United States Solid Waste and EPN53O-R-95-012H /
Environmental Protection Emergency Response July 1998
Agency ( OS-343 )
IEPA RCRA Permit Policy
Volume 8
9483.1980 - 9486.1986
TSDF Technical Requirements
(Parts 264 & 265)
• Tanks
• Surface Impoundments
• Waste Piles
• Land Treatment
TechLaw I/5949ICoyersI 9


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

Tanks (Subpart J)

9483 TANKS
Parts 264 & 265 Subpart J
ATKIfl 104(42 kp

SUBJECT: Determination of Tanks vs. Surface Ii poundments
FROM: Bruce R. Weddle
Acting Director
State Programs and Resource Recovery Division (W9—563)
TO: ThO! as W. Devine
Air and Waste Management Division, Region IV
In your ‘nemorandum of March 23, 1983 you requested headquarters
guidance on the subject of how regional offices should deternine
what constitutes a tank, as opposed to a surf ace impoundment,
f or RCRA per’ ittIng purposes. I hope that the following will
serve to clarify this issue.
‘)istinguishing a tank from a surface impoundment is, as you
suggest, primarily an assessment of what provides the unit’s struc-
tural support. In making this assessment, the unit should be
evaluated as if it were free standing, and filled to its design
capacity with the material it is intended to hold. If the walls
or shell of the unit alone provide sufficient structural support
to maintain the structural integrity of the unit under these condi-
tions, the unit can be considered a tank. Accordingly, if the
unit is not capable of retaining its structural integrity without
supporting earthen materials, it must be considered a surface
The units for which the State of Florida is requesting guidance
should be assessed according to these criteria. From the sketches
provided by Florida Power and tight, it would appear that the
Sanford, Port Myers, Manatee and St. Lucie units are probably
surface impoundments, and that the Cutler unit may possibly be a
tank. However, the information you submitted is not sufficient
to enable us to make a definitive judgement in this regard. In
order to support the contention that the units should be considered
tanks, you should request that Florida Power and Light submit
engineering data and drawings which establish that each unit meets
the above criteria.

SUPJ CT Tank chell thic ne s Rec uire1!%ent
ruee .
.‘cttr !)trector
St te Dr r ne an .esource Recovery Division ( J —S 3)
TO: RCP.A Vranch Chiefs
egions I — X
I would like to clarify FPA policy toward the irtelusthn of shell
thickness as a condition in RCPA per’ its for tanks. In Phil Fobel’s
March 28 summary c it the recent Branch Chiefs eeting, the following
langu. e appears:
R ;ar 1ing tank tP ickness, r’ jions r.c’. —.v d that
secondary contatn ent re’uired in t r”i’
whets tank thic’ nese iotor!”itir,n surpti.’l hy
applicant is inadequate. Applicant ‘say either
accept secondary containment or su it full tank
thickness documentation.
This pprfDacPt doss not ref 1.ct current PP Regul tinns or policy.
Section 122.2S(b)(2) ( 27O.l in the new ri.conaoltdated reinlations)
clearly requires owners and operators of tanks to sufriit inforqation
re jardirk.J shell thickness which demonstrates c pltance with ‘ert 2 3
requirements. Section 2 4.l9l clearly requiren th. Pec i nal k viint’ —
trater to establish mint w’ shall thickness based unon snecif led
cieaj n factorq. Tt ese are not c!twretionety or optional ale!’eflts .‘)f
the per it.
Purthermore, the current reçulations ‘lo not require s.condary
containment for tanks. I would remind you that the addition ‘ f such
a requirement in a CPA permit (even with the applicant’s a rovil)
may not be enforceable and ay not he lefenatbie in the event the
pernit is challenged.
cc: Steve Levy

9483. 1983(03)
21 SEP 83
. 1 1ECrg Tank Inspection Pro thires
Fi 4: &uce R. I*ddle, Acting Director
State Programs and Res irce ery Division
t nnis I iabner, iief
State ste Pz . z& anch, cjion I
In yaar r cren of august 29, 1983 to Steve Levy, ytsi zequestec beso-
:u ztetg guidance regarding internal ir pectians of hazax us ste storaC e tanks.
I n e tnat tr foU iing a quatel ar rs tns iseies y a ra sec.
‘ e ,eri ic ir pection of tar cz required by S264.194(b) sP .ald irclt e
a tt rcu r vi a1 inspection of tha tank interior. This will ally involve
eiptyinLj the tank and having i iMi,4 bt*1 v ar it to perf n the inspection.
It is ct ertaz ing that this i be cna safely in aU. at very rare
instanc s, so long as the t.er . QIti [ ILeIIt is ueed and ro ziate arety pre—
caut icns are foI1cp ed. If a ._ p rI it applL..iiL does r . wi to hive its
. facility pers ’w*l perf this type of ii scticn, there are a niw er of
t testin and inspection f1z that can be hired to cb so.
It i my t* possible, k ’e’ , that an 1icant uld pt j aoneptable
inspection pr ires whid% cb r involve *iysical entry into a tank.
alternative proosdures be m stitoted in lieu Cf an thterna.t vi uaI in-
spection, if they *re , e ted to . ‘l ly eftective in detecting ‘cracks,
leaks, ion or ion which nsy l. d to cradcs or leeks, or U thinning...
[ ref. S264.194(b)J.
Ir a ans r to y !5tic,n zngarding alternative etr i of erfo in
internal ir ecticns, ve are r a .sre of ‘ ns ianica3 devices (e.g. video
scanz rs) that miei Uy availaDle and Wh3 u1d be effective for tnis
type of inspection.
M indicated in pre’via is guid s, the frequency of these psri iic ‘  1 ze -
hensive tank iri ectia it ald be sstablis$ bUed the fl1 5 Of the
wastes being st ed, t shell nstarial and of ths t I, anticipated
aion rates, tn. r saa of 3imrs coatings, and cther reliv nt factors.
Please let 1 _ — jj yw have any questions.
agwi:de :9/2I/83sdisk Fagan 5

