must determine the total quantity
of hazardous waste generated per month to determine whether they
must manage the NiCds in compliance with the conditionally exempt
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
2
small quantity generator-regulations of 40 CFR 261.5, or the
generator regulations of 40 CFR Part 262. Also, individual
states may have more stringent or additional regulations
governing the management of these wastes.
Although others may have a different interpretation of the
legislative history of the household waste exclusion, the
Agency’s interpretation of the legislative history and of the
scope of the exclusion have been consistent since promulgation of
the exclusion in 1980. Note that the May 19, 1980 Federal
Reaister (45 33099) states that EPA interpreted Congressional
intent “... to exclude waste streams generated by consumers at
the household level” (i.e., by homeowners at home).
Additionally, a November 13, 1984 Federal Register notice (49
44978) which amended the household waste exclusion also included
a discussion of the scope of the exclusion in the preamble. The
1984 notice explained that based on legislative history, it is
appropriate to apply two criteria to define the scope of the
exclusion. First, the waste must be generated by individuals on
the premises of a temporary or permanent residence for
individuals (i.e., a household) and second, the waste stream must
be composed primarily of materials found in the wastes generated
by consumerè in their homes. If a waste satisfies both criteria,
it is considered a household waste. Thus, spent NiCd batteries
generated by homeowners would fall under the household waste
exclusion, while those generated by service centers and other
businesses would not.
We recognize that the NiCd battery situation (i.e., many
states considering take—back programs and many products
manufactured such that spent batteries must be removed by service
centers) may present some unique opportunities for safe and
effective recycling. We are also aware of your concerns about
implementation of recycling programs in states considering
legislation designed to increase the rate of NiCd recycling. We
are therefore currently examining the available options to
determine how to facilitate such programs. We expect it will
• take us several more weeks to assess options and reach a
tentative decision on how to best address your concerns. At that
time, we will notify you of the results of our analysis and of
our plans to implement the decision.
To ensure that you are fully informed about our current
thinking on an approach to this issue, there are several options
that we are exploring. First, we are investigating what could be
accomplished in the short term to alleviate the problems you have
identified. One possibility is to extend the current regulations
governing lead-acid battery reclamation to spent NiCd battery
reclamation. As part of this effort, we must evaluate issues
such ns the size of the problem, hazards posed by waste disposal
and recycling, and the feasibility of possible solutions. Any
information that you could provide concerning the following items
-------
Administrative Directives
U.
00
-------
9581 - RCRA GRANT
FUNDS
ATK1/1104fl5 kp
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9581 1988(01)
7 jL4 WASHINGTON• D.C. 20460
4 t
NOV 1
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF
____________________ SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU)O(ARY
AUGUST 88
FROM: Thea McManus, Project Officer
Office of Solid Waste I
Hubert Watters, Deputy Project Offlcer 1J)
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO: See Ust of Addressees
This report is prepared and submitted in support of Contract #68-01-7371.
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES - AUGUST 1988
A. RCRA
1. Source Reduction and Recycling Technical Assistance Grants FOT States
On July 18, 1988 (53 B 1 27077) EPA announced the availability of a new financial
assistance program, “Source Reduction and Recyding Technical Assistance” for
States to develop or expand source reduction and recycling technical assistance
programs. The program is a grant/cooperative agreement program designed to
provide assistance to a limited number of states to establish OT expand technical
assistance programs that address the reduction of pollutants from air, land,
surface, water and ground-water.
How much money is available to states through this program?
Congress appropriated $4 million for the source reduction and recycling
program. Of the total $4 million, $3 million will be awarded to States in fiscal
year 1989 under cooperative agreements. Approximately 10-12 states will be
selected through open competition. Each selected state will be eligible to
receive no more than $300,000.
What procedures should a state follow to receive grant money?
To apply for funds, State environmental agencies must: (1) submit a letter of
intent by August 15, 1988; and (2) submit a grant applications package by
September 30, 1988.
-------
1. Source Reduction and Recycling Technical Assistance Grants For States
(Contd)
What types of activities are eligible for funding?
These cooperative agreement funds are to be used specifically for establishing
and expanding source reduction and recycling assistance programs that
address the transfer of pollutants across all environmental media. A list of
possible activities eligible for funding include the following:
—Hiring personnel and/or procuring necessary expertise to support the
establishment and development of multimedia program;
—Providing direct technical assistance in source Teductlon and recycling,
especially to small and medium-sized firms;
—Conducting demonstration activities and/or in-plant pilot scale studies of
pollution prevention technologies;
—Developing and delivering programs to train staff to provide technical
assistance to generators in identifying and implementing source reduction
and recycling opportunities and activities;
—Developing or expanding state technical information clearinghouses that
contribute to national technical transfer networks or clearinghouses;
—Expanding and improving waste exchange programs among industry, states
and local governments;
—Developing and distributing industry/process-specific technical manuals
and/or brochures to help generators identify and implement source
reduction and recycling activities; and,
—Conducting outreach activities such as presentations, workshops and
seminars.
What are the differences between this program and RITrA?
RJTTA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Integrated Training and
Technical Assistance Initiative) is designed to provide assistance to States to
plan and implement hazardous waste training and technical assistance
activities in support of the States’ RCRA programs. The activities funded
under RITTA must include: (1) the development of a long term plan for
training and technical assistance activities; (2) delivery of RCRA program
training activities for State regulators; and (3) implementation of an initial
pilot technical assistance project in waste minimization.
The cooperative agreement funds will be awarded to States to establish multi-
media waste reduction technical assistance programs. Unlike RITrA, this
program is not specifically limited to wastes Tegulated under RCRA.
Source: Jackie Krieger (202) 382-6972
Research: Chris Bryant
2
-------
9590 - MISCELLANEOUS
AT. Kearney 1(3590/14 cr
-------
9591 - MEDICAL WASTE
Subtitle J
AT Kearney 1/3590/15cr
-------
9592— USED OIL
Part 279
A T. Keamey 1/3590/16 cr
-------
9592.1988(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
FEBRUARY
1988
1. Used Oil Marketer
Corporation A owns both Corporation B and Corporation C.
Corporation B generates an off-specification used oil. The
State in which Corporation B generates the used oil does not
allow burning of the oil. Therefore, Corporation B ships the
used oil to a sister corporation, Corporation C. Corporation
C burns the used—oil for energy recovery. Is Corpbration B a
marketer as specified in 40 CFR 266.43(a)?
A marketer as defined in Section 266.43(a) is “any
person who markets used oil fuel...inarketers include
generators who market used oil fuel directly to a
burner....” Even though no funds are exchanged during
the transaction, -Corporation B is marketing the used oil
fuel to Corporation C. There are no exclusions which
state that used oil given to a sister corporation is
excluded from regulation. or that marketing requires an
exchange of funds. Thus, Corporation B must comply with
the regulations which pertain to marketers (Section
266.43). Corporation C is also a burner.
-------
9592.1992(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
ii. -8
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Cynthia Hilton
Mr. Clif ford J. Harvison
Chemical Waste Transportation Institute
National Solid Waste Management Association
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Ms. Hilton and Mr. Harvisorl:
Thank you for your letter of May 27, 1992 requesting
clarification of language in the preamble to the final rule on
used oil (57 FR 21530). You are requesting clarification on the
term handler and on where the statutory and regulatory
authorit es for the transportation of hazardous materials stand.
As currently written, the preamble of the final rule states:
“A used oil handler must comply with all state requirements
applicable to used oil in his/her state, in addition to any
Federal requirements that apply” (57 FR 21530; May 20, 1992).
This statement indicates that the handler must comply with State
regulations when they are applicable and, by implication, nQt
when such state regulations are not applicable as a matter of
law. Thus, in cases where Federal regulations, such as those
established by the Department of Transportation’s Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act, as amended, preempt State
regulations then the state regulations no longer apply and the
Federal DOT regulations prevail and the handler must be in
compliance with these regulations. The preamble statement was
not intended to and does not, alter the )fl4TA nor eliminate its
preemptive effect over state regulation of hazardous materials
transportation.
I trust this will be responsive to your concerns. If yoa
have any further questions, please contact Michaelle Wilson of -,
‘-‘ tf at (202) 260—4669.
Sincerel
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Pnrimrc .J p. C
-------
9592.1992(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
DECEMBER
MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
1992
2. Rebuttable Presumption for Used Oil
According to the recycled used oil
management standardc in 40 CFR Part 279,
any used oil containing more than 1,000 ppm
of total halogens is presumed to have been
mired with a listed hazardous waste and
therefore is subject 10 RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste regulation. This presumption
may be rebutted by demonstrating that the used
oil does not contain hazardous waste.
According to §2 79 .1O(b)(lXii), one way to
make this demonstration is to show that the
used oil does not contain significant
concentrations of any of the halogenated
hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII
of Part 261. What is meant by the term
“significant concentrations”?
There is no regulatory definition of
significant concentrations. The Federal
Register of November 29, 1985, however,
does provide guidance on the term as it relates
to hazardous halogenated solvents.
Specifically, EPA has stated that a level of 100
ppm of individual solvent compounds is
gencrafly considered a significant
concentration. Thus, one may uy to rebut the
presur ption by showing that less than 100
ppm of any individual hazardous halogenated
constiwent listed as a hazardous spent solvent
in 40 CFR §261.31 is present (50 fa49176;
November 29, 1985).
This 100 ppm level applies only to
concentrations of halogenated solvent
constituents and cannot be applied to all
hazardous halogenated compounds. For
example, if a used oil contains 1,000 ppm total
halogens, and some of the halogens are
pesticide compounds, the presumption of
mixing would not necessarily be overcome by
showing that each pesticide is present at levels
less than 100 ppm. Showing that individual
hazardous halogenated solvents are present at
levels less than 100 ppm also will not
automatically rebut the presumption, as other
site-specific factors must be considered in
making such a determination. For example, if
documentation shows that used oil has been
mixed with a listed hazardous waste, that
mixture would be considered a hazardous
waste pursuant to the mixture rule in 40 CFR
§261.3(c)(2)(iv), regardless of the level of
halogenated constituents present.
1
-------
9592.1993(01)
.t 1IO ST4p
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
- ru r “r—-
fILL
JAN 28 t993 OFFICE OF
S0L.ID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Dennis Redington
Director, Regulatory Management
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63167
Dear Mr. Redington,
Thank you for writing your letter regarding Monsanto
products sold as hydraulic fluids and heat transfer fluids.
This is to confirm that although nonpo].yiner-based oils are
not specifically discussed in the used oil management standards
rule under the definition of used oil, it was the intent of EPA
to include all synthetic oils that function similar to petroleum
based lubricants, oils, and surface agents in the definition of
used oil. EPA believes that your hydraulic fluids and transfer
fluids meet this criterion and will be regulated under 40 CFR 279
in lieu of Parts 260-272 of the hazardous waste program once the
regulations become effective in the various states. We expect
most states to adopt the rule over the next two to three years.
If you have any further questions please contact Bryan
Groce at (202) 260—9550.
Sincerely,
D ector
Office of Solid Waste
Printed on Recyced Paper
-------
9592.1993(02)
J 10 7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 5 1993
OFFICE OF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Barry I!. Hartman
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
1600 M Street, N.W. 20036
Dear Mr. Hartman,
Thank you for your letter of January 8, 1993 to Lisa
Friedman requesting written clarification on a particular
application of the used oil management standards under 40 CFR
Part 279.
In your letter, you asked how the used oil management
standards apply to used oil contaminated with HCFCS. EPA
intends to apply the used oil management standards to used oil
contaminated with CFCs and used oil contaminated with HCFCS in
the sane manner and to the same extent.
In order to qualify for exemption from the rebuttable
presumption, used oils contaminated with HCFCs must be removed
from refrigeration units and the HCFC5 must be destined for
reclamation. The HCFC contaminated used oil can not be mixed
with used oil from sources other than refrigeration units.
I trust this will be responsive to your concerns. If you
have any further questions, please contact Michaelle Wilson of my
staff at (202) 260—4669.
Sincerely,
Sylv a K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Pflnle4 an Recyc’ed Paper
-------
D -0°4 l Fe 12
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
50 1.7TH LOBBY .9Th FLOC.
1800 M STRET NW. 8O T0N MA
WASHINGTON. DC. 2 03&5891 HARRISBUP.O, PA
1 1PIIOt4E Q ) flM MIAMi. fl.
1 .CI 44109 cc Pfl LJROH. PA
FAc IM1LE a02 T75.9109
BARRY M. HJRThIAN
2O2) 178.9301
January 8, 1993 ( yo fl d 1 J4
a
VIA FACSIMILE. ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW
The Honorable Lisa K. Friedman
Associate General Counsel
Environmental protection Agency
401 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: clarification of Used oil Management Standard
Dear Ms. Friedman:
On Thursday, September 10, 1992 the Environmental protection
Agency (EPA) promulgated a final rule amending 40 CFR Part 260 et
al., “Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste Recycled Used Oil Management Stand-
ards; Final Rule.” 57 Fed. Rag. 41566. Several provisions of
the rule discuss its application to “used oil contaminated with
chlorOflOurOCarbofls (CFCS)”. These include 40 CFR SS261.3(a)(2)
(v)(B); 279.10(b)(ii)(B) 279.44(C) (2); 279.53(C) (2); and
279.63(C) (2).
During a series of conversations with your associate, Randy
Hill, I asked if these management standards also apply to used
oil contaminated with hydrochlorOfloUrocarbofl s (HCFCS) as opposed
to CFCa, since, as you know, CFCs are being phased out and
replaced with HCFCs. Mr. Hill indicated that the regulations
apply to used oil contaminated with HCFC5 in the same way they
apply to used oil contaminated with CFCa. Mr. Hill’s conclusion
xical, appropriate, and one with which we agree.
since the regulation arid preamble are ambiguous on this
point, we respectfully request written clarification and
confirmation that used oil contaminated with HCFC5 is covered by
these regulations in the same manner and to the same extent as
-------
KIBXPATRICK & LOCKHART
the Honorable Lisa K. Friedman
January 8, 1993
page 2
used oil contaminated with CFCS, and that EPA will interpret the
rule in that manner.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Barry M. Hartman
cc: Randy Hill
-------
9592.1993(03)
iI
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 4 .,, 0 tC.
APR 2 9 i
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Douglas Green
Piper & Marbury
1200 Nineteenth St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036—2430
Dear Mr. Green:
Thank you for your letter dated August 14, 1992, sent on behalf of
the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group. This response clarifies the
regulatory status of combustion residuals generated from co-burning of
“specification” used oil fuel and virgin fuel oil in utility
boilers/furnaces.
Under the conditions described in the supplemental information
provided in the October 30, 1992 letter from Florida Power & Light
Company, there will be no impact on Bevill status for residuals when
used oil is introduced into utility boilers or furnaces. The data
provided in this letter indicates that the amount of used oil generated
on-site is minimal in comparison to the amount of virgin oil with which
the used oil is co-fired. You have indicated that the percentage of
used oil co-fired is in most cases well below 1% of the total mixture.
Our understanding is that Florida Light and Power does not intend to co-
f ire off—specification used oil, and that the percentage of on-
specification used oil is very low. Therefore, it is clear that the
contamination levels of residuals will not be affected by the
introduction of small quantities of used oil.
The effect of this regulatory interpretation can be applied to
other utilities that, similarly to Florida Power and Light, plan to co-
f ire minimal amounts of on-specification used oil that is generated on-
site. Please note that this letter does not affect any other used oil
ntanager ent requirements under 40 CFR Parts 266 and 279.
Think you for your concern on this issue, and please contact my
office if you have any further questions.
Office of Solid Waste
& .v
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592. 1993(04)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
July 28, 1993
Mr. J.W. Eggenberger
Director, Directorate of
Disposal Management and -
Environmental Protect ion
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service
74 Washington Ave., N
Battle Creek, Michigan 49017-3092
Dear Mr. Eggenberger,
Thank you for your letter of July 9, 1993 requesting
clarification of the RCRA Used Oil Management Standards as they
pertain to used oil that is generated and managed on—site.
Per your request, this letter confirms your interpretation
of EPA’S Used Oil Management Standards regarding off-site
shipments of used oil (40 CFR 279.24). The used oil
transportation standards do not apply to “on-site” movement of
used oil (see 40 CFR 260.10 for the definition of “on-site”).
Accordingly, used oil may be transported anywhere on—site in any
quantity without being subject to compliance with either the
section 279.40 transporter standards or the section 279.24
requirements for off—site shipments. More specifically, as
correctly stated in your letter, a Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Office (DRMO) may receive more than 55 gallons of used
oil at one time as long as the used oil being received by the
DI O is generated on the site on which the D? O is located.
You also requested confirmation of your interpretation of
what constitutes an “on-site” DMRO. According to the section
260.10 definition, DMRO’s located on property owned by but
located “across t te street” from the used oil generator would be
considered on-site if either: 1) the property is contiguous and
the entrance and exit between the properties on either side of
the street is at a cross—roads intersection, and access is by
crossing as opposed to going along the right of way; or 2) the
property is non-contiguous but connected by a right-of-way which
the owner controls and which is inaccessible to the public.
R.cycl.dIHecycIabIs
& P ,lrn.d with SoylCanoh. ink on pap. ’ that
flhlinS St 1 5 1St 50% recycI.d fiber
-------
If you have any further questions on these or other
provisions of the Used Oil Management Standards, please contact
Eydie Pines (202) 260—3509 or Bryan Groce (202) 260—9550.
Sincerely,
Michael 3. Petruska
Chief, Regulatory
Development Branch
-------
I% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
I
9592.1993(05)
SEP 24 1993 OFFICEOF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Christopher Harris
General Counsel
National Oil Recyclers Association
The Evening Star Building
Suite 800
1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Dear Mr. Harris:
Thank you for your letter dated July 19, 1993 regarding the
Recycled Used Oil Management Standards. Specifically, you
requested confirmation of your interpretation of the used oil
management standards as they pertain to mixtures of used oil and
characteristic hazardous waste.
In response to your request, this letter provides
clarification of the used oil regulations applicable to mixtures
of used oil and characteristic waste. The used oil regulations
distinguish between mixtures of used oil and ignitable-only
characteristic waste and all other used oil/characteristic
hazardous waste mixtures. Under section 279.10(b) (2) (ii),
mixtures of used oil and a characteristic hazardous waste that
solely exhibits one or more hazardous waste characteristics
identified in 40 CFR Part 261 subpart C (other than ignitable—
only characteristic waste) and mixtures of used oil and hazardous
waste that is listed in subpart D solely because it exhibits one
or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste identified in
subpart C (other than ignitable-only characteristic waste) are
regulated as used oil if the resultant mixture does not exhibit
any hazardous waste characteristics. On the other hand, these
mixtures are regulated as hazardous wastes if they display arny
characteristic of hazardous waste.
Under section 279.10(b) (2) (iii), mixtures of used oil and
ignitable-only characteristic hazardous waste (e.g. mineral
spirits) are regulated as used oil provided that they do not
exhibit the characteristic of ignitability. The rationale for
distinguishing between ignitable only solvents and other
characteristic hazardous waste is as follows. If the solvents
are hazardous only because of ignitability, then mixing the
solvents with used oil should not affect the chemical
constituents or other properties of the used oil. The solvents
Q 7 RecycledlRecycleble
9 prtntsd Soy!Cinota ink on ap.r mat
ntSln. It INSt 50% ycii fiber
-------
in question (e.g., mineral spirits) are petroleum fractions that
are typically used by the same businesses that generate used oil
and are managed in a manner similar to used oil (e.g., burning
for energy recovery or distillation to recover the solvent).
Therefore, EPA believes these mixtures can and will be properly
managed as used oil. If the mixture exhibits ignitability,
however, this can mean that the mixing has changed the nature of
the hazards involved in managing the used oil, and the mixture
should remain subject to hazardous waste controls.
Regarding the applicability of section 279.10(b) (2), as
correctly stated in your letter, the provisions are not limited
to generators but apply also to marketers, processors/re—
ref iners, transporters, and burners.
Finally, you are correct in stating that the used oil
regulations promulgated at section 279.10(b) (2) (ii) do not
establish new policy but reiterate existing EPA policy. However,
the section 279.10(b) (2) (iii) provisions pertaining to ignitable
only characteristic waste do constitute a change from (or
expansion of) previous regulatory policy. If you have any further
questions on these or other matters pertaining to the used oil
management standards, please call Eydie Pines at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
jj,’Jerf y D. Denit
/ Acti Director
(J Office of Solid Waste
-------
,o Srq,?, ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC11ON AGENCY
I _____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
/
9592.1993(06)
OCT — 7 993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Ms. Mary Anne Hunter
Environmental Coordinator
AVM, Gabriel, Maremont Exhaust
Arvin Industries, Inc.
1531 13th Street
Columbus, IN 47201
Dear Ms. Hunter:
Thank you for your letter dated November 3, 1992, requesting
clarification of the September 10, 1992, Recycled Used Oil
Management Standards. Specifically, you asked for clarification
of the used oil processing standards as they apply to coolant
recycling and oil/water separation activities and for
clarification of used oil transporter standards as they apply to
transport of metal scrap containing small quantities of oil.
Regarding the applicability of the processor standards, EPA
is aware that the term “processor,” as defined in the used oil
management standards, can be broadly construed to include a
number of basic on-site recycling activities that the Agency did
not necessarily intend to cover (e.g., coolant recycling and
oil/water separation).
EPA intended to include as processing only those used oil
filtering and/or separation activities whose primary purpose is
to produce used oil or to make it more amenable for the
production of used oil derived products. Under this
interpretation, neither the coolant recycling or the oil/water
separation activities referred to in your letter would be
considered used oil processing because, in these cases, the
filtering and separation activities are incidental or ancillary
to the normal manufacturing process, i.e., used oil processing is
not their primary purpose. The primary purpose of the oil/water
separation activity described in your letter, for example, would
be to remove used oil from wastewater to make the wastewater
acceptable for discharge.
Although EPA believes that the current definition of
“processor” can be properly read not to encompass oil/water
separation or coolant recycling performed on-site at an
industrial facility, we are, nonetheless, currently considering
amendments to the used oil regulations to clarify the Agency’s
Q J RecycledlRecyclabli
& PI1n d wfth Soylc.noIa In
cs , tIns St lest 50% is us4 M w
-------
intent to exclude activities such as these from the requirements
for used oil processors.
You also asked for clarification regarding the applicability
of the used oil transporter requirements to metal scrap haulers.
Generally, under section 279.10(c), materials containing or
otherwise contaminated with used oil are regulated as used oil
until the used oil is removed from the material. However, as
clarified in the May 23, 1993, Technical Amendments and
Corrections to the Final Rule, materials containing or otherwise
contaminated with used oil, from which the used oil has been
properly drained or removed to the extent possible such that no
visible signs of free-flowing oil remain in or on the material
are not considered used oil unless they are to be burned for
energy recovery (58 FR 26420). Therefore, if the scrap referred
to in your letter meets the “no free flowing oil” standard
described in the May 23, 1993, technical correction notice at 58
FR 26420, it would not be considered used oil subject to the
transporter standards. However, the used oil removed from the
metal would be covered under the used oil management standards.