M activated carbon filtration unit is attached to a hazardous
waste storage tank. vent plee to captur. the waste vapors. Is this
filtration irn$t considered a treateent unit subject to pernittlog?
The activated carbon filtration unit Is viewed as an appurtenance
to the storage tank and Is not looked at Individually during
peri’iittlnq. The carbon filtration unit Is treating a hazardous
waste and RCRA has jurisdiction Over Its activity. The carbon
would be a io)fd waste when discarded and a hazardous waste 1?
It exhibited a characteristic or If it contained a listed waste.
The peri it would be Issued for the tank s1u ly for storage.
Source: Dave Fagan

L .icc..
u CT: v aiver of Mi uur ,L e1l ic% nesS Ro;uirement
ruce ‘. ctin director
state r ra s anc ; esource rcecovery )ivisior
TO: Conrad Sip’on, irector
Air and Waste qana jement Uiviiion — kegion II
As you know, part or our on joing etfart tu monitor regional
I(CRA permit programs involves reviewing the final permits
issued by each Reçional Ottiee. W have generally been impressed
by the quality of the perTnits issued by gion II. However,
we recently noticed a - erious omission in two of th. permits
that I want to Dring to jour attention. Specifically, tb.
requirement to estaoiisfl uinimia shell thick nesses for hazardous
waste storag./ treatment tanks has b..n waived in th• permits
issued to C i 0 satteries in Huguenot, NT, and the GeneraL
Electric R a D Center in Schenectady.
As stated in E 70.32(b). Iacn RCMA permit shall include
permit conditions necessary to achieve complianc, with the Act
and regulations, including •acft of th. applicable requirements
specified in 40 CFR Parts 264, 266, and 270. One of th.se
requirements is that the Regional Administrator shall require
that a minimws shell tnickness be taintained at all times to
ensure sufficient shell strength’ (5264.191). The reçjulationu
contain no provision for ,ranting a waiver of tne u inimum shell
thickness reQuirement. Although I recognize that ti are are
difficulties in apj iyincj the minimum shell tntc noss concept,
it is nevertheless an important r julotory r. uirement, m o it
must oe addressed in every CRA tank permit. 1 hops tOSt
Region II will act to ensure that the re uiresent will not be
waived La future ,er!’ijtS issued Dy th• k iOn.
Please let me know if trier. are any questions.
cc , Peter Guerrero
Terry 3ro an
Dav• Pagan
Dpa jansfsl2/I!/ 3:.IM —563zdiSk Fagan 6

FEB 2 3 t5
‘ i’’\’i f t1
.jrr n rermtttin of Hazarøe.i. Wa3t , Treati’ crnr./
.t:ra e Tanks
Jc• fl Ii. SkinN r, Lirector
u rice of So.Li ! t st
i egLonal I CR 3rancn Chiefs
This me norandui’ provices guidance to permit writers on several
issues r arding ermitt1ng of haz3rdnus waste treatment and
storatje tanks. Several of the current PCRA Subpart J standards,
r.articularly the reçuirerent for minimum shell thicknesses and
erioo c ins [ .ections, have been difficult to implement and have
in scr e cases been resolved differently by the regional offices.
scv ral regions have requested guidance on these regulatory re-
quirements to provide a more consistent national approach to
permitting RCRA regulatea tanks.
The following guidance is applicable only to tanks permitted
under the current Subpart 3 standards.
$ tahlishin Mini .ur shell Thicknesses
The current subpart J stan aras require that a minimum shell
thickness be specified in ti’e permit for every regulated hazardous
waste storage/treatment tank. This requirement applies to all
tanks (except for covered underground tanks that cannot be entered
tor inspection), and it cannot be waived.
The current, actual shell thickness of each tank should be
dutermined prior to the issuance of a draft permit. It is essential
that tfle ap Licant demonstrate to EP that the tank conplies with
all applicable standards before the decision is made to permit the
tank. Current thickness data should he obtained from the pre—permit
inspection, and included in the Part B application (see dis-
cussion Delow).
Several methods can be used to determine the appropriate
minir’uri thickness f. r metal tank shells, Standard formulas can
be used, such as the formula specified in the API Code 650. This
formula (also presented in the early Toiuty Tank guidance)
should be used, hcwever, only for very large (over 50,000 gallon