I hope that this addresses your concerns. If you have other
questions regarding the used oil management standards, please
contact Eydie Pines at (202) 260-3509.
S ince ely,
D. Denit
7) Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1993(07)
OCT 13 ‘ 3
OFFICE cc
SOLlO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Dr. P.B. Joshipura
5901 college Drive
Suffolk, VA 23435
Dear Dr. P.B. Joshipura,
This letter responds to your request for clarification of
Part 279 Section §279.10(b) (2) (iii) and its applicability to
ignitable used oil.
As stated in Section §261.6(a) (4), of the September 10,
1992, Federal Register (57 FR 41566), used oil that is recycled
and is also a hazardous waste solely because it exhibits a
hazardous characteristic is not subject to the requirements of 40
CFR Parts 260 through 268, but is regulated under 40 CFR part
279.
EPA does not consider the consolidation of different sources
of used oil to be a mixture of used oil. EPA regulates the
consolidated used oil as used oil under the Part 279 used oil
management standards. As discussed in your letter, the used oil
must meet the flashpoint level of 100 degrees fahrenheit as well
as other properties and constituents in 279.11 if the used oil is
burned as on-specification fuel for energy recovery.
However, as stated in Section §279.81(a), used oil that
cannot be recycled and that is identified as a hazardous waste
must be managed in accordance with the hazardous waste management
requirements of 40 CFR Parts 260 through 266, 268, 270, and 124
when sent off—site for disposal or disposed of on-site.
If you have any further questions please contact Bryan Groce
of my staff at (202) 260—9550.
Sincerely,
L4
Mike Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
I Ricyclsd!Rscyclibls
& P IMI4 5syi noIa InZ on
con n• d 50% , c U.U fibsi
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9592. 1993(08)
NOV I 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Fredrick A. Van Schepen
Environmental Affairs and Resources
John Deere Waterloo Works
P.O. Box 270
Waterloo, Iowa 50704—0270
Dear Mr. Van Schepen:
Thank you for your letter dated April 15, 1993, to Sylvia
Lowrance requesting clarification of the September 10, 1992,
Recycled Used oil Management Standards. Specifically, you asked
for clarification of the used oil processing standards as they
apply to on—site recycling of used oil recovered from a
facility’s wastewater treatment system.
EPA is aware that the term “processor,” as defined in the
used oil management standards, can be broadly construed to
include a number of basic on-site recycling activities that the
Agency did not necessarily intend to cover (e.g., metal working
fluid recycling and oil/water separation activities). EPA
believes that the current definition of “processor” can be
properly read not to encompass oil/water separation or recycling
of metal working oil performed on-site at an industrial facility,
(provided that the recovered used oil is not being burned for
energy recovery). Nevertheless, we are currently considering
amendments to the used oil regulations to clarify the Agency’s
intent to exclude activities such as these from the requirements
for used oil processors.
EPA intended to include as processing only those used oil
filtering or separation activities whose primary purpose is to
produce used oil, or to make used oil more amenable for the
production of used oil derived products or burning for energy
recovery. Under this interpretation, the oil/water separation
activities described in your letter may or may not be regulated
under the used oil processing standards, depending on the
ultimate use of the recovered used oil.
In situations where used oil recovered from the facility’s
wastewater treatment system is being reused, (e.g., as metal
working fluid) the oil/water separation activity would not be
considered used oil processing because it is incidental or
ancillary to the normal manufacturing process, i.e., used oil
processing is not its primary purpose. As described in your
Prlnt.d wirn Soy1cai Ink on pip.r that
contains St 1 . 1St 50% Icydsd flbs
-------
letter, the primary purpose of the oil/water separation activity
would be to remove used oil from wastewater to make the
wastewater acceptable for discharge. In cases where used oil
recovered from a facility’s wastewater treatment system is being
burned for energy recovery, however, the oil/water separation
activity would be subject to the used oil processing standards
(see subpart G section 279.60(b) (3)).
You also requested clarification of how underground
equalization, transfer, and separation tanks associated with
wastewater treatment systems are regulated under the used oil
management standards. As you correctly note in your letter,
storage of used oil in underground tanks is regulated under the
40 CFR Part 280 standards for underground storage tanks (UST5).
If the equalization, transfer, and separation tanks referred to
in your letter are considered underground storage tanks as
defined in 40 CFR Part 280, they are fully subject to the USTs
standards. The used oil management standards in no way change
the manner in which USTs (including those that contain used oil)
are regulated under 40 CFR Part 280. It is important to note,
however, that underground storage tanks that contain used oil are
subject to the UST standards in addition to being subject to the
used oil management standards. In other words, regulation under
the UST standards does not exempt the tank owner or operator from
compliance with applicable used oil regulations (e.g., labeling
of fill pipes used to transfer oil into USTs, etc.).
I hope that this addresses your concerns. If you have other
questions regarding the used oil management standards, please
contact Eydie Pines at (202) 260—3509. If you have questions
regarding the liST standards, you can contact John Heffelfinger at
(703) 308—8881.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
,oe
cl UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9592.1993(09)
NOV I 7 1993
OFFICE OF
SO .ID WASTE AND EMERGLNCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Patrick M. Snyder, P.E.
Environmental Engineer and Attorn y
407 Cortland Savings Bank Bldg.
1 North Main Street
Cortland, New York 13045
Dear Mr. Snyder:
Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1993, to
Ms. Rajani Joglakar requesting clarification of whether used
cutting oils and used oil coated steel turnings generated during
machining operations are regulated by the Environmental
Protection Agency as hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) or the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Generally, these materials are not regulated as hazardous waste
by EPA. The remainder of this letter explains in more detail how
these materials are regulated.
Used oil is regulated by EPA under the 40 CFR Part 279
standards for the management of recycled used oil (September 10,
1992 57 FR 41586—41626). However, the Federal used oil
regulations will not become effective in New York until the State
adopts them as State law. New York is currently in the process
of adopting standards equivalent to EPA’S used oil standards. In
the meantime, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) regulates the management of used oil under
recently issued State standards. You should contact Michelle
Ching at (518) 485—8988 or Bill Mirabile (518) 457—8829 for
information on the New York State used oil regulations.
Under the Federal used oil management standards, the cutting
oils generated by the machine shop referred to in your letter
would be regulated as used oil. This would include cutting oils
removed from the steel turnings. The machine shop would be
considered a used oil generator subject to regulation under the
used oil generator standards (40 CFR 279.20). I have enclosed a
copy of the used oil regulations for your information.
Regarding regulation of the used oil coated steel turnings,
under 40 CFR 279.10(c) of the used oil standards, materials
containing or otherwise contaminated with used oil would be
Qy Recycl.dlR.cyc$ibls
P,ln d with IoviCincta mk si% DIDIf Iii at
-------
regulated as used oil until the used oil is removed from the
material. In technical amendments and corrections to the used
oil rule, published on May 3, 1993, EPA clarified that “materials
containing or otherwise contaminated with used oil, from which
the used oil has been properly drained or removed to the extent
possible such that no visible signs of free-flowing oil remain in
or on the material are not considered used oil unless they are to
be burned for energy recovery” (58 FR 26420). Therefore, the
steel turnings referred to in your letter would be regulated as
used oil if they were visibly dripping with used oil but not if
all the oil had been drained off.
If the steel turnings are not regulated as used oil, it is
possible that they may still be regulated as hazardous wastes
under the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Steel turnings are
considered “scrap metal” and are exempt from regulations if
recycled. If disposed of, the generator has to determine if the
turnings exhibit any characteristics of hazardous waste (e.g.
toxicity). If so, they must be managed as a hazardous waste.
New York is authorized by EPA to implement the RCRA hazardous
waste program. You should contact the Division of Hazardous
Substance Regulation of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) at (518) 485—8988 to determine
how the State hazardous waste regulations may apply. You may
also contact the RCRA hotline at (800) 424—9346 to learn more
about how the federal waste regulations may apply. Please note,
however, that authorized states generally implement the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations and State regulations may be more
stringent than the Federal regulations.
If you have any further questions about the Federal used oil
management standards, you can call Eydie Pines of my staff at
(202) 260—3509.
Sincerely,
R. Weddle
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
#sht 0 3 4J ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
L
9592.1994(01)
JAN I 0 1994 o iceo
$01.10 WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. William Patterson
President
Oils Unlimited, Inc.
P.O. Box 130
Mentone, Alabama 35984
Dear Mr. Patterson:
Thank you for your letter dated September 8, 1993, to Jeffery Denit regarding
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Recycled Used Oil Management
Standards(40 CFR P811279). Specifically, you requested a regulatory determination on
whether the used oil management standards allow the use of on-specification used oil
fuel as a substitute for #2 fuel oil in the manufacture of ANFO blasting agents.
In its November 29, 1985, used oil rule, EPA discussed the matter of how virgin
fuel oil compares to specification used oil fuel. In the preamble to that rule, the
Agency stated that [ specificationj used oil fuel poses no greater risk than virgin fuel
oil and, once it enters the commercial fuel oil market, should not be regulated
differently than virgin fuel oil.(50 FR 49189). In other words, EPA considers
commercially available on-specification used oil fuel to be equivalent to virgin fuel oil
for regulatory purposes. On this basis, we would consider the substitution of
specification used oil fuel fdr #2 fuel oil in the production of ANFO to be allowed as a
legitimate recycling activity under the Part 279 Recycled Used Oil Management
Standards. It should be noted, however, that use of off-specification used oil as a
virgin fuel oil substitute in ANFO would not be permitted under the used oil regulations.
If you have any further questions about the used oil management standards,
you may call Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
. Mich fi Shapiro, Director,
“ Office of Solid Waste
bcc: Alan Farmer, Region IV
John Works, Region VU
Pnnted n RecyCea Paoer
-------
SP 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460
4 ) q(
9592.1994(02)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
‘ AR 2 2 roo’
Mr. Gary F. Lindgren
Vice President, Environmental Compliance
Heritage Environmental Services, I ic.
7901 West Morris Street
Indianapolis, IN 46231
Dear Mr. Lindgren:
Thank you for your letters of August 6, 1993, and February
8, 1994, requesting clarification of the Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) Recycled Used Oil Management Standards as they
apply to wastewater treatment activities. I apologize for the
delay in responding to your request.
As you correctly notein your letter, wastewater that
contains used oil meets the §279.1 definition of used oil arid is
subject to regulation under the used oil management standards.
You first ask whether the oil that is recovered from such
wastewater during: a) treatment to meet a Clean Water Act (CWA)
permit discharge limit; or b) a used oil recovery process, would
also be considered used oil under §279.1. The answer in both
cases is yes. Used oil that is recovered from wastewater during
treatment to make the wastewater acceptable for discharge under a
CWA permit is regulated as used oil. Similarly, oil recovered
from wastewater generated during a used oil recovery process i.s
also considered used oil for regulatory purposes.
Your second question is whether residues or sludges from C’dA
treatment of wastewater containing used oil is included in the
definition of used oil. In technical amendments and correction.
to the used oil rule, published on May 3, 1993, EPA clarified
that used oil residues and sludges are subject to regulation
under the used oil management standards. (58 FR 26422)
Finally, you ask whether EPA differentiates between a CWA
wastewater treatment operation that includes oil/water separat n
and a used oil processing operation that includes CWA permitted
oil/water separation. EPA specifically addressed this issue ri
recently issued amendments to the final used oil regulations.
These amendments were signed by the EPA administrator on Febr ary
25, 1994, and have been sent to the Federal Register for
publication. A pre-publication copy of the final rule is
attached.
pn,.,f . Pa f
-------
The attached final rule clarifies that separating used o l
from wastewater generated on-site to make the wastewater
acceptable for discharge pursuant to a CWA discharge permit are
not subject to the used oil processor standards, provided that
the recovered used oil is not being sent to an off-site used oil
burner (see §279.20(b) (2) (ii) (B)). As discussed in the attached
preamble, under §279.20(b) (2) (ii)(B), oil/water separation
activities conducted by a used oil processor (for purposes of
wastewater discharge) on wastewater which has been generated by
that processor are not subject to the Subpart F processor
standards (see pg.38) . En other words, EPA does not
differentiate between oil/water separation activities conducted
by used oil processors and oil/water separation activities
undertaken by non-usea oil processors. Provided that the
wastewater is generated on-site, neither activity is subject to
the used oil processor standards. However, as further clarified
in the preamble, persons who perform oil/water separation
activities on wastewater that is received from off-site would be
considered used oil processors (see pg.39 of the attached)
You should note, however, that the Federal used oil
regulations (including the amendments cited in this letter) are
not currently in effect in States authorized to implement the
hazardous waste program and will not become effective in such
states until they are adopted as State law. Also, it is
important to note that State regulations may be more stringent
than Federal regulations. If you have any further questions,
please Lcintact Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
•!ø . Micha 1 el Shapiro
Di r tor
‘-‘ Office of Solid Waste
Attachment
-------
iO S ijp ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4L
9592.1994(03)
APR —
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Brenda L. Tollett
Attorney
Vavoline, Inc.,
P.O. Box 14000
Lexington, KY 40512
Dear Ms. Tollett:
Thank you for your letter of November 5, 1993, requesting
clarification of the 40 CFR Part 279 used oil rules as they apply
to used oil collected from do-it-yourself (DIY) oil changers.
Specifically, you asked whether under the rebuttable presumption
requirements of 40 CFR §279.21(b), DIY used oil must be tested
for total halogens.
The rebuttable presumption applies to used oil that is
managed by “used oil generators.” A used oil generator is
defined in §279.1 as “any person, by site, whose act or process
produces used oil or whose act first causes used oil to become
subject to regulations.” 57 FR 41613 (Sept. 10, 1992) . As
clarified in the preamble to the used oil rule, this definition
includes all “persons and businesses who collect used oil from
households and “do-it-yourself” oil changers.” Household DIY
used oil generators or private individuals who generate used oil
through the maintenance of their personal vehicles are not
subject to the used oil standards. (57 FR 41584). However, once
collected, DIY used oil is subject to all applicable Part 279
standards and DIY used oil collection centers are subject to the
requirements for used oil generators in Part 279, Subpart C,
including the rebuttable presumption requirements of §279.21(b).
(57 FR 41587). According to your letter, Valvoline’s affiliate
First Recovery collects DIY used oil as well as used oil from
other sources. First Recovery would, therefore, be regulated as
a used oil generator and would be subject to the §279.21(b)
rebuttable presumption for the used oil (including DIY used oil)
that it collects.
The used oil management standards allow that a generator may
rebut the presumption that used oil that contains more than 1000
ppm total halogens has been mixed with hazardous waste by
“demonstrating” that the used oil has not been mixed with a
regulated hazardous waste. Such a demonstration can, but does
not have to be, based on actual testing of the used oil. The
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
2
regulations allow that the generator may rebut the presumption by
documenting the source of the halogens i.e., by showing that the
halogens are not attributable to intentional mixing.
As you correctly point out, household waste is excluded from
the definition of hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.4(b) (1).
Therefore, a used oil generator who collects DIY used oil that
contains greater than 1000 ppm total halogens may rebut the
presumption of mixing on the basis that household waste is
excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under §261.4(b) (1).
Accordingly, if First Recovery can provide convincing
documentation to show that the source of the used oil is
exclusively household DIY used oil and that the chain of custody
has been maintained so as to preclude mixing with regulated
hazardous waste after collection, such documentation may be used
to rebut the presumption of mixing.
It is important to note, however, that EPA Regional offices
and States authorized to implement the RCRA program make
determinations regarding the requirements that apply in specific
situations. Also, some States have programs that are more
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. If you have
any further questions regarding the used oil regulations, please
contact Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
Dave Bussard, Director
Characteristic and Assessment
Division
cc: Susan Bromm
Susan O’Keefe
-------
it0
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC’
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
pIrIOltC•
JUN 9 199d
Mr. G. William Frick OF ICEOF
Vice President, Genera]. Counsel SOLIOWASTE.ANOEMERGENCVRESPONSE
and Secretary
American Petroleum Institute 9592.1994(04)
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Frick:
Thank you for your letter dated April 22, 1994, regarding
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final used oil rule
published on March 4, 1994. Specifically, you requested that EPA
publish a technical correction to the March 4, 1994, rule to
clarify that the used oil regulations allow transportation of
used oil to locations where used oil can be mixed with crude oil
(e.g., from exploration and production sites to the pipeline or a
petroleum refinery, etc.).
As explained below, EPA believes that the regulations
clearly do not preclude the transportation of used oil to each of
the locations mentioned in your letter. Therefore, we do not
believe that a technical correction is necessary. We will make
this letter available to our Regional and State contacts so there
is no misunderstanding regarding how the regulations apply.
EPA interprets the used oil management standards to allow
for the transport of used oil to crude oil pipelines, exploration
and production facilities, petroleum refineries, and aggregation
points. In the preamble to the March 4, 1994, final used oil
rule, EPA specifies how the used oil regulations apply in each of
these situations. In each of the cases described below,
petroleum refining facilities and related sites may in fact fit
the category of used oil transporter/transfer facility,
processor, or aggregation point because of the manner in which
used oil is being handled.
1. TransDortatjon to Crude Oil PiDeline and E&P Sites
Transport of used oil to exploration and production sites
and crude oil pipelines is authorized by §279.43 (a) (1) of the
used oil standards which provides for transportation of used oil
to another transporter. Used oil that is generated off-site and
transported to a crude oil pipeline or an exploration and
Printed on Rec,c’ed Paoer
-------
2
production site is subject to the transporter and transfer
facility standards, as applicable, until the used oil is mixed
with crude oi1 such that it is exempt under §279.10(g) (2) - 59 FR
10532 and 10533.
The transfer facility standards are applicable if the used
oil is stored for more than 24 hours and less than 35 days.
Therefore, in cases where used oil is stored for this period of
time at an exploration and production site, for instance, prior
to being transported to the pipeline, a petroleum refinery, or
another interim location, the exploration and-production site
would be considered a transfer facility. Used oil that-is stored
at the site for less than 24 hours prior to mixing is subject to
all Subpart E transporter standards except for §279.45.
Application of the transporter/transfer facility standards to
pipelines and/or exploration and production sites that accept
used oil for mixing with crude oil is necessary to maintain a
continuum of management.
More specifically, the transporter/transfer facility
regulations require that exploration and production operators or
crude oil pipeline operators that receive used oil comply with
the provisions of Part 279 Subpart E, including the notification,
rebuttable presumption, and tracking standards ( 279.42, 279.44,
and 279.46) (except where the recipient qualifies as an
aggregation point, as discussed below). You should note that
these requirements must be met even in the situation where used
oil is eventually going to be mixed, with crude. In addition, if
the used oil is further transported by these operators, they must
meet §279.43 requirements. And, if residues from storage are
generated, they must comply with §279.47. Finally, if the used
oil is stored at the facility for more than 24 hours before
mixing, the operator must comply with §279.45.
2. Transportation to Petroleum Refining Facilities
Petroleum refining facilities that receive used oil from
off-site for insertion into the petroleum refining process are
subject to the used oil processor standards from the point at
which the used oil is received on-site until the point at which
the used oil is inserted into the petroleum refining process. 59
FR 10554. These requirements, which include notification,
contingency planning, tracking and recordkeeping ( S279.51,
279.52, 279.53, 279.55, 279.56, and 279.57) apply to such
refineries even if the used oil is stored for less than 24 hours
before mixing or directly inserted into the refining process. If
the used oil is stored before mixing, §279.54(a)-(f) and
§279.54(h) also apply. As used oil processors, petroleum
refining facilities can accept used oil as provided under Subpart
F of the used oil management standards, and transportation to
such facilities is authorized per §279.43 (a) (2) -
-------
3
EPA believes that application of the processor standards to
petroleum refining facilities that receive used oil from off-site
for insertion into the petroleum refinery is warranted because of
the mann in which the used oil is being handled prior to
introduction into the process. As explained in the preamble to
the March 4, 1994 rule, EPA believes that, since these facilities
are accepting used oil for processing, they likely pose the same
potential concerns associated with improper management of used
oil that are posed by used oil processor/re-refiners.
3. Transportation to Used Oil Aggre ation Points
The used oil regulations also allow an exploration and
production or petroleum refining facility owner or operator to
transport used oil to an aggregation point in cases where the
facility meets the quantity and ownership conditions required to
be considered a used oil aggregation point. An aggregation point
is defined as “any site or facility that accepts, aggregates,
and/or stores used oil collected only from other used oil
generation sites owned or operated by the owner or operator of
the aggregation point, from which used oil is transported to the
aggregation point in shipments of no more than 55 gallons.” 40
CFR 279.1. Under this definition, and in accordance with
§279.40 (a) (3) of the used oil management standards, an
exploration and production facility or petroleum refining
facility may transport used oil generated at sites that are owned
by the facility to collection centers (i.e., aggregation points)
that are also owned by that same facility.
I hope that this letter addresses your concerns. Please
call Eydie Pines at (202) 260-3509 if you have further questions
on this or other issues pertaining to the used oil management
standards.
Sincerely,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 682-8240
G. William Frick
Vice President, General
Counsel and Secretary April 22, 1994
Michael Shapiro
Director
Office of Solid Waste (Mail Code OS-300)
U.S. Environmental Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Need For Technical Correction to March 4, 1994 Used Oil Rule
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
On March 4, 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule clarifying and
amending its recycled used oil management standards, which were promulgated on September
10, 1992 at 57 Fed. Reg. 41566. The March 4, 1994 rule was issued in part to clarify and
expand the pipeline exemption to include other petroleum refinery applications, and to exempt
used oil incidentally recovered in a petroleum refinery’s hydrocarbon recovery and wastewater
treatment systems and reinserted into the refinery process. (See 59 Fed. Reg. 10550.)
In the September 10, 1992 rule, destinations for transportation of used oil were restricted by
section 279.43 as follows:
(a) Deliveries. A used oil transporter must deliver all used oil
received to:
(1) Another used oil transporter, provided that the transporter has
obtained an EPA identification number;
(2) A used oil processing/re-refining facility who has obtained an
EPA identification number;
(3) An off-specification used oil burner facility who has obtained
an EPA identification number; or
(4) An on-specification used oil burner facility. 57 Fed. Reg. at
41617.
One of the issues discussed with EPA staff in settlement negotiations concerning API’s Petition
for Review of the used oil management standards was that section 279.43 does not allow used
oil transporters to deliver shipments of used oil to exploration and production facilities,
aggregation points, crude oil pipelines, or petroleum refineries.
-------
In October 1993, EPA distributed for comment a draft of the March 4, 1994 rulemaking to
interested parties, including parties to various pending lawsuits filed to challenge portions of the
standards and related rulemakings. The draft rule included a proposed addition to 40 C.F.R. §
279.43(a), the provision quoted above. The proposed addition would have allowed used oil
transporters to transport shipments of used oil to
(a)(5) A location where used oil will be mixed with crude oil or
natural gas liquids such that the used oil is exempt from regulation
under section 279.10(g).
This provision would have provided explicit authority for transporters to deliver used oil to
exploration and production facilities, crude oil pipelines, and petroleum refineries. At each of
these locations, after used oil has been delivered and is mixed with crude oil, it becomes exempt
from the Part 279 management standards. (Note that section 279.10(g) was amended in the
March 4, 1994 rule.) API supported the inclusion of such a provision in its comments on the
draft rule.
API’s comiTients on the draft rule also discussed the need for a provision allowing transportation
of used oil generated at exploration sites to aggregation points prior to delivery to a location
where the used oil can be mixed with crude oil. At many exploration sites, no crude oil is
present and any used oil generated at these sites must be transported to an aggregation point prior
to further transportation to a location where the used oil can be mixed with crude oil. This
comment was not addressed in the preamble to the March 4, 1994 final rule and still needs to
be resolved. See page 5 of API’s comments submitted to the EPA RCRA Docket on November
2, 1993. EPA staff suggested that this point be included in this letter.
Unfortunately, the proposed provision quoted above was not included in the final rule published
on March 4, 1994, and no reason for its absence was given in the preamble to the rule. In fact,
the preamble discusses at length the permissibility of transporting shipments of used oil to crude
oil pipelines and to petroleum refineries, which suggests that the omission may have been an
oversight. For example, at 59 Fed. Reg. 10552, the preamble notes that
Used oil that is transported to the pipeline and immediately mixed
with crude oil or stored for less than 24 hours prior to such mixing
is subject to all Subpart E transporter standards except for § 279.45
which applies to transfer facilities.
Further, on page 10553, the preamble states
Used oil that is generated off-site and transported to or stored at an
exploration and production site is subject to the transporter and
transfer facility standards, as applicable, up until the point at which
the used oil is mixed with crude oil such that it is exempt under §
279. l0(g)(2).
2
-------
Likewise, on page 10554, the preamble clearly contemplated the transportation of shipments of
used oil to petroleum refineries:
This exemption applies .. to used oil generated .off-site that is
collected and transported to the petroleum refining facility for
insertion into the refining process prior to crude distillation or
catalytic cracking.
Telephone contacts with EPA staff, however, indicated that the provision was deleted because
it was believed to be unnecessary. The rationales given were that: (1) section 279.43(a)
authorizes transportation of used oil to another transporter, which encompass transportation to
locations where used oil can be mixed with crude oil; and (2) section 279.43(a) authorizes
transportation of used oil to a used oil processor/re-refiner, and refineries are subject to processor
requirements prior to mixing used oil with crude or recovered oil. Neither explanation is
convincing. Section 279.43(a) specifies that transporters may deliver used oil shipments only to
the destinations listed in subsections (a)(l) through (4). Exploration and production facilities,
aggregation points, pipelines and petroleum refineries, as discussed below, do not fit within any
of the permissible destinations for used oil currently listed in section 279.43(a).
The definition of transporters includes transfer facilities. Transfer facilities are defined at section
279.1 as transportation related facilities that hold shipments of used oil for more than 24 hours,
but not longer than 35 days, during the normal course of transportation or prior to being re-
refined or processed. Used oil delivered to an exploration and production facility or crude oil
pipeline generally is placed directly into a crude oil stock tank, thus becoming exempt from the
standards upon delivery, unlike a transfer facility which, by definition, would store the used oil
for 24 hours or longer. At aggregation points, used oil frequently is not held as long as 24 hours
before being transported to a location where it can be mixed with crude oil; thus, these facilities
generally do not fit within the definition of transfer facility, either. Likewise, a crude oil pipeline
and its associated stock tanks cannot be considered another transporter or transfer facility, since
the used oil generally is mixed with crude oil upon arrival, becoming exempt from the standards
at that point. Even in situations where the used oil is held in a separate used oil tank, the
pipeline facility would not be considered a transfer facility unless it stored the used oil for 24
hours or longer, an unlikely scenario. Exploration and production facilities, aggregation points,
and pipeline facilities clearly are not processors, re-refiners, or used oil burners, the other
permissible destinations allowed under Section 279.43(a).
Petroleum refineries do not fit in any of the categories currently listed in section 279.43(a),
either. Refineries are not transporters or transfer facilities; any used oil received at a refinery is
held for less than 24 hours before being commingled with crude oil by insertion into the refinery
process or by being mixed with recovered oil. Although the March 4, 1994 rule subjects
refineries to the requirements for processors and re-refiners prior to the point at which the used
oil is mixed with crude or recovered oil, petroleum refineries are defined separately; they are
explicitly distinguished from used oil processors and used oil re-refiners. Petroleum refineries
3
-------
that insert used oil into the crude oil refining process also do not fit into the category of used oil
burners or blenders.
For the reasons discussed above, API requests that a technical correction be made to the March
4, 1994 used oil rule that adds the language omitted from the October 1993 draf’ rule of section
279.43(a)(5), as quoted above, and that the Agency clarify that used oil may be transported to
aggregation points prior to being transported to a location where the used oil can be mixed with
crude oil. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact Betty Cox of
my staff at (202) 682-8250.
- Sincerely,
0. William Frick
Vice President and General Counsel
cc: Randolph Hill, EPA
Office of General Counsel
Michaelle Wilson, EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4
-------
UNL ) STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiiN AGENCY
JUN 10 i c
9592. 1994( 05)
Ms. Elizabeth E. Lewis
Baker & McKenzie
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Dear Ms. Lewis,
This letter responds to your request for an interpretation
regarding the applicability of the Part 279 used oil management
standards to the operations of a vehicle fleet servicing
operation.
Specifically you request an interpretation by EPA on whether
each company service vehicle is a “generator 1 ’ of shipments of
less than 55 gallons of used oil; whether the company must act in
compliance with the applicable requirements of the generator
standards; and whether the company is exempt from the
requirements for used oil transporters/transfer facilities. In
answering the letter, we are assuming no other used oil
generation activities occur at each site other than those you
describe.
Based on the information provided in your letter, the Agency
agrees with your interpretation of the applicability of the used
oil management standards to the company’s used oil activities.
Since the company is handling only shipments of used oil
totalling 55 gallons or less from the generation site to a “used
oil collection center” or a “used oil aggregation point,” the
activity would not be regulated under Subpart E (standards for
used oil transporter and transfer facilities). Rather the
activity would be regulated under Subpart C (standards for used
oil generators) of Part 279 used oil management standards.
The fact that the company’s employee services the customer’s
fleets at night, and subsequently stores less than 55 gallons of
used oil in the company’s service vehicle until the next business
day, does not preclude the company from being regulated as a
“used oil generator.” Under the provisions of 40 CFR §279.22(C),
however, the 55 gallon drum must be labeled or marked clearly
with the words “used oil.” In addition, the company must respond
to_releases..of used oil in accordance with 279.22(dL
-------
Although activities described in your letter comply with
Federal regulations for used oil generators, individual States
may have more stringent regulations for used oil. Therefore, you
should contact local and state governments where the company’s
used oil activities are occurring.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please contact Bryan Groce of my staff at (202) 260—9550.
Sincerely,
Mike Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
-------
BAKER & M KENzIE
PACIFIC ATTORNEYS AT 1.AW NORTH ANO
MIOOLC CAST BASIN SOUTH Au(RICA
•NSTC RO AM B ANG OM ONE PRUDENTIAL PlAZA a000TA o .ro —
BARCCLOHA 130 EAST RANDOLPH DRIVE eUCNO SAIRC S OOCJANCINO
ORUSSCLS .,ONG,cONG CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60601 5 ” =ISCO
TELEPHONE (312) 861-8000 GCLC5 TORONTO
GCUCV S INGAPORE CABLE ABOGADO TELEX 254425 OC
FACSIMILE (312) 861-2899
HOSCOW
PARIS
RIVAO.I
“ONE
5TOCKIIOLN
WARSAW
ZURICH
January 10, 1994
Mr. Michael Petruska
Chief, Regulatory Developments Branch
tJnited States Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code OS-332
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Request for Determination of the Applicability
of the Federal Used Oil Regulation (40 C.F.R.
Part 279. Subparts A. B. C. and E to Fleet Servicing Operations
Dear Mr. Petruska:
On September 1, 1993 and January 10, 1994, 1 spoke with Mr. Groce regarding the
applicability of the Federal Used Oil Regulation, 40 C.F.R. Part 279 - Standards for the
Management of Used Oil, to a vehicle fleet servicing operation (the company”). Based upon
this discussion and analysis he concluded that for purposes of this Regulation, the Company’s
activities classify it as a “generator” who transports shipments of used oil totalling 55 gallons
or less from the generation site to a “used oii co l lection cenLer” or to a “used oil aggregation
point.” Further, he concluded that under 40 C.F.R. Part 279.24(a) and (b) the Company would
not be deemed a “transporter” subject to Subpart E - Standards for Used Oil Transporter and
Transfer Facilities.
Based on our discussion and analysis, and the importance of a definitive determination
of the applicability of this Regulation to the Company’s operations, Mr. Groce recommended
that I submit this request for the Environmental Protection Agency’s determination as to the
applicability of the Federal Used Oil Regulation, 40 C.F.R. Part 279, Subparts A, B, C, and
E to the Company’s operations.
Discussion of the Company’s Operations
The Company operates a small fleet of approximately 10 or 11 service vehicles. These
service vehicles operate nationwide, however, each individual service vehicle operates in only
-------
BAKER M’ KENZIE
Mr. Michael Petruska
January 10, 1994
Page 2
one state. Each individual service vehicle is equipped each day with a 55-gallon drum of virgin
(never used) motor oil and an empty 55-gallon drum.
The Company’s employee drives the service vehicle to a customer’s site. Using
equipment in the service vehicle, the Company’s employee services the customer’s fleet of
vehicles at the customer’s site. Part of this service involves changing the oil in the customer’s
vehicles. The fleet’s used oil is collected in the empty 55-gallon drum. The virgin oil from the
other 55-gallon drum is placed into the customer’s vehicles. Each day approximately 30 gallons
of used oil are collected by each service vehicle; never more than 45 gallons of used oil would
be collected in one day. -
The Company’s employee leaves the customer’s site with 30 to 45 gallons of used oil in
the used oil 55-gallon drum in the service vehicle. The Company’s employee delivers the used
oil drum to either the customer’s own used oil aggregation point or a third-party’s government-
registered (or licensed, permitted, or recognized) used oil collection center, approved by the
customer prior to transport off of the generation site. Because some customers’ fleets are
serviced at night, the used oil drum containing less than 55 gallons of used oil may be stored
in the Company’s service vehicle until the next business day.
Analysis of Applicability
As noted in both the definition of “used oil generator” found in Subpart A - Definitions,
§279.1, as well as the general provision in Subpart C - Applicability, §279.20, “a used oil
generator is any person, by site, whose act or process produces used oil or whose act first causes
used oil to become subject to regulation.” The Company’s employees’ act of removing used oil
from the customer’s fleet of vehicles appears to be an ct that fiTSt cau c us.. d oil to become
subject to regulation. Therefore, while the customer is clearly the primary “generator” of the
used oil as the owner of the vehicles being serviced, the Company also then would be a
“generator” of the used oil for purposes of this Regulation’s definitions.
As a generator, the Company is subject to: 1) the hazardous waste mixing requirements
of §279.21, 2) the used oil storage requirements of §279.22, and 3) the on-site burning in space
heater requirements of §279.23, should any of these three activities occur. At the present time,
the Company does engage in or otherwise exceed the threshold gallon amount for any of
these three activities, and therefore does not appear to trigger their applicability.
Further, the Company does not appear to be a regulated transporter of used oil subject
to the requirements of Subpart E. Because the Company collects used oil at the customer’s site
and immediately transports it in the Company’s vehicles in shipments of less than 55-gallons
only to a “used oil aggregation point” or a “used oil collection center”, the Company is exempt
from the off-site shipment requirements. §279.24(a), (b). As a result, the Company need not
-------
BAKER & M 1 KENZIE
Mr. Michael Petruska
January 10, 1994
Page 3
obtain a RCRA identification number or comply with any of the other obligations of Subpart E.
Therefore, while the Company must comply with the applicable provisions of Subpart
C, as a “generator” of used oil for the limited purposes of this Regulation, the Company is
excluded from the requirements of Subpart E, applicable to used oil “transporters”.
Request for Determination of Applicability
Because of the significance of thisdetermination to the Company’s ability to operate in
compliance with the Regulation, we respectfully request the Environmental Protection Agency’s
determination of the applicability of the Federal Used Oil Regulation, 40 C.F.R. Part 279,
Subparts A, B, C, and E, to the Company’s operations as previously described in this letter.
We seek to confirm Mr. Groce’s initial analysis that:
1) Each Company service vehicle is a “generator” of shipments of less than 55
gallons of used oil.
2) The Company must act in compliance with the applicable requirements of Subpart
C.
3) The Company is exempt from the requirements of Subpart E.
We respectfully request a determination at your earliest convenience. If you have any
questions, please contact me directly at (312) 861-2868.
Best regards,
.. 4?
:- - J
Elizabeth E. Lewis
EEL: llh
cc: Mr. Bryan Groce
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
E Sr 4 ,.
‘ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON.DC 20460
9592.1994(06)
jui 111994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Jack Cameron
President
Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc.
7400 Excelsior Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
Dear Mr. Cameron:
Thank you for your letters of January 5, and May 20, 1994,
requesting clarification regarding the applicability of the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) used oil regulations to
used oil contained in discarded household appliances. Your
letter raises three specific questions: (1) whether compressor
cii from the discarded appliances must be removed before the
appliance is sent to a metal processor for shredding and
recycling: (2) if so, whether CFCs must be removed from the
drained cU to be eligible for exemption from the rebuttable
presumption; and (3) whether the removal of CFCs from drained
compressor oil would be considered hazardous waste treatment.
Removal of .tJsed Oil Prior to Shredding
In answer to your first question, the recycled used oil
management standards (40 CFR Part 279) do not require that the
used oil be drained from the discarded appliances prior to
transport. However, the used oil regulations are designed to
en ’ouraae environmentally sound management of used oil and to
prevent the types of releases to land and air that occur as a
result of the shredding process you employ and about which you
are rightly concerned. To that end, the used oil regulations
apply as follows.
If the used oil is not drained from the appliances before
transport, the appliances would be subject to the used oil
management standards under §279.10(c), which provides that
materials containing or contaminated with used oil are subject to
regulation as used oil unless the used oil is removed to the
extent possible such that no visible signs of free-flowing oil
remain in or on the material. Under the management standards, an
ARCA facility would be regulated as a used oil collection center
and all of the used oil containing appliances that it collects
and manages. ir.cluding household appliances, would be subject to
Q j Recyc edIRecycIabIe’
T) Pi1nte with So .CanoIa Ink en paeer
conlalne at Ieaat 50% ecycleo Ilber
-------
2
all applicable Part 279 standards. (57 FR 41587 (September io,
1992)). Transportation of the discarded used-oil-containing
appliances would be regulated under either the used oil
management standards or the RCRA hazardous waste standards
depending on whether the used oil is to be recycled or disposed.
According to your letter, the appliances (containing used
oil) are transported to a metal processor where they shredded for
recycling. The used oil, however is not being recycled. Some of
it is burned incidentally during the shredding process (i.e., it
is not being burned for energy recovery) and some of it remains
with the shredder fluff and is landfilled with the fluff. (As
you note in your most recent letter, CFCS/HCFCs that are mixed
with the oil are released to the atmosphere during the shredding
process and, once the fluff is placed in a landfill, the oil may
leach into the soil and/or groundwater.)
In this situation, because the used oil contained in the
appliances is essentially being disposed of, it would be subject
to regulation as used oil that is destined fox disposal rather
than recycling. Under the management standards, used oil
destined for disposal is subject to a hazardous waste
determination. If it is determined that the used oil contained
in the appliances exhibits a hazardous characteristic, the
appliances would have to be managed as a hazardous waste in
accordance with the RCRA hazardous waste standards. And, the
used oil that remains with the shredder fluff would have to be
disposed of as a hazardous waste. You should also note that any
spillage of characteristic used oil dn the ground during the
shredding process could also be considered disposal of hazardous
waste, and would be subject to all applicable rules in 40 CFR
Parts 260-268 and 270. If the used oil is not characteristically
hazardous, it would have to be disposed of in either a municipal
or industrial landfill in accordance with Subpart I of the Part
279 used oil management standards.
Rebuttable Presumption for CFC Contaminated Used Oil
Your second question concerns the practice of draining the
used oil from the appliances, either before or after transport,
but prior to shredding of the discarded appliances. The used oil
regulations provide an exemption from the rebuttable presumption
for CFC contaminated used oils that have been removed (to the
extent possible) from refrigeration units (S279.10(b) (1)). You
ask whether the CFCs must be removed from the drained used oil in
order for this exemption to apply. Under §279.10(b) (1), the
CFC’s must be “destined for reclamation” for the exemption to
apply. In essence, this means that the CFCs must ultimately be
removed (i.e., reclaimed) from the drained used oil in order for
the oil to qualify for the exemption from the rebuttable
presumption. Accordingly, the used oil would be exempt from the
-------
3
rebuttable presumption at the point of draining provided that
the CFCs were eventually reclaimed. It should be noted, however,
that, regardless of the exemption, CFC conta ninated used oil from
refrigeration units remains subject to all other appropriate used
oil management standards (e.g., used oil that contains more than
4000 ppm total halogens must be burned in accordance with the
used oil standards for burners of off-specification used oil
fuel, etc.).
CFC Removal Process
Thirdly, you ask whether the removal CFCs/HCFCs from drained
compressor oil would be considered hazardous waste treatment.
The removal of CFCs from used oil would not be considered
hazardous waste treatment. Rather, the used oil regulations
would apply as follows. Since the used oil/CFC separation
process is not designed to make ths used oil more amenable for
the production of used oil derived products but is instead
undertaken primarily to take advantage of the exemption from the
rebuttable presumption, the activity would not be subject to
regulation as used oil processing. Instead, the owner or
operator would be considered a used oil generator and the used
oil would have to be managed in compliance with the generator
standards. Additionally, any used oil that cannot be recycled
and is discarded must be disposed of in either a hazardous waste
landfill (if it exhibits a hazardous characteristic) or an
industrial or municipal solid waste landfill (if it is determined
to be non-hazardous).
Finally, it is important to note that EPA Regional offices
and States authorized to implement the RCRA program make
determinations regarding the requirements that apply in specific
situations. Also, some States have programs that are more
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. If you have
any further questions regarding the used oil regulations, please
contact Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
:ert ly,
David Bussard,
Characteristic
bivis ion
Assessment
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
S7 4 .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
4 t p o”c,
9592.1994(07)
JUL 22 1994
OFFICE OF
SCUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Ms. Pamela E. Savage, Esq.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
3800 One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Ms. Savage:
Thank you for your letter dated October 13, 1993, to Mike
Petruska regarding regulation of surface impoundments under the
September 10, 1992, Recycled Used Oil Management Standards. The
purpose of your letter was to follow-up on a November 20, 1992
meeting with Environmental Protection Agency staff in which you
discussed Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation’s (RAC) concerns
regarding the impact of the used oil management standards on the
use of surface impoundments to manage non-hazardous waste
water/oil mixtures. Thank you for the detailed information you
provided in response to issues discussed at the November, 1992
meeting.
According to your letter, Raveriswood operates two surface
impoundments as part of the facility’s waste water treatment/used
oil recovery system. Your concern is that, once the used oil
regulations become effective, continued use of the surface
impoundments may be disallowed under the S279.12 prohibition
against management of used oil in surface impoundments that are
not subject to RCRA minimum technology standards for permitted
(or interim status) hazardous waste surface impoundments (40 CFR
Parts 264 and 265).
You ask whether continued operation could be allowed either
under the S279.10(f) exemption for waste waters that contain
miniini.s amounts of used oil, or because Ravenswood’s surface
impoundments were “designed and constructed to meet RCRA minimum
technology requirements.” In response to your question, the
following provides clarification of both the minimis exemption
( 279.10(f)) and the conditional prohibition against management
of used oil in surface impoundments (S279.12(a)) and explains how
these provisions may apply in your situation. However,
regulatory determinations such as the one you seek (i.e.,
specific to your client’s process or products) must be made on a
case-by-case basis by the appropriate State regulatory agency or
EPA regional office.
QEjv Recycled/Recyclable
r’ Printed with ScylCar.oli Ink on oaoer r.a
contains at least 50% recycled Ilber
-------
2
Section 279.10(f) Wastewater Exemption
Under the wastewater exemption, wastewaters containing g
minimis quantities of used oil are exempted from the used oil
management standards (40 CFR Part 279). The minimis exemption
covers “small spills, leaks, or drippings from pumps, machinery,
pipes, and other similar equipment during normal operations or
when small amounts of oil are lost to the wastewater treatment
system during washing or draining operations.” The exemption is
intended to cover losses from drippage, minor spillage, etc.,
that cannot reasonably be avoided. It does not cover used oil
that is intentionally introduced into the wastewater treatment
system (e.g., pouring collected used oil into any part of the
system).
It is difficult to determine from your letter whether the g
minimis exemption would apply in your case. At a minimum, in
order to qualify for the exemption, you would have to discontinue
any practice of pouring used oil that is collected in tanks into
your surface impoundments (as you have suggested). In addition,
your letter seems to indicate that the surface impoundments are
used to hold large quantities of spent coolants and lubricants.
It appears from your letter that the oil/water emulsification
that you spray on the aluminum ingots and rolling equipment for
cooling and lubrication, is collected and recycled until spent,
after which it is released to the surface impoundments. If this
is the case, the spent mixture would be intentionally rather than
incidentally introduced into the waste water treatment system and
would therefore not be exempt under the minimis provision. It
is important to note, however, that a specific determination
regarding the applicability of the g minimis exemption would
have to be made on a site—specific basis by the appropriate State
or Regional authority.
Section 279.1.2(a) Surface Impoundment Prohibition
The regulatory prohibition against management of used oil in
surface impoundments states that, “used oil shall not be managed
in surface impoundments or waste piles unless the units are
subject to regulation under parts 264 or 265 of this chapter.”
In other words, under §279.12(a), used oil may be managed in
surface impoundments that have either been permitted or are
authorized under interim status to manage hazardous waste in
compliance with RCRA regulations. Conversely, used oil may not
be managed in surface impoundments that are not permitted or are
not under ‘interim status -— even if they technically meet the
minimum technology standards. (Permitted units are subject to
the requirements of 40 CFR part 264 subpart K. Interim status
units are subject to 40 CFR part 265 subpart K.)