Cd )ac1ty) non— reS urLZed metal tank3. Fnr sv aller n’et?l tanks,
t)i’ tnicknesses prescrit’e’ in ti e r;t 142 cncie c be used, even
tflou h t iis ccae is intended prii arily for tanks storina ignitable
licuids. Other coaes tor more specialized tanks, such as the
A - lE 5 cti.an V III code tor pressure vessels, can also be used
tor certain types of tanks. It should be understood that the
st” l1 thicknesses prescribed in industry codes are i’iinjinum thick—
nessc t ensure structural integrity, nd do no’ inclw e liowance
c r corrosion.
The use of stand3rd industry codes ay not be practical for
rany ‘etal tanks, such as irregularly shapea tanI s, older tanks
not built to standard coces, and others. In such cases, permit
writers should specify a minirnur thickness that is sufficient
not only to contain the liquid contents, but also to withstand
normal operational stresses and minor accidents (e.g., being hit
by a forklift), without massive failure. Discussions with various
industry ofticials have suggested that as a general rule, a metal
shell thickness of 1/8 (0.125’) is a satisfactory minimum thick-
ness to provide an adequate degree of safety against normal oper-
ational continyencieS (this thickness would not be sufficient,
however, for pressurized tanks, or most large tanks of over
50,000 gallons capacity). Accordingly, it is recommended that
the minimum shell thickness specified in RCRA permits for metal
tanks be not less than 1/8’. If a RCRA regulated tank is measured
and found to have a shell thickness of less than 1/8’, the permit
writer should consider requesting that the applicant provide
additional information (such asan engineer’s certification) to
aemonstrate that the tank is structurally sound and can withstand
normal operational streses and minor accidents.
For fiberglass reinforced polyester (FR?) tanks, the standard
torniulas for determining shell tnickness based on structural
criteria, such as those used for metal tanks, are not appropriate.
Structural strength of FR? tanks is more a function of how the
tanks are manufactured (e.g., filament wound, fiber mat, etc.)
and the specific bonding resins used, rather than the thickness
ot the wall. In general, the primary concerns for FR? tanks are
shell cracking (due to improper installation or other causes) and
erosion of the resin layer of the interior tank wall surface.
Each RP tank should be inspected internally prior to permitting
to determine if the inner resin layer is intact, or has deteriorated
or eroded such that glass tibers are exposed. FRP tanks which
exhibit deterioration of the inner resin layer, or other evidence
or wall deterioration, srtould be repaired or taken out of service.
For FR? tanks in good condition, an appropriate approach to estab-
lishing minimum shell thickness is simply to subtract a small
amount from the actual measured shell thickness, to allow for
possible construction irregularities and/or some limited erosion
of the inner resin layer. This ‘allowance’ should usually be
0.1’ dr less, since—the inner resin layers of most fiberglass
tanks as manufactured typically do not exceed 0.1’.
Minimum shell thicknesses for concrete tanks can be estab-
lished in a similar manner. Once the tank has been inspected

Ilul. LI.S P IIt. a ai’ L — - — — -
r’nr? than 1L *) trot the actual maas’ireg thickness of the tank
wall. existin. COnCrcte tanks in good cOn citior ’ Can, with few
exce:tions, be presuned to have arleçuate znell thickness,
Since concrete t3flkS are typically nesiynec tar SuOstanti?lly
greater than normal anticipated structural stresses.
A primary concern with concrate tanks is i-nssible migration
o ha: ’r .cu4 WSeted tflrough the walls at the tank. CaflCtn e
tan¼s should be lined or coated with a compatible materiaL
1ev’n it the wastes are compatible with th’ concrete , unless
trie applicant can cenonstrate that migration of wastes through
tne t3nk walls will not occur over the life of the tank.
Tank Inspections
To ensure that regulated tanks are in compliance with
apçlicable RCR.A standards, each tank should be thoroughly in-
spected by the applicant or another firm hired for the purpose,
prior to issuance of a draft permit. This initial inspection
should involve draining the tank and examining the tank interior
tar leaks, cracks, corrosion, liner or coating failure and
otncr signs of deterioration. The inspection should also include
taking shell thickness measurements using ultrasonics or another
non-destructive test method. Attachment A presents suggested
methodologies for conducting ultrasonic shell thickness testing
for both vertical and horizontal metal tanks. Ultrasonic and
radiographic non—destructive testing must be performed by
qualified personnel. If the applicant proposes to use his own
Personnel to perform such testing, he should be required to
cemonstrate that those persons are competent in the use of the
test equipment, through course work or other training or experience.
The inspection plan required by 5270.14(b)(5) rust contain
detailed procedures for conducting periodic, comprehensive
inspections for each permitted tank, as required in 5264.194(b).
This periodic inspection should include a thorough inspection
of the tank interior. The inspection plan should specify the
proceaures that will be used for emptying the tank, and the
methods to be used in performing the inspection. If the internal
inspection indicates evidence of significant corrosion, erosion
or other deterioration which would lead to thinning of the tank
wall to less than the minimum thickness prescribed in the permit,
the inspection plan should specify that the applicant shall
then perform shell thickness measurements according to a pre-
scribed methodology.
The frequency of the comprehensive internal inspection
should be established taking into account the age and general
condition of the tank, the material of construction and relative
compatibility with the wastes to be stored, waste temperature,
and other relev nt factors. It is recommended that the periodic
inspections be performed at least once every two years, unless
the applicant can demonstrate that a more lengthy interval is
appropriate. More frequent inspections should be considered for

sor e tanks, including: tanks storing or treating crrrosive
wastes, heated and/or pressurized tanks, tanks with relatively
thin shells,-fibetglaSS tanks, concrete tanks.
Tank Lr acklLst
Attachment is a checklist developed by Region I which can
be a useful tool. for permitting tanks. The checklist can be
used by permit applicants as a format for presenting the required
intormation for each tank to be permitted. It should be noted,
however, that some of the data asked for in the checklist are
not required by the regulations, and applicants should thus be
informed that use of the checklist is entirely optional. The
checklist can be sent to applicants along with other appropriate
guidance documents as part of the Part B call-in letter. Permit
writers can also use the checklist as a means of organizing the
information for each tank in the Part B application.
At tachme nts
ccz Re iortal Permits Section Chiefs
J. Lehman
S. Lingle
T. Grogan
P. Guerrero
B. Weddle
K. ray
PAT staff

Responses to Questions from State Pesticide Personnel:
Acceptability of Con bined Storage of Pesticide Wastes
(14) W lees to indicating storage of types of pesticide
wastes, i.e., herbicide waits or insecticide waste, together
is acceptable procedure today. is that correct?
Tel, if there is no re tivity between th wastes and
the wastes are c patthL. with the contai e .
948 .1934’(O2)

9483. 1984(03)
Regulation of Recirculating Tank
3. An owner/operator is not sure whether or how a recirculating
tank that feeds caustic to an incinerator scrubber is
regulated. The purpose of the caustic is to neutralize the
acids formed by the incineration process. Initially, the
tank holds caustic product (not waste) that is circulated
through the scrubber and back to the tank. The tank is
emptied 1-7 days later, depending on the pH of the mixture
and its ability to neutralize scrubber acids. The mixture
in the tank after circulation may not always exhibit the
corrosive Subpart C characteristic (D002). The permit for
the incinerator cannot address standards for the tank as an
ancillary piece of equipment because the incinerator burns
characteristic waste only. Incinerators that burn only
corrosive (D002) or ignitable (DOOl) characteristic waste or
both are excluded from all operating standards except
closure and waste analysis per §264.340(b). Would the tank
be viewed as a product or process unit excluded by §261.4(c)
even though the liquid waste from the scrubber is returned
to the tank?
Since the waste in the tank is not generated in the
tank (e.g., sludge developing in a product tank),
261.4(c) does not apply. The tank could qualify for
the special standards in §262.34, however, since it is
drained before 90 days.
Source: Dave Fagan (202) 382—4497
Research: Denise Wright
This has been retyped from the original document.

August 13, 1986
Mike Mullin, Superintendent
Environmental Affairs
Lyondell Petrochemical Company
P.O. Box 777
Channelview, Texas 77530
Dear Mr. Mullin:
This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1986, in which
you asked about the applicability of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements to three hypothetical scenarios.
I have addressed each of your scenarios below:
Scenario 1 —- A tank is used to store waste prior to disposal.
The manufacturing process is changed and the waste is no longer
generated. The tank is cleaned out and closed as a storage tank.
Subsequently, the tank is used to store feedstock chemicals used
in a commercial manufacturing process.
In this situation, the tank is no longer a waste storage
facility, as long as it is closed in accordance with an approved
closure plan (S264.112—115 or §265.112-115). As your management
plan indicates, it would no longer be available for waste
storage, and no subsequent monitoring or reporting would be
Scenario 2 —— An earthen basin or tank farm dike structure is
used to contain any spills that may occur. A spill does occur
and is cleaned up. An analysis of the containment structure
surface (dirt) shows the dirt residue to be characteristically
hazardous (i.e., low pH). All residue exhibiting hazardous waste
characteristics is removed.
In the situation you describe, following removal of the
residue, the containment structure is exempt from RCRA permitting
requirements under §270.1 (c) (3) and from the technical standards
of §264 and §265. You should be aware, however, that releases
occurring as a result of the spill are potentially subject to the
corrective action requirements of §3004(u) — — even though residue
exhibiting hazardous waste characteristics has been removed —— if
any hazardous constituents remain after cleanup.
Scenario 3 —— Property is purchased and a review with personnel
familiar with the site reveals hazardous waste sludge was buried
on the site at one time. Records show that the waste was removed
from the site and disposed of at commercial disposal facilities
This has been retyped from the original document.

prior to November 1980 RCRA implementation date. Analyses were
done on the underlying soils at the time of the site cleanup to
ensure that the site was analytically free of all hazardous
Your management system is correct in saying that the site is
not subject to RCRA reporting and monitoring requirements, if no
other units on the site are subject to RCRA requirements.
These answers solely address the question of whether the
units you describe, by themselves, are subject to RCRA hazardous
waste regulations. As I discussed in my response to scenario 2,
however, these units may be solid waste management units, and
therefore they are potentially subject to the corrective action
authorities of §3004(u) and §3008(h) of RCRA, if you are
operating under interim status or seek a permit for another
hazardous waste management unit on the facility.
I hope this letter satisfactorily addresses your concerns.
If you have any questions on the response to your questions,
please contact Matt Hale of the OSW Permits Policy Section at
Marcia E. Williams
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
This has been retyped from the original document.