Therefore, assuming the de minimis provision does not apply,
Ravenswood cannot legally store or manage used oil in its surface
-------
3
impoundments unless those surface impoundments are operating
under a RCRA permit or under interim status. You should contact
John Humphries, EPA Region III, at (215) 597-7370 regarding the
existing status of the surface impoundments in question at the
Ravenswood site and to obtain information on obtaining a RCRA
permit, if necessary.
Also, please note that EPA Regional offices and States
authorized to implement the hazardous waste program make
determinations regarding the requirements that apply to specific
materials and facilities. Some States have programs more
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. You may
contact the appropriate Region or State with future facility-
specific questions.
I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have
any further questions regarding the used oil management
standards, please contact Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260—
8 5 5 1.
Sincerely,
‘David Bussa:
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: John Humphries, Region III
Susan O’Keefe, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Susan Bromin, Office of Compliance
John Rosnic, Office of Compliance
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
EO ST 4 , ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D C. 20460
¼
SEP t2 9592.1994(08)
OFFICE OF
Mr. T.L. Nebrich, Jr., CHMM SOLID WASTEANDEMERGENCY
Technical Director RESPONSE
Waste Technology Services, Inc.
640 Park Place
Niagara Falls, New York 14301
Dear Mr. Nebrich:
Thank you for your letter dated August 17, 1994 requesting
clarification of the rebuttable presumption provisions contained
in the Recycled Used Oil Management Standards. (40 CFR 279.44)
As you correctly note, §279.44(c) of the used oil rules
provides that the presumption that used oil that contains greater
than 1000 ppm total halogens has been mixed with hazardous waste
can be successfully rebutted by documenting the source of the
halogens i.e., by showing that the halogens are not attributable
to intentional mixing of used oil and hazardous waste. Your
specific question is whether information documenting that excess
halogens are attributable to unintentional mixing of residuals
from “RCRA empty” drums is sufficient to rebut the presumption of
mixing. In this situation, if the containers do in fact meet the
definition of “RCRA empty,” information attributing the source of
the halogens to residual heals from these containers would be
sufficient to rebut the presumption because the drums do not, by
definition, contain RCRA regulated hazardous waste.
It is important to note, however, that determinations
regarding the regulatory status of specific products and/or
processes must be made on case-by-case basis by the appropriate
State or Regional authority. Therefore, in order to receive a
definitive determination regarding the regulatory status of the
hologen containing used oil, you should contact the appropriate
State agency or Regional office. Yow should also note that some
authorized States have adopted programs that are more stringent
than the Federal hazardous waste program.
If you have additional questions, please call Michelle Ching
of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation at (518)
485-8988 or Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
Si ly,.
Michael J. Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
Q j Recycledf Recyclable
Q <9 P ,lntsd with SOylCinola ln on a iv
contains at least 50% recyc ,sd ‘ Ic r
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
wTh
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC.
August 17, 1994
Mr. Michael Shipiro
Director - OSW
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shipiro:
I am requesting a clarification on what information can
be used under the “Rebuttable Presumption” regulation for
used oil (40CFR279.44).
The scenario in questions involves a drum reconditioner
which accepts empty drums for processing. From time to time
the drums come in with residual heels. The contents of each
drum is segregated between used oil and others. In each case
the drums meet the definition of t1 RCRA Empty”. Either before
cleaning or after, the contents of a drum which contained
chlorinated solvents was mistakenly emptied into the used oil
receptacle. Prior to disposal of the used oil, it was
determined that the oil contained greater than 1000 ppm total
halogens.
Since the halogens would have come from a “RCRA Empty”
drum and therefore non—hazardous, could this fact (RCRA
Empty) be used in a rebuttable presumption determination. If
not, please cite references.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Very truly yours,
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
). / /
/ ‘ ) L4 L
T. L. Nebrich, Jr., CHNN
Technical Director
TLN/kj 1
640 Park Place, Niagara Falls, New York, 14301 Telephone 716-282-4100
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PRO1
9592. 1994(09)
SEP 2 8 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Lael J. Pickett
Regulatory Specialist
3M Occupational Health and
Environmental Safety Division
3M Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55144-7700
Dear Mr. Pickett:
Thank you for your letter of September 7, 1994, requesting
clarification regarding how the- processor requirements (Subpart
F) of the Used Oil Management Standards (40 CFR Part 279) apply-.
to activities involving separation of used oil from sorbent
materials. Specifically, you ask whether generators who separate
used oil from sorbents and send the used oil off-site to be
burned for energy recovery would be regulated as used oil
processors.
As you correctly point out, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) clarified the scope of the Subpart F processor
standards in recently promulgated. amendments to Part 279. (59 FR
10550; March 4, 1994) Under amended §279.20(b) (2) (ii), EPA
specified those on-site maintenance, filtering, and separation
activities that are not subject to; the used oil processing
standards. S279.2O(b -(2) (ii).(D-) generally provides that
generators may remove used oil from sorbent materials- without
being subject to the used oil processor standards, provided that
the used oil is not being sent directly off-site to a used oil
burner. -- -
As exglained in the preamble to the March 4, 1994, final
rule, EPA belfeves- that application øf the processor standards is
warranted cases where the used oil that is generated from
specifie dn- ite. activities is being sent directly to an of f-
site burne (57 FR 10556) In essence, the Agency believes that
the prohibition against sending the used oil generated from these
activities to an off-site burner is necessary to prevent
§279.20(b) (2) (ii) from being used as a loophole through which
compliance with the used oil processors standards can be avoided.
EPA’s primary concern is that, in situations where used oil
is being filtered, separated or otherwise reconditioned and then
sent directly to off-site burners, the purpose of the activity
RecycledlRecyclabl.
PIlntd with Soya nols mi t an puper
cantb.w fleet 50% rscydsd fiber
-------
2
may be difficult discern and that consequently, §279.20(b) (2) (ii)
may be used to avoid compliance with the used oil processor
standards. In other words, persons could claim that their
activities constitute incidental processing under
§279.20(b) (2) (ii), while the primary purpose of the activity may
in fact be to make the used oil more amenable for burning, a
distinction which would be difficult for EPA to ascertain.
As stated in the March 4, 1994, preamble, EPA believes that
by allowing on-site but not off-site burning fràm designated on-
site incidental processing activities, the Agency can strike a
reasonable balance between encouraging beneficial on-site reuse
and recycling activities that pose very limited risks, and
ensuring that activities undertaken to make used oil more
amenable for burning (i.e., used oil processing) are properly
controled.
It is important to note that EPA Regional offices and States
authorized to implement the RCRA program make determinations
regarding the requirements that apply in specific situations.
Also, some States have programs that are more stringent than the
Federal hazardous waste program. If you have any further
questions regarding the used oil regulations, please contact
Eydie Pines of my staff at (2021 260-35O9
Sincerely,
Mike Petruska
Chief .
Regulatory Development Branch
-------
3M Occupational Hea.
Envtronmental Safety i. - ..ion
3M Center
St Paul. Minnesota 5514.4.1000
6121733 1110
September 7, 1994
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director, Office of Solid Waste
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Definition of Used Oil Processor Under the Used Oil Management
Standards, 40 CFR Part 279.
Dear Ms. Lowrance:
The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Occupational Health and
Environmental Safety Division (3M, OH&ESD) wishes to confirm its
understanding of the regulatory status of separating used oil from sorbent
materials. Specifically, we focus on the definition of “processor” under the Used
Oil Management Standards at 40 CFR Part 279 (“UOMS”) as it relates to on- or
off-specification used oil separated from sorbent materials and sent off-site to be
burned for energy reco iery. . -
The UOMS promulgated by EPA on September 10,. 1992, articulated a strong
preference for all free flowing used oil to be removed from solid wastes (e.g. oil
filters, sorptive minerals, sorbent materials, scrap metals etc.) and recycled
rather than disposed with these wastes. At that time, EPA defined “used oil
processing” as “chemical or physicaf operations designed to produce from used
oil, or to make used oil more amenablefor the pëoduction off, fuel oils, lubricants
or other used oil derived products.” According lb the preamble, (and regulatory
language) “used oil processing” includesT “chemical or physical separation” of
used oil from the solid waste material. At that time, EPA also defined recycling
of used oil to include “any used oil which is reused, ... for any purpose
includ(ing] oil which is re-refined, reclaimed, burned for energy reco iery or
reprocesse&, -
The May 3’, 993, technical corrections to the standards clarified that the physical
separation of used oil from non-teme plated oil filters by draining did not
constitute processing because the act is in essence “removing used oil from solid
waste” so that the used oil can be recovered and the filter properly disposed.
(58 £ . Reg . 26420, 26421.) On March 4, 1994, EPA revisited the issue of
what constitutes “processing,” stating that the act of removing excess used oil
from materials contaminated with used oil is not considered processing unless
the recovered used oil is to be burned off-site for energy recovery. (59 Eed. Reg .
10550, 10557.)
-------
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
September 7. 1994
Page 2
3M is a large producer and marketer of polypropylene sorbents. OH&ESD is
concerned that EPA’s March 4 clarification imposes “processor” regulations on
the many used oil generators who separate used oil from sorbent materials and
recycle the used oil by sending it off-site to be burned for energy recovery.
Often, generators using sorbent, and in particular polypropylene sorbents,
mechanically wring out the sorbents to remove the free-flowing oil for recycling.
Sorbents wrung in this manner may then be reused up to eight times before
either being disposed or burned for energy recovery. (The Bill content of
polypropylene sorbents is approximately I 9,000/LB).
Imposing processor requirements on generators who separate used oils from.
sorbents and send the oil off-site to be burned for energy recovery has the effect
of making such used oil recycling more onerous. For many of our customers,
sending their used oil off-site to be burned for energy recovery is the most
environmentally responsible means of managing their used oil. Thus, imposing
processor requirements on generators who separated oil from sorbents may
prove counterproductive to EPA’s stated goal of encouraging recycling by
making it simpler to dispose of the used oil/sorbent mixture than to separated the
used oil and recover its energy value.
If 3M/OH&ESD is correct in its understanding that the processor requirements
apply to generators who physically separate used oil from sorbents and send
that oil off-site to be burned for energy recovery, then we urge the Agency to
reconsider this requirement in light of the negative impact such a requirement is
likely to have on used oil recycling by burning for energy recovery.
We thank you for your consideration of this matter. We would be happy to
provide you with more information should you desire it and would also be happy
to meet with you or your staff to discuss this matter further. Please call me at
(612) 736-1332 to discuss this matter or to arrange a meeting.
Sincerely,
4 V
Lael J. Pickett
Regulatory Specialist
cc: Eydie Pines
-------
UNITL . STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC ’noN AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 28 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Robert Madden 9592.1994(10)
Assistant Director
Hazardous Waste Services
Solid Waste Authority
of Palm Beach County
7501 North Jog Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33412
Dear Mr. Madden:
Thank you for your letter dated September 8, 1994,
requesting clarification regarding the “rebuttable presumption”
provisions contained in the Recycled Used Oil Management
Standards. (40 CFR 279.44) Specifically, you ask whether a
public collection center (i.e., a used oil generator) that
accepts only used oil from households and do-it-yourgelferg
(DIYs), can use the household hazardous waste exemption to rebut
the presumption that the used oil has been mixed with hazardous
waste. - -
Under the used oil management standards, a used oil
generator may rebut the presumption that used oil that contains
more than 1000 ppm total halogens has. been mixed with hazardous
waste by “demonstrating” that the used oil has not been mixed
with a regulated hazardous waste. Such. a demonstration can, but
does not have to, be based on actual testing of the used oil.
The generator may rebut the presumption by documenting the source
of the halogens i.e., by- showing that the halogens are not
attributable to intentional mixing.
As you correctly note, household waste is excluded from the
definition -of hazardous waste. (40 CFR 261.4 (b) (1)) Therefore,
a used oil .generator who collects household DIY used oil that
contains greater than 1000. ppm total halogens may rebut the
presumption of mixing on the basis that household waste is
excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under S261.4(b) (1).
Accordingly, if the generator can provide convincing
documentation showing that the source of the used oil is
exclusively household hazardous waste and that the chain of
custody has been maintained so as to preclude mixing with
regulated hazardous waste after collection, such documentation
may be used to rebut the presumption of mixing.
Recyc dlRecycIabl.
P,1n d with SOyl riOL. Ink on p. .r that
contth least 50% recycled fibs,
-------
2
Secondly, you ask whether this rebuttal can be used by
subsequent used oil transporters. Again, if the transporter can
document conclusively that the shipment consists solely of
household DIY used oil and that no mixing has occurred during
transport, this information can be used to rebut the mixing
presumption.
It is important to note, however, that EPA Regional offices
and States authorized to implement the RCRA program make
determinations regarding the requirements -that apply in specific
situations. Also, some States have programs that are more
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. If you have
any further questions regarding the used oil regulations, please
contact Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
Mike Petruska
Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
-------
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
7501 North Jog Road
Vcst Palm Beach. florIda 33412
Telcphone (407) 640-4000
September 8, 1994
Michael Shapiro, Director
USEPA
401 ‘H’ Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
RE: Rebuttable Presumption for Used Oil
Dear Mr. Shapiro,
I would like to ask for a written clarification for a specific
situation relating to the “Rebuttable Presumption” in 40 CFR 279.
The question is posed as follows:
Can a public used oil collection center, which accepts only
used oils from households and do—it—yourselfers (DIY’s), use
the household hazardous waste exemption to rebut the
presumption that used oils were mixed with a hazardous waste?
If so, can this rebuttal be used by subsequent used oil
handlers which transport this oil?
You may contact me at (407) 687-1100. Thank you in advance for your
assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert adden, Assistant Director, Hazardous Waste Services
o__.._,_.J --
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
L
- HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
September 1994
9592. 1994(11)
3. Used OH Storage Tank Bottoms:
Hazardous Waste or Used Oil When
Burned for Energy Recovery?
A garage servicing automobiles and trucks
generates sigiuficasu quantities of used oil,
which it manages in con zpliance with the
federal regulations at 40 CFR Parr 279. The
used oil is not mixed with other wastestreams
from the facility. Instead, the operator of the
garage accunudates the oil in an on-sire
storage tank. A used oil transporter
periodically etnpries the tank and delivers the
used oil to another company that burns it for
energy recovery. Over time, gravity causes
solids and heavier fractions to seule out of the
used oil stored in the tank at the garage. As a
result, thick tar-like layers accumulate at the
bottom of the storage tank. The garage
operator wishes to remove these rank bottoms
from the used oil storage tank and send them
off-site to be burned for energy recovery.
Although only used oil has been placed in the
tank, the accumuLated tank bottoms and the
original used oil differ significantly in physical
form. The garage operator is concerned chat
the tank bottoms may nor qua! jfy as used oil
and may not be eligible for handling under 40
CFR Parr 279. Laboratorj analysis shows that
the bottoms typically exhibit the toxicity
characteristic for lead, cadmium, chromium,
and benzene. When sent off-site to be burned
for energy recover/, nussr these bottoms from
the used oil storage tank be handled as used oil
or as characteristic hazardous waste?
When burned for energy recovery, these
tank bottoms from the used oil storage tank
qualify as usedoil andmaY be handled in
accordance with the used oil recycling
regulations of 40 CFR Part 279. Under current
EPA rules, residues or sludges resulting from
the storage, processing, or re-refining of used
oil are considered used oil when they are
recycled through burning for energy recovery
(40 CFR §279.lO(e)(2)). EPA clarified the
status of such residues in the preamble to the
May 3, 1993, Federal Register (58 ER 1 26420,
26422). As is the case with all used oils sent
for recycling, the fact that the tank bottoms
ft m the garage exhibit one or more
characteristics of hazardous waste identified in
Part 261, Subpart C does not alter their status
as used oil ( 279.lO(a)). The tank bottoms
recycled through burning for energy recovery
must be handled as hazardous waste only if
they fail the rebuttable presumption described
at §279. lO(b)(1)(ii), or if they have actually
been mixed with hazardous waste
( 279.1O(b)(1) and (2)). If the tank bottoms
are not being recycled, however, they must be
handled as characteristic hazardous waste when
disposed of or sent for disposal ( 279.2O(a)).
t:: . 1
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9592.1994(12)
NOV I 0 gg OPFICEOF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Larry Morthup
Executive Director
Convenient Automotive Services Industry
P.O. Box 34595
Bethesda, Maryland 20827
Dear Mr. Northup:
Thank you for your letter dated August 22, 1994, requesting
clarification of how provisions in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
apply to “Service Station Dealers” (SSD’s) that handle used oil.
I apologize for the delay in responding to your previous requests
on this issue.
The following provides a response to each of the specific
questions raised in your letter.
1. May quick oil change and lubrication service providers be
considered SSDs?
Yes. In order to be considered an SSD as defined by
§101(37) of CERCL , the establishment must receive a
significant percentage of its gross revenue from the
fueling, repairing, or servicing of motor vehicles and must
also accept “do it yourself” (DIY) generated used oil for
collection, accumulation, and delivery to an oil recycling
facility. Fast lubes that accept DIY used oil would
generally fall within this definition if they receive a
significant portion of their income from servicing motor
vehicles. Fast lubes would therefore be eligible for
limited exemption from CERCLIA liability for recycled oil as
provided under CERCLA §114.
2. Does the SSD exemption pertain to all used oil collected at
the Dealer’s facility?
The SSD exemption applies to both DIY used oil accepted by
the SSD and to used oil collected from customer’s vehicles,
the two sources of used oil specifically mentioned in your
letter.
Q j ReeycIedIRcyc abIe
cj & P,1,1 wW% Soyic ioIe mk on paps
g uis 50% recycled fiber
-------
2
3. For purposes of determining protection against CERCLA
liability under the SSD exemption, at what point in time
does EPA deem that used oil destined for recycling falls
into the category of recycled oil , as defined by Section
1004(37) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act?
EPA has interpreted the term “recycled oil,” as defined by
§1004(37) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as not limited to
used oil that has already been processed or re-refined. EPA
applies its management standards for “recycled oil” to used
oil that is destined for recycling. EPA presumes that used
oil destined for recycling includes all used oil which is
not being disposed of or being transported or stored prior
to disposal. Used oil that is destined for recycling (i.e.,
all oil managed under Part 279) falls Within. the scope of
the §1004(37) definition of “recycled oil” for purposes of
determining applicability of the SSD exemption.
4. Does the mixing of spent mineral spirit solvents with used
oil invalidate the SSD exemption?
The plain language of §114(c) and 101(37) prohibits mixing
of used oil with any other hazardous substance as a
condition of eligibility for the SSD exemption. (57 FR
41583) Therefore, if the mineral spirits contain either a
listed hazardous waste or exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic (e.g., ignitability) the SSD would not be
eligible for the SSD exemption.
5. Is the SSD exemption retroactive to the date when a facility
first began accepting used oil from the public?
No. As clearly specified by §114(c) (4) of CERCL A, SEDa
become eligible to assert the exemption on the effective
date of used oil regulations promulgated pursuant to §3014
of RCRA that require corrective action in compliance with
RCRA subtitle C and subtitle I. EPA interprets this
provision liberally to mean the date on which the Federal
used oil regulations become effective in non-authorized
States. The Federal regulations became effective on March
8, 1993. Accordingly, the SSD exemption became effective in
all states as of March 8, 1993. (57 FR 41583)
6. Is a SSD exempted from Superfund liability, provided it
complies with all other terms of CERCLA 114 and stores,
treats, transports or otherwise manages the used oil in
compliance with regulations or standards promulgated
pursuant to §3014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and other
applicable statutes; or must all subsequent handlers,
processors or consumers of the material also comply with the
same standards for the dealer to be entitled to such
protection?
-------
3
The legislative history of §114(c) makes it clear that the
SSDS who manage the used oil in accordance with the §3014
standards are riot liable for releases that occur after the
SSD relinquishes control of the oil. The exemption applies
to the SSD even if the subsequent handlers fail to comply
with §3014. It should be emphasized, however, that general
compliance with the Part 279 standards, which implement the
§3014 statutory requirements is also a condition of
eligibility for the SSD liability exemption (e.g., to retain
eligibility, the SSD must comply with Part 279 Subpart C
standards for used oil generators and the Subpart E
standards for used oil transporters, as applicable).
7. Is the protection under the SSD exemption assessed on a
facility-by-facility or company-by-company basis.
The SSD exemption applies on a case-by-case basis to
individual dealers (i.e., individual establishments) for
releases of used oil that were managed in accordance with
the §3014 management standards while in control of the SSD.
The exemption does not necessarily apply to all dealers
within a given company, nor even to all releases of used oil
managed by the same establishment unless the used oil that
is later released was properly managed by that
establishment. In other words, some establishments within a
company may be eligible for the exemption, others may not,
depending on whether the conditions have been met by the
individual establishments.
I hope this letter adequately addresses your concerns. If
you have additional questions regarding the used oil management
standards, please contact Eydie Pines at (202) 260-3509.
S ncerely,
El e th
A in Deputy Director
0 fic of Solid Waste
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
‘ - j (bnrpnjeni
I.—h
11W?M
- isi4jlule
Post Office Box 34595 Bethesda. Maryland 20827 301—897—3191
Ms. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Deputy Director (Acting) August 22, 1994
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Cotsworth:
On behalf of the quick oil change industry, I am writing to request your assistance in obtaining
clarification of an EPA regulation relating to used oil generators. Specifically, our organization
ould like an official interpretation of several provisions of the so-called Service Station Dealer
Exemption from CERCLA liability
CASI members account for approximately 2,600 indi’ idual quick oil change facilities around the
nation. These companies are deeply concerned about liability that may stem from the
downstream mishandling of used oil. In addition, many of our members actively collect and
transfer to recyclers, used oil generated by do-it-yourself oil changers. As you know, the Service
Station Dealer Exemption was intended by Congress to encourage the private-sector collection of
DIY motor oil.
Unfortunately, we have had an extremely difficult time receiving an Agency interpretation of this
rule. We have requested the information three times over the past year and to-date have met with
no success. [ initiated our most recent request on May 10 only to find out last week that the
individual with whom I was corresponding was too busy to respond.
The regulation and the statute upon which it is based are both confusing and vague. Although
our members would like to rely upon them when collecting DIY oil, without some official
clarification, such reliance may prove to be detrimental. While we fully understand the burdens
Agency personnel must face when it comes to rulemaking and implementation, the lack of
guidance on this particular rule could adversely impact many of the quick lube DIY collection
programs upon which so many state and local programs depend.
-------
Therefore, we ask that you forward the enclosed letter to someone at the OSW who can and vill
respond to our request for clarification. Please have that individual contact me at (301) 897-3191.
I will be happy to provide any additional details. CASI has a meeting of its membership on
September 19 and would very much like to provide them with a report on this important issue at
that time.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
1A2 T.