Mr. Greg R. Masking
Bechtel National Inc.
P.O. Box 3965
San Francisco 1 California 94119
Dear Mr. Haskina:
This response is to your letter of August 1.1, 1986,
requesting EPAs opinion on whether sealed bellow valves could
be used in lieu of providing conventional Containment around
standard globe valves. As noted by EPA in both the proposed
and final, rulemaking of revised hazardous waste tank system
standards, failur. of components (including valves) in piping
systems. accounted for a significant portion of the releases
from tank systems. Thus, EPA is requiring that secondary
containment be provided for these more vulnerable components,
except, for example, when welded flanges, sea]less valves,
sealless pumps. etc. are employed.
We have reviewed the sales literature that you submitted
with your letter describing the sealed bellow valves you pro-
pose to use. It seems that these valves, as described, would
meet EPA ’s intent to eliminate the causes of failure commonly
associated with valves that use packing or 0—ring.. Thus, a
conventional external means of secondary containment would not
be necessary. Likewise, as suggested in your letter 1 the use
of this type of valve should allow daily visual inspections and
would not necessitats a separat. leak det•ction dsvice.
Because EPA ha. found that connections made using pipe
thread or gasket typs seals are also susceptible to failure,
we would r.quir. that all connections and flanges used in con-
junction with valves, including valves of this type, be welded
to ensure isak fri. operation.

9483. 1986(O3
1. Leak tec’tion RequiL ei ir.s for Hazardous Waste Tanks
The EPA recently published the final regulations for hazardous ‘.este
tank systens on July 14, 1986 (51 FR 25422). These regulations require
many n ,re protective r easures for tank systet , secondary
coritairinent, leak detection, ar specific closure stardards.
4ist the c nerfcperator of a new abo’iegrcur*i tank install a built-in
coritinL 3us leak detection systeti?
Accordi.z to 40 CFR 264.193(c) (3), se ida y contairrnent syste s
are to be provided with a leak detection systen that can detect
the failure of either the primary or secorxla.ry itairr nt
structure or the presence of any release of hazardous ste or
acc j lated liquid in the seourdary contairnent systet within
24 hours (or at the earliest practicable tiiie if the o.’ ner/cçerawr
can dei strate to the Regional dministrator that existing
detection tethnology or site itions wiU r t aflo. detection
within 24 hours).
F ezm re, 40 CFR 264.193(d) requires one of fcur devices to
be use! as the seccu!axy itairr t systen: an external
liner, a vault, a double- lled tank, or an equivalent device
as a rove ! by the Regioral. óirLnistzator. C2 ly the standards
for dcuble- fled tanks specify a built-in ntiru us leak
detection systen, per 40 CFR 264. 193(e)(3)(jij).
Caitin&xxis leak detection .a specified for double-’. .lle! tanks
because it is a stardard feature of these tanks. For other
types of se rv3axy oontai giient, car tirii z ia leak detection may
r e a1 ys be feasible or necessary. For exei ,le, a tank systen
that is ccrpletely off the gr (e.g., tank on cradles or legs)
ard that. is situate! xti1uxs ld be exposed to precipitation.
This device ild likely be irdicat.ing a release durirq ead
rain. For these situations, daily visual. inspection uld be
accsptable to meet the leak detections require nts.
In any case, all eecandaxy tairnent systw ntist e designed
and operated to enable the c rlner/operator to readily discern a
release f an the tank systøn. All secardary rtairv t systers
sFculd be designed to caUect ari2 tranenit released ste to a
point for detection and reoval. Although autaatic,
ourktiriuous leak detection is preferred, a daily visual inspection
will, suffice in certain siviat ons bkten an autQretic, o tinu s
leak detection device is r t practical (e.g. r for on lete1y
a ,e gro rx1 tanks).
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382—4623
1 searth: Kim B. G twals