Larry Northup
Executive Director
cc: CASI Environmental Committee
Barry S. Neuman, CASI Counsel
C0TS8022 LTR
-------
Post Office Box 34595 301—897—3191
Ms. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Deputy Director (Acting) August 22, 1994
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 MSt.,SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Cotsworth:
With the U.S. EPA’s September 10, 1992 rulemaking on used oil destined for recycling, the
long-awaited “Service Station Dealer Exemption” (“Exemption”) from CERCLA liability
was triggered for certain businesses who engage in the collection of used oil from the
public.
As the national trade association for the quick oil change and lubrication industry, CASE is
concerned about several issues which relate to the Exemption. Due to the significant
impact that the Exemption could have upon CASI’s member companies, it is critical that
CASI receives some clarification and guidance on the Exemption.
Listed belaw are several specific items which we would like clarified for the purpose of
applying this Exemption to fast lube operations.
1. May fast lubes be considered “Service Station Dealers”?
Under 42 USC 9601, Section 101 - Definitions
‘(37)(A) The term “service station dealer” means any person --
(i) who owns or operates a motor vehicle service station, tilling station, garage, or similar retail
establishment engaged in the business of selling, repairing or servicing motor vehicles, where a
significant percentage of the gross revenue of the establishment is derived from fi eling, repairing, or
servicing of motor vehicles, and (ii) who accepts for collection, accumulation, and delivery to an oil
recycling facility, recycled oil that (I) has been removed from the engme of a light duty motor vehicle or
household appliances by the owner of such vehicle or appliances, and (II) is presented by such owner to
such person for collection, accumulation, and delivery to an oil recycling facility”
óntpnjpni
Bethesda, Maryland 20827
-------
Page 2
Quick oil change and lubrication service providers, in our opinion, fit within the scope of
the above definition so long as they accept used (recycled) oil from the public. Quick
tubes are certainly engaged in the servicing of motor vehicles and derive a significant
percentage of their gross revenues from such business. This poi nt is key to any further
discussion of the Exemption as it pertains to our industry. -
Please advise as to whether you concur with our assessment that quick oil change facilities
that accept used oil from the public are in fact Service Station Dealers (“Dealers ‘7.
2. Does the “Service Station Dealer Exemption” pertain to all used oil collected at
the Dealer’s facility?
Under 42 usc 9614 - Section 114
(c) Recycled Oil. --
(1) Service Station Dealers, Etc.-- No person (including the United States or any State) may recover,
under the authority of subsection (a)(3) or (I)(4) of section 107, from a service station dealer for any
response costs or damages resulting from a release or threatened release of recycled oil , or use the
authority of section 106 against a service station dealer other than a person described in subsection (a)(l)
or (a)(2) of section 107 if such recycled oil- -
(A) is not mixed with any other hazardous substance, and
(B) is stored, treated, transported or otherwise managed in compliance with regulations or standards
promulgated pursuant to section 3014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and other applicable authorities.”
Quick oil change companies collect used (recycled) oil from two sources: customers’
vehicles and the general public, often referred to as “do-it-yourselfers”. Does the
Exemption pertain to both these streams of used oil, should a release or threatened release
occur off-site?
Please provide us with an official interpretation of this provision.
3. For purposes of determining protection against CERCLA liability under the
Service Station Dealer Exemption, at what point in time does EPA deem that used
oil destined for recycling falls into the category of recycled oil , as defined by
Section 1004 (37) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act?
EPA’s response to this question will literally determine the value of the exemption to the
quick lube industry or any other party which qualifies for the exemption. As provided
under CERCLA Section 114 as stated above, the Exemption extends protection to a Dealer
“for any response costs or damages resulting from a release or threatened release of
recycled oil... ”
-------
Page 3
If EPA defines the term “recycled oil” narrowly so as to only protect the Dealer from any
release or threatened release of the material after it has been processed, the Exemption
would be of little value to used oil collection centers. This is because releases prior to
processing or recycling into afinished product account for most Dealer liability. On the
other hand, if EPA defines “recycled oil” more broadly so as to provide the Dealer
protection against releases or threatened releases of the oilfrom the time that the material
is picked up by a qual Jied used oil recycler, or otherwise introduced into the used oil
recycling system, then the Exemption would have significantly more value to the Dealer
and it would establish an incentive for the Dealer to accept do-it-yourself oil.
Therefore, GAS! hereby requests that EPA provide further guidance regarding to point in
time when used oil destined for recycling qualifies as “recycled oil”pursuant to CERCLA
Section 114.
4. Does the mixing of spent mineral spirit solvents with used oil invalidate the
“Service Station Dealer Exemption”?
As indicated in the citation noted in question #2 above, mixing used oil with any other
“hazardous substance” would seem to invalidate the Exemption. However, certain
automotive service companies, including some fast lubes, routinely mix spent mineral
spirit solvents with their used oil prior to recycling. This is done with the full knowledge
and consent of their used oil recyclers. Mineral spirits, sometimes known as Stoddard
Solvents, are petroleum products that, when fresh, exhibit no hazardous characteristics with
the possible exception of ignitability, depending on the flash point of the particular
Stoddard Solvent. When used in a parts washing sink (the typical application), the solvent
is contaminated only with used oil.
Please advise whether non-hazardous mineral spirits that become contaminated with used
oil can be mixed with more used oil in the operator’s storage tank without invalidating the
Exemption from CERCLA liability? [ Note: EPA ruled on Sept. 10, 1992 that mineral
spirits may be mixed with used oil so long as the resulting mixture does not exhibit the
characteristic of ignitability and is recycled].
5. Is the “Service Station Dealer Exemption” retroactive to the date when a facility
first began accepting used oil from the public?
Many fast lube operators have for years been serving as public used oil collection centers.
They have long been abiding by the various state and federal regulations pertaining to the
storage, handling and transport of used oil. Indeed, many fast tubes have been providing
this public service ever since the Exemption was established by Congress.
-------
Page 4
Our question, therefore, is whether the Exemption is retroactive so that it would, under the
scenario described above, include volumes of used oil generated before final promulgation
of EPA’s used oil management standards in September of 1992? Liability for releases or
threatened releases under CERCLA is of course retroactive. It would be logical to assume
that protection against such liability, when used oil is properly managed, would be treated
similarly. Many quick lube operations have participated in do-it-yourself collection
programs relying to their detriment on the expectation that such conduct would be
rewarded via the Exemption.
Please provide us with an official Agency interpretation on retroactivity.
6. Is a Service Station Dealer exempted from Superfund liability, provided it
complies with all other terms of CERCLA Section 114 and stores, treats,
transports or otherwise manages the used oil in compliance with regulations or
standards promulgated pursuant to Section 3014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
and other applicable statutes; or must all subsequent handlers, processors or
consumers of the material also comply with the same standards in order for the
Dealer to be entitled to such protection?
Based on the language of CERCLA Section 114, it is unclear whether the Dealer is
provided coverage under the Exemption solely as a result of actions taken by the Dealer
hile the material is in its possession, or whether the management standards must be
followed by every party which possesses or controls the material after it leaves the Dealer’s
location, possession or control. CASI would argue that an interpretation of this language
which applies the Exemption to Dealers only when rnall subsequent handlers comply with
the management standards, would render the Exemption worthless in the eyes of Dealers.
It is evident from the legislative history that the intent of the Exemption was to provide an
incentive for Dealers to accept used oil from the public. Most all Dealers would argue that
a broad interpretation of this language would vitiate the effect because Superfund liability
only arises when parties fail to comply with practices such as are defined in the referenced
management standards.
Please explain under what downstream mismanagement scenarios, if any, would Dealers
lose their Exemption.
7. Is the protection under the Service Station Dealer Exemption assessed on a
facility-by-facility or company-by-company basis?
For purposes of this discussion, let’s assume EPA agrees that protection under the
Exemption should be extended to a Dealer, so long as said Dealer complies with all
management standards promulgated by the EPA while the used oil stream is within the
-------
Page 5
control or possession of the Dealer. Given the many qualif ,’ing prerequisites attached to
the Exemption, CASI and its membership would strongly recommend that the protection
associated with the Exemption be assessed on a facility-by-facility basis. In other words, if
a particular facility complies with all applicable management standards in the storage,
treatment, transportation, or other management of the used oil streain, that facility could
rely upon protection under the Exemption. Our concern is that if EPA extends coverage
under the Exemption on a company-by-company basis and all but one facility owned by a
company operating a chain of facilities are in strict compliance with the applicable
management standards, then it would be unfair for EPA to wipe out protection under the
Exemption for all the other locations because of non-compliance at one facility. This
issue is particularly important to the vast majority of CASI’s members which own and
operate multiple locations.
Therefore, GAS! requests guidance relative to the practical application of the Exemption
CASI was encouraged by the adoption of used oil management standards that triggered the
Service Station Dealer Exemption. We are hopeftil that the Exemption will have a positive
effect on the number of new public used oil collection centers. Many of our member
companies currently serve as used oil collection facilities across the country with the
expectation that by doing so, they are obtaining protection against Superfund liability.
However, without further guidance, it is impossible for our membership to determine the
relative value arid applicability of the Exemption to their fast lube operations. A clear and
concise Agency interpretation of the above issues, consistent with the recommendations
herein, would create the incentive for thousands to continue their used oil collection
programs. Moreover, fast lubes that do not currently accept do-it-yourselfer oil could be
expected to enter the system, should the terms of the Exemption make it advantageous for
them to do so.
If you require any additional information prior to responding, please feel free to call or
write. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Larry Northup
Executive Director
cc: CASI Environmental Committee
Barry S. Neuman, CASI Counsel
CERCLAOI LTP.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
i ‘
LL
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592. 1995 (01)
AUS 10 1995
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Frederick S. Phillips
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037.1128
Dear Mr. Phillips:
This letter is in response to your letter of May 25, 1995 concerning the managemeni
of the used oil in your clients’ industrial facilities.
Specifically, your clients want to reduce the volume of the used coolant by either
filtering out or evaporating off the water before the remaining used coolant is managed by
rerefining or fuel-blending. Dewatering the used coolant will reduce the volume of the
coolant wastestream by as much as 90 percent. Your clients would like clarification as to
whether dewatering is a process that triggers EPA’s Used Oil Processor requirements.
Dewate’ xig of an oil-based coolant does not require the owners/operators of an
industrial facility to follow the Used Oil Processor requirements as long as dewatering of the
oil-based coolant removes the water and does not change the physical and chemical condition
of the oil-based portion of the coolant. Dewatering, as described in your letter, would meet
the exemption from the Used Oil Processor requirements as described in §279.20
(b)(2)(ii)(D), ‘Draining or otherwise removing used oil from materials containing used oil
in order to remove excessive oil...
In your letter you. indicated that after dewatering, the oil is sent ‘to be re-refined or
fuel-blended.’ It is important to remember that the exemption from the Used Oil Processor
requirements is contingent upon the oil being generated on-site and not sent directly to an
off-site burner, see §279.20(b)(2)(iii). Sending the remaining coolant to a rerefiner and
fuel-blender, as mentioned in your letter, would meet this requirement; however, shipment to
an off-site burner would cause the generator to become regulated by the Used Oil Processor
requirements.
Q ’ Recycled/Recyclable
P d wfth b k eu ‘ er thu
csntaIi s1 lesit 50% ‘ UcycisU Ube,
-------
Thank you for sharing your clients’ concerns with us. I hope this letter clarifies the
issues you raised. If you have any additional questions, please contact Tracy Bone at
(202)260-3509.
Sincerely,
, c
Michael Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
-------
E ICS 5 wsu.z e M v 25 1995
( ) . -..,y
- I _ ,. —.t- l. i .
Director, Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
I - .
Cc. ti
100 ¶Wt C EWUE
NEW NEW K i0 .4710
1001 CREDFT DRIVE
MAI1. VI 3INIA 1 00.6000
SHAW, PITTMAN, Porrs & TROWBRIDGE
. mam• t. UNC&UDUl0 P ocssa.ot *
2300 N STREET NW.
WASHINGTON. D.C. o 7.112e
(202) 0e3-0000
CS,MILI
(202) 063- 5007
Re: Application of Used Oil Processor Requirements Under
the Used Oil Management Standards. 40 C.F.R. Part 219
Dear Ms. Loc rance:
I write on behalf of several clients seeking clarification regarding the application of
the used oil processor regulations (40 C.F.R. § 279, Subpart F) to industrial facilities that
employ evaporation and/or filtratip.n o minimii.e the volume of their oil-based coolant
wastestrearns. EPA’s position on this issue will likely have significant consequences for
thousands of users of oil-based coolants.
Many machine shops and other industrial facilities use coolants composed of 90-96%
water and 4-10% petroleum-based (or synthetic oil based) cooling compound. The used
coolant must be drained and replaced regularly, producing a sizeable wastesiream. To
minimize the volume of their used-coolant wastestreams, many facilities have installed, or
are contemplating installing, evaporation and/or filtration systems. The purpose of these
systems is to evaporate or filter out the water component of the coolant, thus reducing by
90% or more the oil-based wastestream to be recycled or disposed. Most clients employing
such systems report that their dewatered coolant is picked up by Clean Harbors, Safety
Kleen, or a sinular entity to be re-refined or fuel-blended.
The evaporation and filtration processes at issue are being employed to minimi7e the
volume, and thus the expense of nlan2ging, the coolant wastestream. This action constitutes
“a basic step that is incidental or ancillary to a primary activity,” in this case reducing waste
volume, “that is distinct from used oil processing” (59 E . Beg. 10550, 10556). These
activities are not designed to “make used oil more amenable for production of fuel oils,
lubricants, or other used-oil derived products” (40 C.F.R. § 279.50) and should not be subject
111 SOUTH UNION STREET
k ) aL AN0RIA. VIRSOIIA
1 001 UEERTV 8rREE1 SW.
‘LEESSURO. VS OINIA 220?0-0?21
-------
•.SHAW, PiTTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
£ P* ?US $N,p INC UDINS .ae?IsI,eNa COUPOmATIONS
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
May 25, 1995
Page 2
to the used oil processor requirements. However, because EPA’s amendment of the processor
provisions (59 E . B g. 10550, c.t .) does not specifically address evaporation and/or
filtration of water to reduce the volume of an oil-based wastestream, we are requesting this
clarification from the Agency.
Generators who dewater their oil-based coolant wastestreams do so to minimize the
volume of the wastestream and thereby simplify wastestream management; Imposing the
used oil processor requirements on generators who minimize their waste by evaporation
and/or filtration creates a powerful disincentive to do b and runs contrary to EPA’s stated
goal of waste minimization.
I appreciate your consideration and look forward to learning your views on the
applicability of the used oil processor requirements to the described activities. Please do not
hesitate to call me if I can provide additional information or if you would like to discuss this
matter.
Frederick S. Phillips
cc: Sheila McC. Harvey, Esq.
Stephanie M. McQueen’
167099
-------
‘I’
j £ UNITED STATES ENVIRONt NTAL PROTEC11ON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1995 (02)
P)$ 2b
OFECE OF
WASTE A} EMERGENCY
Norman H. Nosenchuck, P.E. SP 4SE
D ec
Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-7250
Dear Mr. Nosenchuck:
This letter is hi response to your letter of May 24, 1995 concerning the exemption for
burning used oil in space heaters found in the Federal Used Oil Management Standards.
In your letter you request EPA’s interpretation of the regulatory e ’nption for
burning used oil in space. heaters in three specific used oil collection scenarios. The
scenarios all involve a county highway maimP nam e garage accepting additional used oil to
burn in a on-site space beater . The used oil is collected by the County from : other County.
in inrenance facilities, County-run Do-it-yourselfer (DIY) collection centers, and from
businesses. Specifically, your letter requests clarification as to whed r the County can bum
these three sources of used oil in their space heater and still qualify for the space heater
exemption in 40 CFR 279.23(a)(l)).
A generator may only burn used oil from DIYs or oil generated by that generator. A
generator may not burn used oil generated by another business. EPA never intended to limit
the generator to burning only used oil generated at the same facility as the space heater . An
owner/operator may burn used oil generated fwm ano r of the generator’s facility as long
as the used oil and space trater meet all the requirements of §279.23. Certainly, your stale
may chose to be more stringent than EPA as reflected m the Used Oil Management
Standards.
The first two scenarios clearly meet the intent of the exemption which is to allow
generators to burn their own used oil in space beaters and to encourage the collection of DIY
used oil. The owner/operator, In this case a county aggregation point. is allowed to burn
used oil from other County facilities and the DIY collection program as long as the Coumy
follows the requirements for self-transportation of 55 gallons or less used oil (see §279,24(b))
and the space heater meets the requirements of §279.23(a)C2) and (3). The County may not
burn DIY that is collected by another generator (for e, n ple at a state-nm collection
program). The DIY must come to the County through a County program or else directly
from the resident. It is important to remember that the space beater must have a maxununi
-------
capacity of not more than 0.5 mifli BTU per hour, thai the combustion gases are vented to
the ambient air, I that the space beater is operated as legitim recycling (i.e., operated
during cold weather and business hours).
The third scenario, conoerning the burning of used 311 at the County collection center
from does not meet the language or the inz nt of the e mption. The
Own r/aperator is limited to burning self-generated used oil and used oil from hou hold
sources (DIY). No amount of business waste (other than the used oil generated by the
owner/operator of the space heater ) may be burned in a space beater. In your letter, you
rcfezred to an e mption based on aSS gallon 1 m that would allow the used oil to be
burned in space h f ’rs . This exemption app es to generators self-tranaporth g their used oil
to an aggregation center and exempts the generator from Transportation Standards (Subpart
E) only and has no impact on the burning of used oil in space heaters.
I hope this information has been helpful to you. If you have any additional questions,
your staff may contact Tracy Bone at (202)260-3509. Th2nk you for your interest in used oil
Sincerely,
Waste
-------
New york State Department of Environmental Conservation
‘50 Wolf Road. Albany. New York 12233.7250
518.457-6934 FAX 518-457-0629
it,J
MAY24199!
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director
Off ice of Solid Waste and ergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 14 Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Re: Exemption for Burning Used Oil in Space Heaters
Enclosed is a copy of a February 6, 1995 letter that we
received from Ms. Auralie Ashley—Marx, a Research and Compliance
Coordinator in Osvego County (one of the Counties in New York
State), concerning the referenced exemption.
Mr. William I4irabile, of this Department, brought up this 2
issue with you at the Used Oil Roundtable in March , 1995, at
which time you stated that this issue would b evaluated by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at some
future point in time.
Our interpretation of the applicability of the regulations
for burners of used oil is predicated on the assumption that,
once a generator or other party who intends to direct their used
oil for burning determines that the used oil is on-specification,
then such on-specification used oil is no longer regulated as
used oil (40 CFR 279.11). In other words, transportation and
destination are no longer regulated under the used oil
regulations.
Therefore, based on the above assumption, the following is
our interpretation for each of the scenarios presented in the
Ms. Ashley—Marx letter:
1. Used oil that is sent from off-site County hiahvav
maintenance aaraaes to other. off-site. highway aaraaes
or the off—site airport maintenance facility, all of
which are owned and operated by the County :
In this case, we believe that the receiving facilities
would be acting as used oil aggregation points.
However, since the heading to the space heater
exemption in 40 CFR 279.23 says “On-site burning in
space heaters,” we do not believe that aggregation
points could burn the used oil brought in from their -
own off-site facilities unless the used oil is
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro 2.
on-specification. Although New York State’s used oil
and air regulations are somewhat different from 40 CP’R
Part 279, and may further preclude aggregation points
from burning used oil, we will reevaluate our position
if you determine that aggregation points may burn used
oil from their own off—site facilities under the terms
of the space heater exemption.
2. Used oil that is sent from County—run do-it—vourselfer
( DIY used oil collection centers to other, off—site.
County maintenance facilities: all locations are owned
and ooerat d by the County :
In this instance, we believe that the used oil could be
burned at the DIV used oil collection centers under the
terms of the space heater exemption. However, if the
used oil were sent off—site to other County facilities
for burning, we believe that the used oil would need to
be on—specification. Again, if your interpretation is
different, we will reevaluate our position on this
issue. For this particular scenario, we believe that
if the space heater exemption in40 CFR Part 279
applies, there might be a possibility of granting a
variance from State regulations to allow this type of
burning. Further, we would particularly like to
facilitate recycling of DIY used oil.
3. Used oil that is sent from orivate businesses to of f—
site. County maintenance facilities : -
EPA’s regulations allow for “used oil collection
centers,” which receive used oil from generators in
quantities of 55 gallons or less to meet the same
standards as used oil generators. This Department’s
used oil regulations do not have a similar provision
for used oil collection centers. Therefore, the used
oil received at County maintenance facilities from
private businesses for burning must be on—
specification. However, we are interested in finding
out whether, under 40 CFR Part 279, used oil collection
centers (e.g., those that accept used oil from
generators in shipments of no more than 55 gallons)
would be allowed to burn such used oil under the space
heater exemption.
Is our interpretation of the used oil regulation concerning
the above scenarios correct, or does EPA have a different
interpretation? We need to know in order to advise the County
and other interested parties in this matter.
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
3.
If you have any questions, or require any further
information, please have your staff contact Ms. Michelle Ching,
of my staff, at (518) 485—8988.
Thank you.
Enclosure
cc: v/enc. — A. Ashley-Marx, Oswego County
Eydie Pines, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
S
Norman H. Nosenchuck, P.E.
Director
Division of Hazardous Sv’ stances
Regulation
-------
# Q 4 DONALD F. Mouy
./ OswEGo COUNTY
L c i.I,io ) DEPARThIENr0F PUBUC WORKS MAR) ICBTEJ TE1N
BRISTOL HiLl. SOUD WAS1s PACUTIES . s
February 6, 1995
Ms. Michelle Ching
Hazardous Waste Compliance Unit
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-17253
RE: Clarification àf Used Oil Space Heater Regulations
Dear Ms. Ching:
As discussed by phone last month, I have been asked to research and provide specific
documentation in reference to the use of used motor oil in space heaters. Oswego
County is considering using used motor oil for fuel in space heaters to heatseveral
highway garage facilities and/or an airport maintenance bay. The used oil could
potent.ially come from the following sources:
• Several off-site, County highway maintenance grages.:
• Five off-site transfer station holdinj tanks that accept used motor oil
from household. do-it yourself oil changers. Each person leaving oil signs a
certification sheet stating that the used oil is from a household and not a
business. It is not possible to have residents deliver their used crank-
case oil to highway garrges, as it is not as convenient, nor is staff
available at those sites to monitor such activities.
-. Used oil from off-site businesses.
What specific regulatory requirements would apply to each of these a ti’vities? What
steps would the County be required to take to insure that we are in compliance with all
appl ab e state ai d i daral egL latio2 s: Thank you for your attcuttc,n to thiz mnttcr.
Any information you can. provide would be appreciated. if you need further information
about my request please contact me during business hours at (315) 593-8924.
Sincerely,
•Auralie Ashley-M rx
Research and Compliance. Coordinator
315•593 ‘3850 R. R. #4 Box 106. FULTON.NEWYORK 13069. 31 5593 8923
QA Rt k* . 1 p 1 r— EP — A .
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB 8 I
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
- RESPONSE
9592.1996(01)
Mr. Gary S. Johnstone
CASIE/PROThNK
P.O. Box 93
Franklinville, NJ 08322
Dear Mr. Johnstone:
Thank you for your letter of November 3, 1995 regarding the
definition of significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous
constituents as contained in used oil, and which agency has
regulatory jurisdiction over this waste.
Your letter concerns the rebuttable presumption for
halogenated constituents present in used oil. This provision is
located in several places throughout 40 CFR part 279, depending
on the specific activity related to used oil. Generally, under,
this provision, if used oil contains greater than or equal to
1000 ppm total halogens, it is presumed to be a hazardous waste
due to mixture with listed halogenated hazardous waste. This
presumption may be rebutted by a demonstration that the used oil
does not contain hazardous waste.
In your letter, you cite the rebuttable presumption
provision in 40 CFR 279.10(b) (1) (ii). However, under t1 (e Federal
regulations, the provision that would be applicable to your
situation is actually in 40 CFR 279.53, which applies to used oil
processors and re-refiners. This provision was promulgated as
part of the September 10, 1992 used oil rule. Pursuant to the
statutory authority for this rule, it cannot take effect in
states that are authorized for the base RCRA program (those rules
promulgated as of January 26, 1983), until those states adopt
equivalent requirements. Further, EPA cannot enforce the
requirements until the state adopts them and is authorized by
EPA. Note that M RCRA authorization” is an administrative process
where EPA evaluates a state’s regulations to ensure that they are
equivalent and consistent with EPA’S regulations, and authorizes
them as part of the RCRA program. EPA then has enforcement
authority based on a state’s authorized RCRA program.
Therefore, because New Jersey is authorized for the base
RCR.A program but not the 1992 used oil rule, this provision will
not be applicable to your facility under the Federal regulations
Q RecycledlRecyclable
- Pftflted wfth SoylCanola Ink on pager that
cant n3 at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
until New Jersey becomes authorized for the rule. New Jersey
does have jurisdiction regarding used oil regulation under Sits
authorized RCRA program and other state laws. While EPA can
provide assistance to New Jersey, the state should be the primary
source of information regarding its regulatory program and your
RCRA permit.
If you have further questions regarding the Federal used
oil rules in 40 CFR part 279, please contact Tracy Bone of my
staff at (202) 260-3509. For information regarding state
authorization issues, please contact Wayne Roepe of my staff at
(703) 308-8630.
Sincerely yours,
)f7 Mich e Shapiro, Director
Of fi of Solid Waste
-------
c A 2U J PROTANK e .
November 3, 1995
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste MC-5301
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Rebuttable Presumption
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am writing to you to receive clarification or an opinion from the Environmental Protection
Agency regarding the definition of “significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous
constituents” as stated in 40 CFR 279.10(b)(1)(ii).
Casie/Protank, through our attorney, submitted two requests to the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) seeking their guidance concerning this issue. Mr.
Edward H. Post, Chief of the Southern Bureau of Water and Hazardous Waste
Enforcement, responded to our request with a letter dated January 19, 1995 (copy enclosed).
He stated in his letter that the only existing guidance regarding significant concentrations
of individual hazardous halogenated constituents exists in the November 29, 1985 Preamble
to the EPA used oil regulations noting “More than 100 ppm of any particular solvent”.
Casie/Protank’s hazardous waste facility permit and the above referenced regulation state
that the total organic halogens in excess of 1000 ppm may be rebutted by analytical to
demonstrate that the used oil does not contain hazardous waste.
I spoke with Ms. Tracy Bone of your department approximately two weeks ago regarding
this issue. She stated that ultimately the EPA would defer back to the State of New Jerse)
for a decision concernir this matter.
Mr. Post stated in his letter that the NJDEP would not enforce any specific concentrations
less than 1000 ppm for individual hazardous halogenated constituents until further written
guidance is received from the appropriate Federal Hazardous waste groups.
Casie Protank believes that the NJDEP would not have responded to our request without
contacting the EPA and conducting extensive research before submitting this letter.
However, our NJDEP inspector believes that the NJDEP has no jurisdiction over this issue
and that only the EPA can make a ruling concerning these levels. He also supports the
P.O. BOX 92 • FRANKLINVILLE. N.J. 08322 • (609) 696-4401 • TELEFAX NO. (609) 696-7065
-------
iu j PROTANK
statement that significant levels of hazardous halogenated concentrations is 100 ppm, as
stated in the November 29, 1985 Preamble.
I spoke with a representative at the EPA Region II office in New York. He stated that
their office would only enforce EPA regulations and not the Federal Register.
I hope that your response can clarify the different interpretations of this issue. Thank you
in advance for your cooperation. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience..
Sincerely,
GSJ\ta
Enclosure
CASIE/PROTA
ne
•ator
• P.O. BOX 92 • FRANKLINVIL.LE. N.J. 08322 • (6O ) 696-4401 • TELEFAX NO. (609) 696.7065
-------
FILE COpy
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENThL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I
?4L
FEB 1 1996
OFFICE CF
SOLID WASTE AND £ME CE ’.CY
George (Rock) Pring, Chair RESPONSE
Hazardous Waste Commission
State of Colorado 7592.1996(02)
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
Dear Mr. Pring:
This letter is in response to your letter dated October
19, 1995, concerning data on the use of used oil as a dust
suppressant. specifically, you asked to be provided data
that the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) relied on to ban the
use of used oil as a dust suppressant, and used to allow the
use of commercial dust suppressants. You also asked for any
data OSW has concerning compressor oil or -mineral oil.
The decision to ban the use of used oil as a dust
suppression is discussed in the preamble to the supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 48034). That
rulemaking and the references cited on dust suppression are
enclosed. You also requested specific data on “climates,
rainfall conditions and soil composition”. No such
information was evaluated by OSW in connection with the use
of used oil as a dust suppressant.
OSW did not evaluate the use of commercial dust
suppressants under this or any rulemaking because we have no
authority to regulate commercial products (other than waste-
derived or discarded commercial chemical products) under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Concerning your request for information on mineral oil
and compressor oil, we searched databases of EPA documents
produced under RCRA or superfund authority for data on
compressor oil and/or mineral oil. There were two
references to data •sent to EPA from industry sources as
comments on a rulemaking. No EPA data were found in the
database. If you would like more information on the two
outside-EPA documents, please call the RCRA Docket
at(703)603 923 O and refer to documents: F—91—UOLP #415E and
F—92—UO2F #8.
Q Recycled/Recyclable
Punted with Soy Canola Ink on paper that
, contains at least 50% recyCled Ilber
-------
If you have any further questions concerning data
supporting EPA’s decision to ban the use of used oil as a
dust suppressant please have your staff contact Tracy Bone
at (202)260—3509 or the RCRA Docket at (703)603—9230.
cc: Scott Klarich, Colorado DEC
Randy Lainden, EPA Region VIII
id Bussard,
Hazardous Waste and Identification Division
-------
cIo S7 4 ?
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
. . I1.L
J$L
PRO1
- OFFICE OF
‘ 8 26 l99i SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
9592.1996(03)
The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell
300 Main Street
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Dear Senator Campbell:
This letter is in response to your letter dated, February 5,
1996 concerning the use of used oil as a dust Suppressant. You
inquired as to EPA’s response to a letter from the Colorado
Hazardous Waste Commission concerning the use of used oil as a
dust suppressant. A copy of EPA’s response to the Hazardous
Waste Commission is enclosed.
In your letter you also asked for an explanation of how EPA,
“intends to balance the major gains we can achieve in air quality
through the use of a cost effective dust suppression material...
(with the] negligible risk to our waterways and groundwater from
the use of this form of mineral oil.” With respect to national
requirements, as you know, EPA banned the use of used oil as a
dust suppressant in its final regulation related to used oil.
management standards (see 57 CFR 41626,. 9/10/92). At that time
some forty states had already banned this use of used oil, and in
addition, the Federal statute called for a ban on used oil
applied as a dust suppressant if the used oil was mixed with
hazardous waste. Environmental damages cases, such as those at
Times Beach, Missouri, were known at the time. Possible
environmental problems associated with such a practice include
heavy metals deposition in soil or migration to ground water,
among other potential issues. As you are probably aware, used
oil varies significantly with respect to the types and
concentrations of contaminants it may contain.
In the final standards, EPA included a provision to allow
States to petition the Agency for authorization to use used oil
as a dust suppressant. The requirements for such a petition are
described in 40 CFR 279.82(b). To date, no such petitions have
been received, and no resources have been allocated for reviewing
such petitions. There are no specific criteria which have been
developed to guide such a review, but-we would consider
environmental benefits and risks from using a particular used oil
as a dust suppressant as they relate to our broader concerns
about used oil in the environment. As already mentioned, these
Recycl.dlR.cyctabi. • Pdnted with Vegetable OU Based nl on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Po consumei)
-------
include potential metals releases to the environment, and how to
ensure hazardous waste is not mixed with the used oil in
violation of the statutory prohibition.
Thank you for your interest in used oil management. If you
have f .irther questions or would like additional information,
please have your staff contact Tracy Bone at (202)260—3509.
Sincerely,
f 4/
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1996(04)
AUG 14 1996
OFFICE OF.
- SCUD WASTE AND EME•RGENCY
RESPONSE
Douglas Green
Piper and Màrbuiy
1200 Nineteenth St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20035-2430
Dear Mr. Green:
This letter is in response to Edison Electric Institutç’s request for clarification of the
applicability of the Used Oil Management Stthdards (Part 279) to materials that are
contaminated with used oil and provide little or no energy iMn burned.
Unless burned for energy recovery, materials contaminated with used oil are not covered
under Part 279 if “the used oil has been properly drained o removed to the extent possible such
that no visible signs of free-flowing oil remnin in or on the material” (see, 40 CFR 279.10(c)).
The recycling of any oil drairied from the material is regulated under Part 279.
Contaminated materials (after draining) are regulated underPart 279 if the material is
burned for energy recovery (sea, 40 CFR Part 279.1 0(c)(2)). For example, some sorbents have a
high British thermal uni (BTU) value and once contaminated with used oil are managed by
burning for energy recovery and, therefore, are regulated under Part 279. Contaminated
materials (after draining) which provide little or no energy when burned, such as soil or clay-
based sorbents, are not subject to Part 279 ,. Whether a material is “burned for energy recovery”
depends on the type of materials being burned and the combustion equipment being used. For
purposes of the EPA regulations governing boilers and industrial furnaces, burning for energy
recovery is limited to materials that have a heating value of at least 5,000 BTUsfpound (see, 40
CFR 266.100(c)(2Xii); 56 EB 7134, 7143, February 21, 1991). EPA believes it is reasonable and
consistent with the regulations to apply tile same interpretation under Part 279. Of course, an
authorized state may interpret what constitutes “burning for energy recovery” more stringently
than EPA and that interpretation could be controlling to the extent that the state’s used oil
management standards are in effect (as distinguished from the federal used oil management
standards set out at 40 CFR Part 279)..
igi Vege e 01 Based Inks en 100% Recyded Paper (40% Posiconsumef)
-------
Any material from which free-flowing used oil has been drained and that is subject to a
hazardous waste determination as described in 40 CFR Part 262.11 may therefgre be subject to
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C regulation as hn rdous waste. Materials
that do not meet the definition of hwz rdous waste may still be subject to other applicable
Federal, State, and local solid waste regulations.
Thank you for your interest in the safe and proper management of used oil.
• Sincerely,
Shapiro, Director
of Solid Waste
-------
• MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
• November 1996
9592.1996(05)
1. , Coolant Recycling and Used Oil
Processing
A used oil generator uses an on-sire
filtration system to filter contaminants from
metal working oils, commonly known as
coolants, in order to extend the life of these
oils. Is such on-site coolant recycling by the
used oil generator considered used oil
processing under 40 CFR Part 279?.
• On-site coolant recycling by. a generator is
not considered used oil processing if done in
accordance with §279.20(b)(2)(ii). Processing
is defined in §279.1 as,”chernical or physical
operations designed to produce fràm used oil,
or to niake used oil more amenable •for
production of fuel oils, 1 ibricants or other
us d oil-derived produ t” Processing
includes, but is not limited to: blending used
oil with virgin petroleum products, blending
used oils to meet the fuel specification,
filtration, simple distillation, chemical or
physical separation, and re-refining. Whether
used oil is being processed depends on the
purpose for which the used oil is being
filtered, separated, or otherwise reconditioned.
These activities constitute processing if they
are intended to produce used oil derived
products or facilitate the burning of used oil
for energy recovery.
Coolant recycling, which includes the on-
site maintenance, filtering, separation,
recqnditioning. or draining of coolants used in
machining operations, is intended to extend
the life of the oil and is incidental to the
production process. This type of recycling is
incidental or ancillary to a primary processing
activity nd is not intended to produce used oil
derived products or facilitate burning for
energy recovery. Therefore, EPA did not
intend to regulate these practices as used oil
processing (59 EE 10555-6; Marclr4, 1994).
Such coolant recycling is not considered
processing as long as the coolant is generated
on site and is not being sent directly off site to
a burner of used oil. The generator (or
collection center or aggregation point) mustS
comply with the requirements set forth in
§279.20(b)(2)(ii).
-------
This Pap Intentionally Left Blank
-------
2. Recycling Presumption Under Part
279.
According ta fOt?R ä279 10(a), used oil
handlers are subject ‘to the Part 279 used oil
management stan , ‘4izmtil the used oil is
disposed of or sent for disposaL How is a
used oil generator regulated If he/she sends
used oil to a präcessor to be recycled, but the
processor disposes of it instead? In this
situation, is the generator required to
determine if the used oil is hazardous, since it
was not recycled?
No, the generator is not required to
conduct a hazardous waste determination for
the used oil originally sent to the processor to
be recycled. The Past 279 used oil
management standards are based on a•
presumption that all used oil is recyclable and
should be manage4 under one étof standards.
Even if the used oil exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic or will ultimately be disposed of
by a different used oil handler, it is still
subject to Part 279 (57 EE 41578;
September 10, 1992). The recycling -.
presumption allows a: used oil handler or any
other person who handles the oil prior to the
person who decides to dispose of the oil, to
presume that his/her used oil will be recycled
regardless of its final disposition.
Once a used oil handler determines the
used oil will be sent for-disposal, he/she must
conduct a hazardous waste determination
pursuant to §262.11. Since used oil is not a
listed hazardous waste under RCRA, it would
be subject to all applicable Subtitle C
regulations if it exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic. Additionally, the recycling
presumption and the Part 279 standards do not
apply if the used oil is mixed with a listed
hazardous waste (except for a conditionally
exempt small quantity generator (40 CFR
§279.l0(b)(3)), or mixed with a characteristic
hazardous waste which does not n eet the
provisions of §279.10(b)(2). Inéitherpf these
situations, the used oil/hazardous .vaste
inixture would be su t.th b itf ci;
regulation.
Finally, not all of.the feder al Part 279
standards are effective in every state. Used oil
handlers should contact their state agencies for
specific regulatory requirements which could,
potentially, be more stringent than the federal
standards.
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
November 1996
• 9592.1996(06)
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
3. State Authorization and Used Oil
Recycled Through Some Other
Means Than Burning For Energy
Recovery
In a state where the 40 CFR Part 279 used
oil management standards are not in effect,
how does Federal EPA regulate generators
who recycle their used oilby sending it to be
re-refined?
In states where Part 279 is not in effect,
EPA does not regulate used oil that is recycled
in some manner other than by being burned for
energy recovery, including re-refining. On
November 29, 19 5 (50 EK 49164), EPA
established regulations for recycled used oil
that is burned for energy recovery (Part 266,
Subpart E). At the same time, the Agency
exempted characteristic used oil from
regulation if it was recycled through some
other means than burning for energy recovery
( 26 1 .6(a)(3) (iii)).
On September 10, 1992 (57 ER. 41566), the
Agency established a new program in Part 279
expanding the regulation of used oil recycling
activities to include other methods than
burning for energy recovery. The Agency also
repealed §261 .6(a)(3)(iii), and replaced it with
a new provision that exempts recycled used oil
from the requirements of Parts 260 through
268 and subjects it to Part 279 ( 261.6(a)(4)).
Since Part 279.hasbèefltre Cd similar to
regulations pro gatelur der the iuthority of
non HSWA St to qi ment, the Part
27 regulations are onyin.e t in.
unauthorized states and states with EPA-
approved programs.
iJnllke the newer Part 279 regulations, the
Part 266, SubpartE and §261. (a)(3)(iii)
regulatory program was effective in all states,
regardless of the state’s authorization status.
Although the Agency repealed Part 266,
Subpart E, when it promulgated Part 279, in
states that have not modified Their state
program to adopt Part 279, the pre-1992
exemption for used oil recycled through some
other means than burning for energy recovery
may still apply. In these states, generators
who recycle used oil through methods that do
not involve burning for energy recovery,
including re-refining, are not regulated.
Finally, states may have additional used oil
regulations. Regardless of the effective status
of the federal regulations in Part 279 and Part
266, Subpart E, used oil handlers should refer
to their appropriate state agency for any further
used oil regulatory requirements.
• MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
November1996
9592.1996(07)
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
,os .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHING1pN, D.C. 20460
L pgO1
NOV 2 1 1996 9592.1996(08)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Bryan W. Dixon, P.E., Director
Municipal Solid Waste Division•.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711—3087
Dear Mr. Dixon:
This letter is in response to your letter dated June 12,
1996 concerning on—specification used oil. specifically, you
requested clarification of the applicability of 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 279-to -used oi1 that meets
specifications.
The requirements for on-specification used oil are described
in §279.11 of the Used. Oil Management Standards. Used oil that
is to be burned for energy recovery and that meets the fuel
specifications of §279.11 is not subject to the requirements of
Part 279 once the condi iofls at §279.72, §279.73, and §279.74(b)
are met, and so long as the used oil is not mixed or contaminated
with hazardous waste.. On—specification used oil that is re—.
ref med or disposed, rather than burned for energy reccvery, is
subject to all applicable requirements of .Part 279.
The requirements at §279.72, §279.73 and §279.74(b) for
handling on-specification used oil apply to the first person to
claim that the rnused oil is to be burned for energy recovery and
that it meets the f iel specifications. For example, a service
statio’ndealer.that generates used oil and claims that it is to
be burned for energy recovery and that it meets the fuel
specifications must test the oil to show that it is on—
specification as well as notify EPA and obtain an identification
number. These requirements must be iet prior to the used oil
being shipped as on-specification used oil - the u ed oil cannot
be shipped under the assumption that it is or will be blended
into on-specification used oil.- see §279.72(a) and
§279.61(b)(2). Any used oil handler that blends used oil in
order to meet the specificatiPfl is ‘a used oil processor and
subject to Subpart F of Part- 279.
In addition, the regulatory status of used oil must be
reevaluated prior to re-refining or disposingof on_specification
used oil. A used oil handler must reevaluate the regulatory
• Q ’ RecycledlRecyclablo
Q pdntad with SoyICsIlO S Ink On paper %It
contain s at liszt 50% ii ydSd fiber
-------
status of the on-specification used oil if some action ‘is taken
that may affect the chemical or physical properties •of the’ used
oil, for example mixing the used oil with something other than
on-specification used oil or fuel, or storage’ under conditions
that may contaminate the used oil.- If the used oil, a resultant
mixture of the used .oil and a fuel, .or any processed derivative
of the used o’i] . does not meet the fuel specification, ‘the used
oil must be handled as an off—specification used oil.
Specific management of on-specification used oil
conditionally excluded from Part 279 (upon satisfying the
requirements of (279.72, (279.73 and (279.74(b)) may. still be
subject to regul’ation under other Federal statutes as well as
state regulations. Used oil may be covered by regulations’
concerning storage under the Spill Prevention ,Control and
Countermeasures regulations at 40 CFR Part 112 as well as the
Underground and Aboveground Storage Tank, requirements at 40 CFR
Part. 280 and transportation requirements promulgated by the
Department of Transportation.
I hope this informatior is helpful to you as you work
through ‘used ‘oil issues with your regulated community and other
state environmental agencies.’ -
S incer ly ‘yours,
M’ ha 1 Shapiro, Director
fic of Solid Waste
-------
1. Rebuttable Presumption for CFC
Contaminated Used Oil
EPA presumes used oil containing more
than 1,000 ppm total halogens is a hazardous
waste because it has been mixed with a listed
halogenated hazardous waste. Used oil
generators may rebut this preswnption by
demonstrating that the used oil does not
contain hazardous waste (p279. I0(b)(1)(ii)).
The rebuttable presumption, however , does
not apply to used oils contaminated with
chiorofluorocarbons (CFCs) removed from
refrigeration units when the CFCs in the us d
oil are “destii edf rr câmiizio fl -
(279. JO b 1)(iiJ . At ‘hdt ô int dothhis
e.xemptionfroin the thb(epiicithipt?on
apply—at the unit.
or only once the CFCs znthe used oil have
actually:been claizned?ZAdditionaily, would
a generator or handler reclaiminl the CFCs -
from the used oil be considerida processor;
subject to the standards for used oil
processors and re-refiners in Part 279,
Subpart F?
• A generator handling CEC contaminated
used oil is exempt from the rebuttable
presumption at the point of draining, as long
as the CFCs are eventually reclaimed from the
used oil to the fullest extent possible, and the
used oil has not been mixed with other wastes
or with used oil from other sources (57 ER
41580; September 10, 1992). Although the
rebuttable presumption does not apply, these
used oils remain subject to appropriate Part
279 standards.
In the event the CFCs are not reclaimed,
the rebuttable presumption would have
applied at the p int.of draining from the unit.
If the presence of CFCs in compressor oils
removed from refrigeration units cause the-
used oils to exceed the 1,000 ppm halogen
limit, the oil must be managed as a hazardous
waste unless the presumption of hazardous
waste mixing is successfully rebutted.
On-site CFC reclamation by a used oil
generator does not necessarily subject the
generator to the standards for used oil
processors. l . sed oil processing, as defined in
§279.1, involves producing (or making used
oil more amenable for the production of) fuel
oils, lubricants or other used oil-derived.
products. HQ er , 279.20(b)(2)(ji)(A)
provides that jeneratdrs who fliter, clean, or
other ise au before
returning ii generator are not
.processofs ; nerated on-site
and is nol -. - to a burner of
used oil. Eqrther nore, the used o1IICFC -
separation process is generally not designed to
make the used oil more amenable for the
production of used oil derived product.
Likewise, off-site used 0ilICFC separation by
a used oil handler does not necessarily subject
the handler to the standards for used oil
processors. Rather, a handler storing used oil
on site for greater than 24 hours but less than
35dayi is regulated as a tiansfer facility.