2. Hazardous Waste Tanks and Ground-4 ter riitoring
The secondary ztairrent regulations for hazardous waste tanks ware
pranul t& r the July 14, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 25422).
These regulat.ions establish strict secondary ccntairirai standards
for rie tank systers and require sec dazy contairrient retrofittir
for existing tank systei . The full secondary n.airrent standards
of 40 CER 264.193(a) and 265.193(c) incltx e wt atIbility with the
waste stored, structural integ , a settle ent—res istant base, ar
a release re ral systen. The sed rule printed piblished in
the June 26,1.985 Federal Register (50 FR 26444) provided for ground-
water n itorirq as an alternative to full seoxr axy containment.
was the ground- ter ucnitoring alternative droEce irk the final
Proposed 40 CFR 264.193(f) and 265.193(e) ali I tank aQner/
c erators to use a carbination of ground-water rcnitorirq and
partial seo3xlary contaizii ut (a le)qzcof base and diicing) in
lieu of full secondary ccntairit rit. This alternative was
drq ed because effective full secondary r irInerLt and leak
detection uld rake ground-water m nitoririg unnecessary.
A risk analysis that was conducted subeequent to the June 26, 1985
proposed rule s #ed that the ground-water nu itorirq alternative
was r t as effective aid thus not equivalent to ee idary contaijinerit.
In eddition, numerous c anra ts fran the regulated cam ity ware
st*xnitted irdicatirq that there ware nuimr is tethnical difficulties
in inp1 tir an effective grard- rater na itoring pLcgrani for
tank systeme. PPA re-evaluated the ground-water r cnitoring ,tion
to secondary c i taianant aid a icltded that it was neither practical
nor as effective as seaxdary containment. The final regulations
require an interstitial leak detection systen in eddition to full
ge idaxy conta.tiiment (40 CFR 264.193(c) (3) aid 265. 193(c) (3)).
Interstitial leak detection ir itore leaks in the space betwaen
the tank system and the se tdary contairlnerkt system, ile ground-
water n zitoring detects releases after they have entered the
envizurient (51 FR 25439). ftrly detection of wall-contained
leaks, therefore is preferable to later detection of leaks
fran a partial secondary contaizr t system.
So ce Ri 11 Kline (202) 382-4623
Researd : Jennifer Brook

3. Hazardous ste Tank Regulations
New hazardous ste tank regulations re prariulgated on July 14, 1986
(51 FR 25470). New tank syst s or i1çxnents n ist have secondary
contairinent, accordir to 40 CFR 264.193. Older tank systens rm.zst be
retrofitted with secondary rtairnent en they reach 15 years of
age, accordir to 40 CFR 264.193(a) (3). If t piping is canpietely
replaced on an older hazardous beste tank, riust secondary contaim,ent
be installed ar .ui3 pipe joints Eten the tank is 15 years old or
ien the piping is 15 years old?
If the pipirq is ca letely replaced before the effective date
of the hazardous este tank regulations, Jant xy 12, 1987 (51
FR 25422) thai the age of the piping is calculated fran the
day the new pipe is installed and is irxlependait of the age of
the tank fr,r p p ees of the secondacy contaiment requirenents.
So ce: Bill Oine (202) 382-4623
Researcth: Betty Wilson

Mr. William P. Pierce
Branch Manager
bnes & Frank
70] Chest.r Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Mr. Pi•rcez
This letter is in respons. to your letter of September 29.
1986, in which you requested written confirmation on the classi—
ficatlori of a used oil tank as new or existing.
As you stated in yot letter, used oil is riot c xrent1y
listed or otherwise classified as a hazardous waste. Therefore,
its storage is not covered under the revised hazardous waste tank
system standards that were promulgated en July 14, 1986 (51 PR
25422). However, under the provisions of Section 3014 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as amended by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste kmndments of 1984, £PR is in th. process of
developing a regulatory s ateqy for used oil that will address
the storage of used oil in tank systems. Standards for th.
storage of used oil, will be developed as part of this later
rulemaking effort. It ii unlikely that the used oil storage
standards would be issued in final form this year. Thus, if you
installed a used oil tank In October of 1986. the tank would be
considered an existing tank at the tim. the used oil management
standards ar. issued.
Given that such standards for used oil have not yet been
promulgated, if the tank is to be installed underground, you must
install the tank in accordance with the minimum standards for
underground tanks as mandated by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
waste Amendments • Th.se amendments to ACM require that any
underground tank installed after Kay 7, 1985, for the purpose of
storing regulated substances (.xdL ing hazardous waste), meet
the requirements outlined in Section 9003(g) of SCSI. These
requirements were codified in 40 CPR 280.2 on July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702). X i you should have any questions regarding these
r.quirsm.rtt$. pleas. call Steve Glomb at (202) 382—5866.

Thank you for your interest in our rulemaking efforts. If
you should have any further questions regarding hazardous waste
tank issues, please contact Bill Kline at (202) 382—7917. If you
ned further information on the uss oil rulemaking effort,
please contact Bob April at the same number.
John P. Lehman
Waste ManaQement Division