Only a handler storing the used oil on site for
greater than 35 days would become subject to
the processor requirements ( 279.45(a)). This
is true fo any transfer facility storing used oil
for more than 35 days, regardless of whether
the facility is engaged in CFC reclamation.
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
December 1996 . .
9592.1996(09)
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9 S7 4
4
4.
‘ PIlO1 ’
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1997(01)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
management standards to vegetable oil and animal oil
Rich Vaille, Chief
State Programs & Compliance Branch
This is ii1 sponse to your December 5, 1996 memorandum concerning the regulatory status
of vegetable oil and animal oil under the used oil regulations at 40 CFR 279. Your memorandum
requests clarification on whether the definition of used oil includes animal and vegetable oils.
The used oil management rules define “used oil” in 40 CFR § 279.1. as “any oil that has been
refined from crude oil, or any synthetic oil that has been used and as a result of such use is
contaminated by chemical or physical impurities.” Since animal and vegetable oils are not
synthetic or derived from crude oil, they are not regulated as used oil under the used oil
management standards. A more detailed discussion of the definition of used oil may be found in
the preamble discussion to the used oil management standards in the September 10, 1992 Federal
Register (57 FR 41566, 41573 -41574).
I hope this information is helpfi.zI to you. For further information regarding the used oil
regulations, please call Rita Cestaric at (703) 308-0769.
Q Q ;) Recycled/Recyclable
Punted with SoylCanola ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
FEB 71997
of Solid Waste
-------
DEC 0 S• 1996
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Clarification of veg abl oil and animal oil in the definition of used oil.
i1tL
Rich Vaille, Chiefl\
Sta 9?ograms & Compliance Branch
/ Xi
Mich 5 e1 Shapiro, Director
9 fThe of Solid Waste
We have had a request for the interpretation of vegetable oil and animal oil under the
used oil regulations
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control is going to regulate this oil as
synthetic oil under their used oil regulations. In order to clarif ’ the intent of regulation of
synthetic oils under RCRA we are requesting a letter from your office.
A member of my staff spoke to Rita Cestaric, of your staff, and she indicated that this
letter would be more official than the RCRA hotline question and answer report which is
currently under OGC review
We need the clarification for the requestor and the other states in our region.
Thanks for your consideration.
\, \
-------
9592.1997(02)
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
April 1997
1. The Definition of Used Oil
The standards for the management of
recycled used oil in 40 CFR Part 279 define
used oil as “any oil that has been refined from
crude oiL or any synthetic oil, that has been
used and as a result of such use is
contaminated by physical, or chemical
impurities.” Does this definition include
materials den ved from crude oil, such as
perroleu n-based solvents or antifreeze?
Petroleum-based solvents and antifreeze
are not included in the definition of used oil
under Part 279. The definition of used oil is
based on three criteria: origin, use, and
concariunation. A material must meet all three
parts to be defined as used oil under Part 279.
First, the used oil must be derived from
crude oil or synthetic oil (i.e.. derived from
coal, shale, or polymers). Examples of crude-
oil derived oils and synthetic oils are motor
oil, mineral oil, laminating surface agents and
metalworking oils. The origin-based
definition would not include animal and
vegetable oils. Second, the oil must have been
used as a lubricant, coolant, heat (non-contact)
transfer fluid, hydrauhc fluid, or for a similar
use. Lubricants include, but are not limited to,
used motor oil, metalworking lubricants, and
emulsions. An example of a hydraulic fluid is
transmission fluid. Heat transfer fluids can be
materials such as coolants, heating media,
refrigeration oils, and electrical insulation oils.
Authorized states or regions determine what is
considered a “similar use” on a site-specific
basis according to whether the material is used
and managed in a manner consistent with Part
279 (e.g.. used as a buoyant). Third. the used
oil must be contaminated by physical (e.g.,
high water content) or chemical (e.g., lead.
halogens, or other hazardous constituents)
impurities as a result of use.
Petroleum-based solvents are not
considered to be used oil because solvent use
does not meet the use-based criterion.
Petroleum-based solvent used for its solvent
properties, that is to solubilize (dissolve) or
mobilize other constituents, is not use as a
lubncant, heat transfer fluid, hydraulic fluid,
or similar use (see 57 EB 41566, 41575).
Antifreeze also is not regulated as used oil
under Part 279. Although it is possible for
antifreeze to meet all three criteria for used
oil, EPA does not intend to regulate antifreeze
as used oil, and encourages it to be recycled
separately.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9592.1997(03)
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
July 1997
1. Self-Transportation of Used Oil by
Service Contractors
Used oil generators must ensure that all
shipments of used oil in quantities greater
than 55 gallons are transported off site only
by transporters with EPA identification
numbers. Generators may transport up to 55
gallons of used oil in their own vehicles (se
transport) without an EPA identification
number, provided the used oil is either
produced at the generator’s sire or collected
from do-iz-yourselfers, and provided the used
oil is sent to an approved collection center or
an aggregation point owned or operated by
the generator (40 CFR §2 79.24). If a facility
hires a contractor to come on sire and service
equipment containing used oil, provided the
contractor complies with the requirements of
§2 79.24, can the contractor se f -transport the
used oil generated from servicing the
equipment without an EPA idenr fication
number?
The contractor can self-transport up to 55
gallons of used oil to a collection center or an
aggregation point without an EPA
identification number because he also
qualifies as the generator of that used oil. The
definition of used oil generator includes “any
person, by site, whose act or process produces
used oil or whose act first causes used oil to
become subject to regulation” ( 279. 1). A
contractor, therefore, that comes on site and
services equipment containing used oil is a
used oil generator, because the .contractor’s act
— of servicing and removing used oil from
equipment first causes the used oil to be
subject to regulation. As a generator, such a
contractor may self-transport up to 55-gallons
of used oil without an EPA identification
number pursuant to §274.24.
This situation is analogous to the one
described in the September 10, 1992,
preamble discussion of used oil generated on
ships in which the owner or operator of the
ship or vessel and the person or persons
removing or accepting the oil from the vessel
are considered to be “co-generators” of the
used oil (57 EB 41566; 41585). Similarly,
both the owner or operator of the equipment
and the person removing used oil from the
equipment may be considered “co-generators”
of the used oil, and both parties are
responsible for managing the used oil in
accordance with used oil generator standards
of Part 279, Subpart C. The co-generators
may decide which of the parties will fulfill the
generator requirements. Either co-generator
can self-transport the used oil under the
• provisions of §279.24 without an EPA
identification number, provided no more than
55 gallons of used oil are transported at any
one time, provided the used oil is transported
in vehicles owned by the co-generator or
owned by an employee of the co-generator,
and provided the used oil is sent to an
approved collection center or to an
aggregation point owned or operated by the
co-generator who is self-transporting the used
oil.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
RCRA
1. Lead.Acld Batteries and Universal
Waste
How do the Part273, Standard c for
Universal Waste Management, affect the
management of lead-acid batteries regulated
under the Parr 266, Subpart G, regulations for
spent lead-acid batteries being reclaimed?
Lead-acid batteries that are managed under
Part 266, Subpart G, are not subject to the
universal waste management standards. The
universal management standards only apply to
those lead-acid batteries that are not nanaged
under Part 266, Subpart 0. The existing
recycling program for automotive lead-acid
batteries has been exu emely successful, with
recycling rates in excess of 90 percent
nationwide. By retaining the Part 266,
Subpart 0, requirements. EPA can continue
to operate this program without modification
or adverse effect on the environn nt . EPA
expects that most non-automotive lead-acid
batteries will be managed under Part 273 (60
25492,25505; May 11. 1995).
December 1995
9593 . 1995 (01)
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
£‘ 11% UNiTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20480
1L
9593.1996(01)
APR I 7 1996
OFFICE OF
SCUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. William K. Taggart
Lion Technology Inc.
P.O. Drawer 700
Lafayette, New Jersey 07848
Dear Mr. Taggart:
Thank you for your letter of August 25, 1995. I apologize
for the delayed response. In your letter you ask if, in the
recent revision to 40 CFR 261.50 in the Universal Waste Final
rule (60 E. 25492), the EPA intended to subject the following
waste types to substantive hazardous waste regulations (including
the Land Disposal Restrictions at 40 CFR Part 268): 1) Waste that
is generated and managed under Clean Water Act regulated systems
without intervening RcRA—regulated accumulation or management;
and 2) Waste that is generated and then inserted directly into a
reclamation device where it is regenerated for future use.
After careful review of the amended 40 CFR 261.5 Cc), the
Agency agrees that it has inadvertently subjected generators of
the aforementioned wastes as well as treatability study samples
described at 40 CFR 261.4(e) to substantive regulation, and as a
consequence, to the one-time LDR notification requirement of 40
CFR 268.7(a) (6). The Agency did not intend such a result.
Instead, the Agency intended to specify that 40 CFR 261.5© should
be used to make generator quantity determinations, and t,o specify
which wastes are counted towards the quantity generated. In
addition, the Agency red.rafted 40 CFR 261.50 to clarify that
hazardous waste generators are not required to count universal
wastes managed under Part 273 requirementS toward the monthly
quantity calculation used to determine generator regulatory
status. -
The Agency agrees that the revised 40 CFR 261.5© regulatory
language will need to be amended in order to reinstate the
previous provisions. Such a revision will require the Agency to
publish a technical correction in the Federal Register . The
Agency will do so in the near future. In the meantime, I will
inform the EPA Regional offices of this matter.
Racycl.dlROCyd3b4S • Pdnled 1 1 Vege bIe Oil Based Inks cn 100% Recyded Paper (40% os ns sI1er)
-------
If you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please contact Bryan Groce of my staff at(202) 260-9550.
Sincerely yours,
Shapiro, Director
Solid Waste
Off i
-------
LiC !i P.O. Drawer 700
T (H filf)1 1)f # 1kV’ Lafayette. New Jersey 07848
II (201) 383-0800
August 25, 1995
Mr. Michael Shapiro -
Director
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Recent regulatory amendment to 40 CFR 261.5, May 11, 1995.
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
As an instructor with Lion Technology Inc., I present many Hazardous Waste Management
workshops to thousands of people across the lJrüted States each year. It is therefore important
that I have a solid understanding of the details of the hazardous waste regulations.
I am writing to obtain clarification regarding a recent change to the hazardous waste regulations,
which was made as part of the “Universal Waste” rulemaking. I believe that certain regulatory
language was inadvertently omitted, which resulted in a change in the status of certain wastes
With regards to the Land Disposal Restriction regulations (LDRs).
In the May 11, 1995 Federal Register, EPA published the final rule for Universal Wastes. As part
of this rulemaking, the language of 40 CFR 261.5(c) was changed to specify that §261.5(c) is to
be used in making a generator’s quantity determinations, and to specify which wastes were not
required to be counted towards the quantity generated.
Prior to this change, §261.5(c) stated:
“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
determirv tions of this Part and Parts 262 through 266, 268 and 270 and is not
subject to any of the requirements of those Parts.” [ Emphasis added]
In the Federal Registez on March 24, 1986, EPA explained that this was meant to address wastes
which met the definition of hazardous waste, but were never subject to “substantive regulation”
under RCRA. The term “not subject to substantive regulation” for the purposes of this provision
was discussed in some detail [ 51 FR 10152].
Under this previous regulatory language, a waste which was generated and then immediately
managed in CWA-regulated systems with no intervening RCRA-regulated accumulation or
management was not considered to be “subject to substantive regulation”, and was therefore
excluded not only from the requirement to be counted towards a generator’s monthly total, but
Continued...
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro Page 2 of 2 August 25, 1995
U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
was also excluded from the substantive requirements of the hazardous waste management
regulations. This meant that the waste was not subject to LDRs.
The same would be true of a hazardous waste that was generated directly into a reclamation
device, where it was regenerated for future use. The waste was not subject to substantive
regulation and was therefore “not subject to any of the requirements” of Parts 262-266, 268 and
270. LDRs did not apply.
As a result of the May 11, 1995 Universal Waste rulemaking, §261.5(c) was changed such that
the language “hazardous waste that is not subject to regulation” and “is not subject to the
requirements of those Parts” was completely omitted. The current language of §2615(c), as
rnodiuied by the Universal Waste rulemaking, changed the approach to this issue and instead
provides a list of the wastes that do not have to be counted when making quantity
determinations.
This means that these wastes are not required to be counted, but there is no provision that these
wastes are not subject to the rest of the hazardous waste regulations, as there was previously.
This would mean that a waste managed as described above would be subject to LDRs, and at a
minimum, a “one-time notice” would have to be prepared and maintained on file as required
by 40 CFR 268.7(a)(6).
I believe that the effect of this change regarding LDR status of these wastes is a substantive
regulatory change, and I believe that it was unintended. If it was the Agency’s intent to change
this rule specifically so that these waste become subject to LDRs, this needs to be darified
through proper rulemaking, as it was not discussed in the Universal Waste rulemaking.
Either way, I would like to know the Agency’s position on this issue, as I have had and continue
to get questions on this issue from students in my workshops.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this issue. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
UON TECHNOLOGY INC.
William K. Taggart
-------
1. Frequently Asked Questions on the
Universal Waste Regulations
Which hazardous wastes are covered
under the universal waste regulations in 40
CFRPart273?
Currently, the three specific wastes covered
under Part 273 are hazardous waste batteries
(e.g., nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries),
hazardous waste pesticides, and hazardous
waste mercury-containing thermostats
( 273.1). Part 273, SubpartG, contains
provisions to allow for other wastes to be
added to the universal waste regulations
through a petitioning process. As such, new
wastes, such as mercury lamps, may be added
in the future.
Are universal waste handlers required to
manage spent lead-acid batteries under 40
CFR Part 266, Subpart G, or under Part 273?
Handlers may actually choose the
management standards with which they will
comply. That is, they may either manage their
batteries under the standards provided in
Subpart G of Part 266 for spent lead-acid
batteries that are being reclaimed, or they may
comply with the universal waste regulations in
Part273(6OE 255O5;May 11, 1995).
What are the notification requirements for
Large Quantity Hdizdlers of Universal Waste
(LQHUW) and Small Quantity Handlers of
Universal Waste (SQHUW)?
The universal waste regulations specify two
distinct forms of notification for handlers of
universal waste: a one-time written
notification of universal waste management
activity, and the acquisition of an EPA
identification number. SQHUWs are not
required to notify EPA of their universal waste
activity, nor are Ihey required to obtain an
EPA identification number ( 273.l2).
LQHUWs, however, must submit the one-time
written notificatiçn and must also obtain an
EPA identification number ( 273.32).
Renotification is not required for a LQHUW
who has previously notified EPA of univer al
waste management activities and who has
already received an EPA identification
number (6OEE25521; May 11, 1995).
Do the unIversal waste regulations contain
a provision similar to the generator satellite
accumulation provisions in §262.34(c)?
There is no specific provision under Part 273
for satellite accumulation. However, the
universal waste regulations do not limit the
location, or number of locations, at which a
handler may accumulate universal wastes.
Thus, a handler may accumulate universal
wastes at or near the point of generation and
may do so, in general, for up to one year (60
E 25527; May 11, 1995).
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORTS
May1996
9593.1996(02)
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
- February 1997
9593.1997(01)
3. Universal Waste Consolidation Point
Regulation
The universal waste management
standards of 40 CFR Pan 273 outline the
streamlined provisions fc.r handlers,
transporters, and destination facilities that
manage universal wastes. Section 273.6
defines a universal waste as hazardous
batteries, pesticides, and thermostats. A
handler, defined as a generator of universal
waste (i.e., any person, by site, whose act or
process produces hazardous waste or whose
act first causes waste to become subject to
regulation) is allowed to accumulate waste on
site for up to one year. If a facility is nat a
generator of universal waste, yet is receiving
universal waste and functioning as a
consolidation and/or collection point, would
the faciLity be regulated under the universal
waste regulations?
Yes, the facility would be regulated under
the universal waste regulations if it is
consolidating and/or collecting universal waste
from generators or other handlers. The
definition of a universal waste handler includes
facilities that receive universal waste from
other handlers ( 273.6). A facility is allowed
to consolidate and/or collect universal waste,
provided the waste is sent on to other handlers,
recyclers, or treatment/disposal facilities (60
f , 25500; May 11, 1995). Moreover, if the
facility has several locations at which universal
wastes are consolidated and/or collected, each
location would be regulated as a separate
handler. Additional RCRA requirements may
apply if the facility is handling other types of
hazardous waste (i.e., non-universal waste).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9593.1997(02)
FE 13 1991 , OFFICEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: nivbrsal Waste Questions and Answers Document
FROM: e o
Offi Solid Waste
TO: Senior RCRA Policy Managers
Regions I-X
Since the promulgation of the May 11, 1995 Universal Waste rule (60 FR 25492), several
States have begun to adopt the Federal program. As a result, many questions have been raised
with respect to State implementation and enforcement for hazardous wastes coyered under the
Universal Waste Federal program. Further, States have asked the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Regional Offices for guidance on adding other types of hazardous waste to their
State universal, waste programs. To assist those States during their implementation process and
to provide you with the Agency’s position on these issues, the Office of Solid Waste has prepared
a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document. The Q&A document also addresses other issues
related to universal waste m iiagement (e.g., universal waste generation and transportation
issues). I have attached the.docunieñt for your information and encourage you to share it with the
appropriate State Officials.
If you have any questions regarding State authorization, please contact Wayne Roepe at
(703) 308-8630. If you have other questions regarding universal waste management, please
contact Bxyan Groce of my staff at (703) 308-8750.
Attachment
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions l-X
State Authorization Section Chiefs, Regions I-X
RCRA Community Relations Coordinators, Regions I-X
RCRA Enforcement Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
. Ptlnied w S vege e Cd Based Inks on 100% Recyøed Paper (40% PosLconsumer
-------
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS -- UNIVERSAL WASTES (UW)
1. Can a state include additibnal wastes in its uw program at
the same time that it establishes the program and then submit
both the program and the additional UW to EPA for authorization
review at the same time? For example, can a state adopt a UW
rule that regulates fluorescent bulbs and antifreeze as UW?
Yes, a state can designate additional waste streams as UW at the
same time that it creates its own UW rule. However, it must
find that the wastes meet its criteria for inclusion in the UW
program, and its criteria must be analogous to the federal
criteria set out in 273.81. See preamble to final UW rule at 60
FR 25512, 25537. The state need not submit the new wastes to EPA
for authorization. EPA will review and authorize the state’s UW
program (including the criteria for adding wastes to the program)
and the 3 waste streams included in the federal program. EPA
will not conduct any authorization review on any additional,
state-only tJW.
EPA, however, requests that states send copies of tentative
decisions to include new wastes (and proposed management
standards for such wastes) to the appropriate EPA Regional Office
to give EPA an opportunity to comment. See the response to
question 5 for more detail on this process.
2. Can a state itself petition the Agency to add wastes to the
federal UW rules - or does the petition have to come from a
private party?
A state itself can petition.
3. a. How will the petition process work at the state level?
Will it require public participation and rulemaking to add a UW
to an authorized state program?
EPA is requiring states to adopt petition procedures equivalent
to the federal petition procedures. This requires states to
provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on any
tentative decision to grant or deny a petition to include new
universal wastes. See the preamble at 60 FR 25537. EPA also
assumes that the state will need to follow its normal rulemaking
procedures to create any new management standards needed for the
new UW.
b. How will EPA adopt a UW - using the Federal Register and
public comment process?
Yes. As required by 40 CFR 260.20 (C). if EPA receives a UW
petition, it will publish a notice of tentative decision and
announce a comment period in the Federal Recdster . After
considering all comments, EPA will publish notice of its final
2
-------
decision in the Federal Register . The same process applies to
both decisions to grant and to decisions to deny petitions.
4.a. Can a state add wastes that are state-only hazardous
wastes?
Yes. State hazardous waste programs can be more stringent and
broader in scope than federal programs. Consequently, states may
regulate as “state-only” hazardous wastes materials that are only
solid wastes under the federal program. States may streamline
their regulation of these “state-only” hazardous wastes by
including them in their UW programs.
b. Can a state add wastes that are non-hazardous?
Yes. A state could add non-hazardous solid wastes to its UW
program by designating such wastes as state-only hazardous wastes
and then designating them as UW wastes. Such wastes would be
subject to the state’s ordinary hazardous waste requirements for
treatment and disposal. EPA assumes that states would want this
result, because they probably would designate nonhazardous wastes
as universal wastes to divert them from the nonhazardous waste
disposal facilities that currently handle them. If, however, a
state determined that some aspects of its hazardous waste
management regime should not apply to these state-only hazardous
wastes, it could create exemptions. (Exemptions would be
permissible since the wastes would not be regulated as hazardous
wastes under the federal program.)
One exception applies. A state may not designate as a tiW
any waste that is hazardous under the federal program due to a
rule promulgated under HSWA authority for which the state is not
authorized. (For example, a state that was not authorized for
the Toxicity Characteristic could not designate a waste that
exhibited the TC as a universal waste. See the preamble to the
final rule at 25537.)
5. After a state has adopted and is authorized for the UWR -
does the state have ultimate decision-making authority to add
wastes or does EPA still have involvement? And what is EPA’S role
during the petition process, post authorization?
States authorized for the UW rule will not be required to submit
program revisions for any addition of wastes to their UW program.
EPA requests that states send a copy of their tentative findings
and any draft regulations for managing the new, state-only
universal wastes to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. This
will provide EPA with an opportunity to comment on the state’s
proposed action. EPA encourages states to coordinate EPA’S
review and comment with the opportunity to comment that the state
must provide for the public.
3
-------
If EPA finds that a state has added wastes that do not qualify,
or that the management standards are not sufficiently protective,
and that, as a result, the state’s program is less stringent than
the federal program, EPA has authority to withdraw authorization
of the state’s hazardous waste program as provided in Part 271.
EPA will not conduct any authorization review of the new
state-only 13W and new management standards.. EPA takes the
position that, when it authorizes a state to add wastes to the 13W
category, it authorizes in advance the state’s new, state-only
universal wastes and the management standards for such wastes.
All changes to state regulations needed to implement aUW program
f or the new 13W automatically become part of the authorized state
program once they take effect under state law.
6a. When will the EPA rule on fluorescent lights be final
(designation as a Federal 13W vs. management as solid waste)?
EPA has not yet decided when it will promulgate a final rule
regarding regulation of fluorescent lamps as discussed in the
July 1994 proposal.
b. What happens if a state adds fluorescent lamps to its UWR and
then EPA decides to come out with a conditional exemption for
fluorescent lamps?
If the conditional exemption is less stringent than the state 13W
rule, the state would have the option of adopting the exemption,
but would not be required to do so.
7.a. Where do LDR recordkeeping requirements fit in --- only at
the final destination facility?
Yes.
b. Is the destination facility responsible (liable) for
identifying the treatment standards/technologies and filling out
certification forms?