9483.1986 (07 )
3. Hazardous Waste Tanks
New hazardous waste tank regulations were çranulgated on July 14, 1986
(31 FR 25470). The Federal effective date for most of the new tank regu-
Lations is January 12, 1987. Existing tank systens are defined as those in use
for the storage or treatztent of hazardous waste or for which installation was
cocrenced on or before to July 14, 1986 (40 CFR 260.10). New tank syst are
those for which installation ca’rutenced after July 14, 1986. New tanks are re-
quired to have secondary contairnent (5265. 193(a)(1) and a leak detection system
(S265.193(c)(3)). New tank systems nat also be designed in accordance with the
criteria in §265.192.
Existing tanks must be retrofitted for secondary contaicurertt and leak detec-
tion (5265.193(a)). The timing of the retrofit de snds u n the age of the
tank and what it contains. All existing tanks fl Which roo, F021, F022,
F023, F026, and F027 is stored or treated must be retrofitted within two
years of the effective date of the regulations (5265.193(a) (2)). Tanks of
knaen, docunented age irust be retrofitted within two years of the effective
date of the regulations or when the tank system has reached 15 years of
age, whichever caves later (5265.193(aH3)). ten the age of the tank
cannot be docunented, it rust be retrofitted within eight years at the
effective date unless the facility is core than seven years old. In the
latter case, secondary ccntairnent must be installed by the tine the facility
is 15 years old or within two years of the effective date, whichever canes
later (5265.193(a)(4)).
(a.) What is the status of the tanks at a new TSD facility if a KRP.
.ennit is issued by PA or art authorized state after July 14,
1986 Aat before the effective date of the Federal or state regulation?
(b.) Ik>l wc*ald interim status and 90-day accumulation tents be regulated
if they are installed between July 14, 1986 and the effective
date of the new tank regulations?
(a.) The germit would be written under the o.zrrent regulations.
Section 270.32 (b) and (c) state that for an EPA or state—issued
rrdt, an applicable requi ient is a state statutory or regulatory
requira nt sstith takes effect jrior to final administrative
dis sitiOn of a ennit. t ever, 5270.32(bU2) (50 FR 28742)
states that each rmit issued shall contain terre and conditions
as the Administrator or State Director determines ne ssary
to otect hi.aMn health and the erwirarizrent. The Administrator
or the State Director nay incor rate the new tank regulations
un r this grovision. This general amibis authority is a creation
of EIS and thus is int$eiented by EPA until the state is authorized.

When the rmit is reviewed (in 10 years or less) under §270.50,
all regulations in effect at the tine of the review must be
incor rated into the reLssued rnu 1 t rer §27 .32(d), including
the tank regulations atiulgated in 5]. FR 25470. The 15 year age
limit for secondary containnent retrofitting for “existing”
tank systuns (5264.193(a)(3)) would not apply to tanks built
after July 14, 1986 because the tanks are, by definition, “new”
Under the current regulations, a nuit may only be mdified
to incor rate new regulations at the request of the rmittee
(S270.41 (a)(3)(c)). HcMever, EPA ogosed a change to this
regulation in the March 28, 1986 Federal Register . Under
the grocsed §270.41(a)(3) nnits could be ncdified by EPA
or a state when the standards or regulations on which the
crnit was based have been changed by statute or new or
amended standards or regulations. If this regulation is otlgated
as jxogsed, nnits could be nvdified to include the requirements
of the revised tank regulations.
(b.) Before the effective date of the new hazardous waste
tank regulations, interim status tanks may be installed under
the ctrrent regulations for Subrart 3 • H ever, since these
tanks meet the definition of new tank systems because they
were installed after July 14, 1986, they must empty with all
of the standards in the new regulations (5265.192, §265.193) once
the regulation becates effective. Therefore, if the tank is
installed under the old standards, it must be retrofitted or replaced
to empty with the new tanx standard in 5265.193 by the Federal
effective date which is January 12, 1987. These tanks are also
subject to the design standards in 5265.192 including all certifications
required in S265.192(a) and the inssections and certifications
required in 5265.192(b) and (g).
Scarce: Bill Kline (202) 382—4623
Lillian Bagus (202) 382—2233
Chet Ostan (202) 382—4499
Research: Betty Wilson

RcRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MOW HIX sUoi 1 y 9483.1986(38)
t. Secondary Contair ient Variances for Tanks
New regulations grcvulgated in the July 14, 1986 Federal Req .ster
(51 FR 25422) address secondary conta ir nt require ents for hazardous waste
treatment and storage tanks. 40 CFR 2 64 .l 9 3(g) and 265.1 .93(g) all , the tank
owner/o rator to apply to the Regional Administrator for a variance frai
the secondary containment requiremants. A tank owner/o rator may apply for
either a technology—based variance or a risk—based variance. H are these
two kinds of variances different?
40 CFR 264.193(g) and 265.193(g) described the requirer ents for
both technology—based and risk based variances. The Regional
Administrator may grant a technology-based variance if the ner/
o rator can den nstrate that alternative design and o rating
actices, canbined with location characteristics, will be at
least as effective as secondary contairviene in eventing the
migration of hazardous waste or hazardous Constituents into the
ground water or surface water. The Regional Administrator may
grant a variance based on risk if the cwner/o rator can de nstrate
that there will be no substantial esent or tential hazard to
human health or the envirorrtertt if there is a release to the
ground water or surface water. Risk—based variances will not be
granted to new underground tank syst .
According to §264.193(g)(l) and S265.193(g)(l), the Regional
Administrator will base a decision to grant a technology—based
variance on (1) the nature and quantity of wastes, (2) the Iro sed
alternate des 4 .gn and oçeration, (3) the hydrogeologic characteristics
of the facility (e.g., — thickness of soil between the tank system
arid ground water), and (4) other factors related to the tential for
hazardous constituents to migrate into ground or surface water. For
a risk—based variance, the Regional Administrator will consider, in
addition to the nature and rsistence of the waste and the facility’s
hydrogeology, the tential effects on human health and Lfare
(i.e., — wildlife, crop, vegetation, ysica1 structures). The
Regional Administrator will evaluate these factors as they relate
to the quality of ground water, surface water, and the land (see
§5264d93(g)(2) and 265.193(g)(2)). In applying for a risk—based
variance, a tank owner/o rator may deitcnstrate either that there
will be no ezp sure thways for hazardo.is constituents, or that
expsure to hazardous constituents through ground or surface water
wifl. not be high enough to se a substantial hazard to human health
or the envirc ent. In the latter app:oach, the variance would have
to address current and p tential hazards (51 25453).
For both technology-based and risk—based variances, the arden will
be on the applicant to dettcnstrate either that the alternate technology
will be equivalent to secondary contairi ent or that the tank system
will. esent no current or çx*ential risk to human health or the
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382—4623
Ellen Siegler (202) 382—7700
Research: Jenflifer Brock