Yes. The destination facility is the first entity that handles a
13W that is responsible for compliance with any of the LDR
requirements, including recordkeeping. For 13W handlers that are
not subject to the LDR rules, the prohibitions on dilution under
the 13W program provide the same protection as the dilution
prohibition under the LDR program. (See. e.g., 40 CFR 273.11.)
8.a. Are all batteries included in the Federal UWR, or just those
considered hazardous?
4
-------
EPA’S federal UW program does not apply to all batteries. The
exceptions are listed in 40 CFR 273.2(b). Generally, the
battery must first be a waste. (Note that unused batteries are
not always wastes - - someone must first make a decision to
discard them (i.e., treat, recycle, or dispose of the unused
batteries)). Next, the battery must be classified as a hazardous
waste under either a hazardous waste listing or a characteristic
test and must not be generated by a household. One category of
batteries which are both wastes and hazardous wastes is
nevertheless exempt from the UW regulations in Part 273: spent
lead-acid batteries managed under 40 CFR Part 266. Finally, the
recently enacted “Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery
Management Act” changes states’ options for regulating some
batteries which are hazardous waste under RCRA. Specifically,
the law prohibits states from imposing requirements that are not
identical to those found in the May 11, 1995 Universal Waste rule
for the following types of hazardous waste batteries: used
rechargeab].e batteries, lead-acid batteries not covered by 40 CFR
part 266 subpart G, rechargeable alkaline products, certain
mercury-containing batteries banned from domestic sale, and used
consumer products containing rechargeable batteries that are not
easily removable. The law does allow states to implement and
enforce collection, storage, and transport requirements identical
to those included in the Universal Waste rule.
b. Do lead acid batteries fall under the UWR or do they stay
under the lead-acid battery exemption?
Under the federal program, lead acid batteries are managed under
Part 266, subpart G rather than the UW program. EPA chose to
retain the Part 266 standards for these batteries to avoid
disrupting the existing recycling program for such batteries
because they provide for protection of human health and the
environment and because they have been highly successful (with
recycling rates in excess of 90 percent). States, however,
retain the authority to regulate lead-acid batteries more
stringently. Hence, they may choose to regulate lead acid
batteries under their UW programs.
9. A handler who transports UW is considered a UW transporter.
Is this for any quantity of UW (i.e., in the used oil regulations
a used oil generator can transport up to 55 gallons of their own
used oil without being considered a used oil transporter)?
Yes, all handlers who transport any quantity of UW must .meet the
TJW transporter requirements. There is no de minimis exemption
like the one in the used oil program.
10. Would a program consisting of a state-sponsored network of
handler locations at private businesses be considered a “waste
pesticide collection program”?
5
-------
Yes. Part 273 does not require states to operate the waste
pesticide collection programs described in 40 CFR §273.3 (a) (2) in
order for the pesticides managed under such programs to be
eligible for the UW program.
11. As the UWR is implemented, do the traditional liability
issues change? For example, who is liable for any mismanag znent
of a UW at a handler location, in transit, and at the destination
facility? Are any and all handlers liable for mismanagement at a
destination facility or at subsequent handlers? Or, just the
“final handler” that chooses the destination facility? Do we
lose cradle-to-grave responsibility with UWR?
Under the full Subtitle C program, only the waste handler that
violates a hazardous waste regulation is “liable” (i.e., subject
to enforcement) for that violation. Generators of hazardous
waste are not responsible for mismanagement by subsequent waste
handlers. The UW rule does not change this allocation of
responsibility.
Generators are responsible for subsequent mismanagement -
under CERCL , however. The UW rule does not change CERCLA
liability. Since UW are still hazardous wastes, persons who
generate UW remain liable under CERCLA for rexnediation of any
releases of tJW.
12. When UW is shipped to a destination facility, does it have
to be relabeled as HW at that facility, or will UW labeling be
sufficient?
Universal wastes remain hazardous wastes. Destination facilities
must comply with all currently applicable requirements for
hazardous waste management facilities. However, none of these
regulations require facility owners or operators to relabel the
containers holding universal wastes.
-l3.a Handlers can keep UW on site up to one year after the date
it is received or generated. A year after a handler has received
a UW, can the UW go to another handler, or must it go to
destination facility?
Universal waste can only be sent off-site to another universal
•waste handler, destination facility, or foreign destination.
Theoretically, each receiving facility could accumulate the waste
for an entire year before sending it off to another handler,
however, the regulatory impact analysis EPA prepared for the UW
rulemaking indicates that there is no economic incentive for
retaining UW for such long periods.
b. Within that year, can the UW go to several handlers?
Yes, but states can adopt a more stringent rule that would
prevent this. Also, although €heoretically wastes could go from
6
-------
one collection facility to another forever, the regulatory impact
analysis EPA prepared for the tJW rulemaking indicates that there
is no economic incentive for retaining tJW for such long periods.
14. pesticides that are included in FIFRA recalls can be managed
under the UWR. Does this apply to pesticides that have been
included in past FIFRA recalls or just recalls instituted after
the tJWR is adopted?
The timing of the recall is not significant. The UW rule is not
limited to pesticides that are recalled after the tJW rule takes
effect.
15. Pesticides that are managed by farmers in accordance with 40
CFR 262.70 are not subject to the UW rules. Can farmers continue
to dispose of pesticides recalled under FIFRA under 262.70?
Yes, if a recall under FIFRA allows a farmer to dispose of a
pesticide on his own property, he may do so by complying with
262.70.
16. How are mixtures of UW and HW regulated -- as a HW if the HW
is listed or the mixture exhibits a characteristic? If the HW is
not listed, and the mixture of UW and HW does not exhibit a
characteristic, does LDR apply to the mixture?
The UW rules apply only to wastes ineetihg the criteria for being
classified as UW. They do not apply to mixtures of UW wastes and
ordinary, unon_universalu hazardous wastes. Such mixtures are
subject to the regular hazardous waste regulations.
However, the status of mixtures of characteristic UW and
characteristic hazardous wastes needs clarification. If the
mixture no longer exhibits a characteristic, it would no longer
be classified as a hazardous waste , but would remain subject to
the land disposal restrictions. Formerly characteristic wastes
are not excused from compliance with LDR treatment standards
merely because they cease to exhibit a characteristic.
In addition, two exceptions apply. First, mixtures of tJW
and conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG)
hazardous wastes are subject to UW rules. This is because CESQG
hazardous wastes are exempt from regular Subtitle C regulation.
See the UW preamble at 25510. By the same logic, mixtures of tJW
wastes and hazardous wastes exempted under the household
hazardous waste provision are subject to the UW provisions rather
than the regular hazardous waste provisions.
The normal hazardous waste mixture rules would apply to
mixtures of UW and nonhazardous solid wastes. If the UW waste
were a listed waste, the mixture would be regulated as HW
(although initial handlers would be subject only to the UW
rules). If the UW were a characteristic waste, and the mixture
ceased to exhibit the characteristic, the mixture would be
7
-------
nonhazardOUS but LDR treatment requirements would continue to
apply.
17. A large quantity universal waste handler (LQHUW) is required
to notify EPA of its universal waste management, unless it had
already so notified and received an EPA ID number. However,
won’t the LQHUW have to modify the initial notification to
explain this additional activity?
No. If a handler has previously notified EPA of his hazardous
waste management activities, he is not required to renotify.
First time notifiers can submit a one-time notification described
in 40 CFR 273.32(b), or alternatively, the 8700-12 notification
form. If the 8700-12 notification form is used, the LQHUW must
write “LQHDW” or “Universal Waste” on the portion of the form
where activity is checked.
18. Does the UWR prohibit a generator from handling a UW in
accordance with full RCR.A c requirements, if desired?
The tJWR requires a generator to handle their UW under 273.
However, if the generator handles UW under full RCRA C then it
would likely be complying with 273.
19. If a generator originates a shipment of hazardous waste that
is considered a UW in the receiving state, how does the generator
get a signed manifest?
The initiating facility (i.e., the generator) would complete a
manifest and give copies to the hazardous waste transporter as
required under 40 CFR 262 .23 (a). The initiating facility must
ensure that the manifest is forwarded to and signed by the tiW
receiving facility (i.e., the designated TSD facility) and then
sent back to the initiating facility.
20. a. Because a manifest is now not required, how will handlers
know how and when their UW finally arrives at an appropriate
destination facility?
Depending on whether the 13W are shipped to another UW handler or
a uw destination facility, the initiating facility (i.e., the
generator) may not know if their UW arrives at an appropriate
destination facility. For example, if the universal waste is
shipped to another universal waste handler (i.e., an interim
facility) before it is shipped to a designated facility, the
originating facility would only have knowledge of the initial
receiving facility. (See response to question 11). However, if
the originating facility (i.e., the generator) sent the universal
8
-------
waste to a destination facility, Part 273 requires the
originating facility to receive prior consent by a receiving
facility (i.e., the destination facility) before the waste can be
sent off-site.
b. Does EPA intend for the original handler to “designate” all
the handlers and final destination facility?
No. The original handler Ci . e., the initiating facility) is only
responsible for designating the next UW handler (though the
original handler is free to elect to designate the final
destination facility).
21. What happens when UWR is adopted by a state but is not yet
authorized by EPA? What is EPA obligated to enforce?
EPA may only enforce the authorized state program. The
authorized program would continue to impose regular hazardous
waste management standards on UW handlers until EPA approved the
state’s UW rule. Note, however, that once the rule is approved,
designations of new, state-only UW and management standards for
such wastes become part of the authorized program without action
by EPA. See the response to question 5 above.
The Agency has also issued a memorandum (See the April 10,
1996 Memorandum addressed to the Regional Administrators from
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator of the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance and Elliot P. Laws, Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response) which asks the EPA Regional offices to exercise
enforcement discretion (vis a vis uninanifested universal wastes)
in States that are authorized for the RCRA base program and that
are implementing the Part 273 standards but have not yet received
final EPA authorization to do so. The memorandum further
provides that the Regions should take enforcement actions
involving universal waste only where handlers of such wastes are
not in full compliance with the Part 273 standards. In other
words, the Agency will not take federal action against handlers
who manage hazardous waste batteries, hazardous waste pesticides,
and mercury-containing thermostats pursuant to Part 273 standards
in States that are currently in the process of adopting the
universal waste rule. States, of course, may still pursue
enforcement action against these handlers. The Agency hopes that
the April 10, 1996 letter will facilitate implementation of the
universal waste rule by states nationwide.
22. How are recycling facilities that receive UW regulated?
Recycling facilities are excluded from the definition of tJW
“handlers”. See 40 CFR 273.6. They are subject to normal
hazardous waste management requirements. Under those
requirements, storage prior to recycling is regulated and
requires a permit. See 40 CFR 261.6(c)(1). Many types of
9
-------
recycling processes are largely exempt from regulation (see 40
CFR 261.6(d)); others (such as burning to recover energy or
mate ials) are regulated and require permits.
10
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
May 1997 9593.1997(03)
2. Universal Waste Handler Status
40 CFR Part 273 contains two sets of
regulations for handlers of universal waste
based on the total amount of universal waste
generated or accumulated at any one time.
Section 273.6 defines a large quantity handler
of universal waste (LQHUW) as a universal
waste handler that can accumulate 5,000
kilograms (kg) or more of universal waste at
their location at wry time. in contrast, a small
quantity handler of universol waste (SQHUW)
can accumulate less than 5000 kg of
universal waste at any one time. if a handler
which generaltv qual fies as a SQHUW has a
one-ti7fle accumulation of 5,000 kg or more,
bar subsequently i’ransporrs the waste off-sire.
would the hwzdlerbe regulated as a SQEIUW
or LQHTJW?
Pursuant to 40 CFR §273.6. the handler
would be regulated as a LQHUW for the rest
of the calendar year in which the 5,000 kg or
more of universal waste was accumulated (see
also 60 EE 25500: May 11. 1995).
A handler may reevaluate its sr ru c as a
LQHUW in the following calendar year. As a
result of the change from a SQHUW to a
LQIiUW, the h nd1 wOU1Iifl t0 compLy
with additional universal wasze n in2c XfleTit
regulaLocs- For exaznpte. t1 har4t woUkt
be required to obtain an EPA identificatiOn
number if they had not already notified EPA
of hazardous waste management activities
( 273.32), and all employees would be
required to be thoroughly familiar with proper
waste handling and emergency procedures
relative to their responsibilities at the facility
( 273.36). In addition, the handler would need
to keep a record of each shipment of universal
waste ( 273.39).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
a’— c i (7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9593.1997(04)
MAY I3igg
OFFICE CF
SCUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Chris B!yant
The Technical Group, Inc.
l30 0IStreet,NW
Suite 1000 West
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Bryant:
I am responding to your letter of January 29, 1997 in which you request clarification on
the labeling requirements under 40 CFR part 273 for hazardous waste batteries. Specifically, you
have requested confirmation that it is acceptable for large quantity handlers of universal waste
(LQHUW)to place universal waste labels prescribed at §273.34(a) on shrink-wrapped pallets of
batteries rather than on each single battery.
For the purposes of complying with the requirements of 273.34(a), “container” is defined
at §260.10 as any portable device in which a material is stored, transported, treated, disposed of
or otherwise handled. We believe that a shrink-wrapped unit (je , plastic shrink-wrapped over
spent batteries and pallet) can be’a portable device for the purposes of 273.34(a). Further, the
Agency confirms that one of the following phrases: “Universal Waste—Battery(ies);” or “Waste
Battery(ies); “or “Waste Battery(ies);” or “Used Battery(ies) should be marked clearly on each
individual battery or on the outside of the shrink-wrapped plastic.
Although a shrink-wrapped unit can be a portable device for the purposes of part
273 .34(a), the Agency has some concerns with respect to the effectiveness or structural integrity
of the shrink-wrapped plastic to prevent the components or contents of the batteries from leaking
or spilling into the environment. Under §273.33(a)(1) LQHUWs must contain any battery that
shows evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably
foreseeable conditions in a container. This container must be closed, structurally sound,
compatible with the contents of the battery, and must lack evidence of leakage, spillage, or
damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions.
Therefore, the Agency has concluded that current regulations allow a LQHUW to shrink-
wrap multiple individual batteries in plastic and subsequently place the appropriate universal waste
label on the outside of the shrink-wrap unit, provided that the batteries which are shrink-wrapped
do not show evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonable
foreseeable conditions. If a LQHtJW determines that some batteries show evidence of leakage or
spillage after they are shrink-wrapped, then the LQHUW must place the shrink-wrapped unit in a
— - — . .1
-------
container which complies with §273.33(a)(1) and must relabel the container pursuant to
§273.34(a).
Please note that although non-leaking shrink-wrap units meet EPA ’s approval for
container from a universal waste labeling and management perspective, these units may not meet
the packaging specifications presaibed by the Department of Transportation (1)01) for your
particular batteiy types (LL nickel-cadmium). The Agency recommends that you contact the
Department of Transportation to ensure that your shrink-wrapped units meet their packaging
authorization regulations for hazardous materials.
If you need additional information or have any questions about any of the above
information, please contact Biyan Groce of my staff on (703) 308-8750.
Sincerely,
Acting Director
So1id Waste
-------
THE TECHNICAL GROUP. INC.
—
d / 4
#
/
January29, 1997
Mr. Michael H. Shapiro
Director
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 5301
401 MStreetS.W.
Washington, D.C 20460
rec ved
L ’/jô / 9 !i
RE: Universal Waste LabelinE Requirements
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I write at the suggestion of Brian Gross of your office and Charles Openchowski
of the Office of General Counsel to request written clarification regarding the labeling
requirements for hazardous waste batteries under the “Universal Waste Rule.”
I specifically request clarification as to the labeling requirements under the Part
273 regulations for nickel-cadmium and other hazardous waste batteries that may be
“shrink-wrapped” onto a pallet that then may be shipped to a reclamation facility. Such a
container could hold hundreds of nickel-cadmium batteries. Section 273.34(a) generally
requires that each universal waste battery or a container or tank in which batteries are
contained be labeled or marked clearly with one of several acceptable phrases. I write to
confirm that it is acceptable under § 273.34(a) to attach a label to the outside of a shrink-
wrap unit of batteries rather than requiring the labeling of each battery in the unit.
The labeling requirements in § 273.34 do not preclude placing a label on the
surface of the shrink-wrap unit in lieu of a label on each battery in the shrink-wrap
I recognize that State regulations may be more stringent than the Federal RCRA
standards or that State agencies may differ from EPA in their interpretations of
State-authorized RCRA standards.
Fn’ ii ,rnm, nttlI (,uisuh,n
I ‘.TRLLI \ % • .L III I 1 t L’1 . ‘$III\CTO\ DC 1L)%X)S
. I % Q OO
-------
THE TECHNICAL GROUP. INC.
Michael H. Shapiro
January 29. 1997
Page 2
container. Moreover, placing the label on the outside of a shrink-wrap unit arguably
satisfies this requirement because, for purposes of the Part 273 standards, the shrink-wrap
unit is a container.
Shrink-wrap units also are acceptable packaging under DOT’s Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMRs). 2 Furthermore, the HMRs require that these units meet
specific stringent conditions. 3 In addition, when batteries are packaged in shrink-wrap
units. § 172.406 of the HMRs requires that the DOT label “be placed on or affixed to a
surface (other than the bottom) of the package or containment device, containing the
hazardous material,” rather than on each battery.
Based on the foregoing. it is reasonable to conclude that the intent of § 273.34(a)
is satisfied when a large quantity handler places the universal waste label on the outside
of a shrink-wrapped pallet containing batteries. Requiring a label to be placed on each
individual battery in the packaging is burdensome, would provide no additional
protection of human health or the environment, and is contrary to DOT shipping
regulations.
Therefore, I respectfully request that you confirm, in writing, that EPA agrees it is
acceptable for a large quantity universal waste handler to place the universal waste label
on a shrink-wrapped pallet of batteries, rather than on each battery.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you or your staff have any
questions, or require additional information, please feel free to call me at (202) 962-8534.
Sincerely,
Chris B ant
2 49 C.F.R. § 173.159(c)(1).
Id. For example, the unit must be capable of withstanding the shocks normally
incident to transportation, must meet size requirements 1 and must be capable of
withstanding, without damage, a superimposed weight equal to two times the
weight of the unit.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
S WASHINGTON, D.C. 20480
9593.1997(05)
NAY 16 199?
OFF1CEOF
- SOLID WASTE AND EP.EROENCY -
Mr. Thomas J. Schroeder .
2127 Tartan Road
Mderson, Indiana 46012
Dear Mr. Schroeder
- -Thank you for your letter of April 5, 1997 to Administrator Browner regarding the
‘collection and recycling of household batteries. We appreciate your interest in this
subject, as well as your efforts to suggest an innovative action plan to battery
mar ufacturers.
In your letter you suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
recommend a collection and recycling approach such as yours to industry. EPA does
not have the authority to require battery manufacturers to take badc their products for
recycling once they are Used. Ukewise, EPA can not require states or local
communities to collect and recycle batteries. The collection, transfer, recycling and
disposalof municipal solid waste, including batteries, fall under the purview of state
and lOcal governments. In fact, several states have already passed laws governing the
collection and recycling of batteries.
While there is no federal law mandating the recycling of batteries, there is a
federal law that facilitates the voluntary collection and recycling of certain household
batteries. The Mercury -ContairJng and Rechargeable Battiry Management Acr (the
Battery Act) was signed by President Clinton on May 13, 1996. I have enclosed a copy
of the Act for your information. The law has two primary goals, the first of which is to
limit the mercury content in consumer batteries. The second is to promote recycling
arid proper disposal of used rechargeable nickel cadmium (Ni-Cd) batteries, small
sealed lead acid rechargeable batteries, and certain other types of rechargeable
batteries now widely used in consumer products. In order to achieve the second goal,
the law (1) requires that Ni-Cd and small sealed lead acid rechargeable batteries in
products manufactured after May 13, 1997 be easily removable from the products;
(2) establishes uniform national labeling requirements for Ni-Cd and small sealed lead
acid rechargeable batteries; and, (3) requIres that collection, storage, and
transportation of used rechargeable batteries be managed according to standards
established in the May 11, 1995 Universal Waste Rule (60 FR 25492). I have enclosed
a ciopy of this rule for your information.
-------
2
In this way, the Battery Act removed obstacles to a voluntary Industry take-back
syètem. EPA Is aware that such a system is being Implemented for the nationwide
colleôtion and recycling of Ni-Cd batteries. The Rechargeable Battery Recyäiing
Corporation (RBRC) physically administers this system, which is funded by a licensing
-fee charged to rechargeable product and Ni-Cd battery manufacturers which place the
RBRC seal on their products. Retailers and communities receive free collection kits
from RBRC; which are used to collect Ni-CDI from consumers. RBRC then pays for
the transportation of the collected batteries to the recycling facility. Consumers may
locate the retai lei or community nearest them by ailing 1-800-SBA I t tRY. To find out-
more about this system, I suggest that you call Jeff Bagby.of RBRC, at (540) 720-9225.
EPA is involved in a number of efforts that encourage source reduction and
recycling of municipal solid waste, including battenes. I have enclosed one EPA
document that addresses battery recycling specifically, “Used Dry Cell Batteries: Is a
Collection Program Right for Your Community?” This document discusses battery
collection and recycling programs in great detail and provides an overview of some of
the local collection programs in operation throughout the United States.
Thank you again for your thoughtful interest in the collection and recycling of
household batteries. The success of recycling in this country depends on the concerns
and efforts of individuals like you.
Sincerely yours,
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
-------
4,5/97
Carol Browner, Adrn.inistrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Browner:
Last fall, I sent the attached proposal to. a couple of companies
that manufacture the typical household batteries. •The response
was not favorable. After reading ‘your “Ask The Expert” comment
in the April 1997 Good Housekeeping, I felt the issue of
recycling of batteries is being addressed, but not to the extent
th t could be done using the approach I suggest. If the industry
does not consider the proposal acceptable, it may be appropriate
for the EPA to recommend such ar approach
Resp tfull
I omas J Schroeder
2127 TaWtan Road
Anderson, IN 46012
-------
Proposal:
To develop and/or expand a recycling program for standard house hold and
mercury batteries on a scale equal to or greater than that of aluminum can
recycling.
Action plan:
This goal could be accomplished by developing a vending machine for
dispensing batteries that would at the same time, accept used
batteries. A pay back element could be incorporated into the design of the
machine to encourage recycling.
The recycling program would begin with the manufacturing of the
battery by encoding each battery so it could be identified when it is
deposited in the recycling portion of the vending machine.
By locating the recycling station at the same point as sales, the distributor
would act as the entry point for recycling. This offers many advantages
when compared to aluminum can recycling which requires a separate
collection, i. . reverse distribution, system.
The recycling station could also be a separate station, apart from sales,
however the concept of encoding each battery for proper identification
would be required.
------- |