9483. 1986(09)
November 28, 1986
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretations for Tooele’s Wastewater
Treatment System
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Waste Management Division
Thank you for the information regarding implementation of
the July 14, 1986 tank regulations at Tooele Army Depot. In
general, your staff has demonstrated both a comprehensive and
accurate understanding of the Subpart J requirements and their
applicability to a wastewater (hazardous waste) treatment system.
As you suggest, we will consider using the Region’s
interpretations as examples in our proposed question and answer
We do offer the following comments on the Region’s technical
interpretations and applicability determinations. Our comments
elaborate on three of the four answers provided in Nathaniel
Miullots November 5 memo to Dr. Parker. We are delaying comments
on question #2 because the issue of the applicability of RCRA to
pipe systems associated with wastewater treatment units is under
legal review by the Office of General Counsel (OGC). We will
provide a response to question #2 as soon as OGC provides a
determination. Our response to the other questions follow:
Question #1 : Does a wastewater treatment system, qualifying as a
wastewater treatment unit, need to meet the new tank rules for
secondary containment, etc.?
The Region’s determination is comprehensive and correct for
the case where the wastewater treatment system does not qualify
as a wastewater treatment unit. Where a system qualifies as a
wastewater treatment unit, 40 CFR 264.1(g) (6) excludes such
“unit” from the permitting process. Also, this exemption would
normally be extended to storage of wastewater before entering the
wastewater treatment unit. It is our understanding that Tooele
may apply for classification as a wastewater treatment unit. The
information we received does not appear to support such a
This has been retyped from the original document.

classification, but possibly they may have additional information
we are not aware of.
Question #2 : Does the definition of a closed loop exclusion
apply to wastewater system Alternative A?
The Region’s response is very good here. Additionally, to
meet the closed loop exclusion the reclaimed material must be
returned for reuse in the production process (not apparently the
case here). By production process, the Agency means those
activities that tie directly into the manufacturing operation or
those activities that are primary to the operation at an
establishment. It does not include ancillary or secondary
activities that are carried out as part of the total activities.
Given this, recycled water generally would not be considered a
secondary material. (See 51 25442.)
question #3 : Can a manhole in a wastewater distribution system
be classified as a tank?
The Region’s response suggests that manholes (sumps) if used
as part of the secondary containment system, would be subject to
the secondary containment requirements of 40 CFR 264.193(b).
This is not true as 40 CFR 264.190(b) exempts tanks, including
sumps, that serve as part of a secondary containment system from
the requirements of §264.193. Secondary containment tanks/sumps
must comply with all of the standards of Subpart J, except
We appreciated the opportunity to review the Region’s
determination/interpretation relating to Tooelet s wastewater
treatment proposal. Should you have any questions concerning
this review please feel free to call Chet Oszman in the Storage/
Incinerator (PAT) at (FTS) 382—4499.
cc: Bruce Weddle
Jack Lehman
Susan Sawtelle
Mark Greenwood
Mat Miullo
This has been retyped from the original document.

2. Generator Accumulation and Secondary Containment
A full quantity generator accumulates waste according to 40 CFR 262.34
standards. The accumulation tanks, in operation since 1982, are
underground a d cannot be entered for inspection. Is the generator
subject to secondary containment standards for hazardous waste tanks,
which were promulgated on July 14, 1986 and are effective January 12,
1987 (51 R 25422)? The generator’s state has final authorization :o
i p1ement the RCRA program except for HSWA provisions.
The tank rule was prt tu1gated pursuant to both MSWA and pre-
HSWA authorities. Those provisions proi v.i1gated pursuant to
HSWA are effective on the same date in all states regardless
of state authorization (Section 3306 of RC A, as amended by
HSWA). Those KSWA tank provisions are listed in a section
of the preauble of the final rule (51 FR 25464).
Generator tank ac nrulation standards are affected by the
final tank rule, since generators accunulating in tanks
are subject to meny of the Part 265 Supart J tank standards.
Currently, a generator in an authorized state is only subject
to applicable tank provisions prarulgated pursuant to LSWA and
state authorities. Those MSWA provisions listed at Si. f 25464
include secondary containment for aU new underground tanks.
In addition, BS JA provisions include permitting standards
(including requiring secondary containment) for new and
existing underground storage tanks that cannot be entered for
inspection. Because the generator’s tanks are not new (installed
after July 14, 1986) and they are not subject to Part 264
permitting standards, no RSWA provisions will be applicable.
The generator will, therefore, be subject to secondary containment
requir ments only when the state adopts the July 14, 1986 rule
as part of its program.
Source: Lillian Bagus (202) 382—2233
Research: Kim B. Gotwals

DEC 1 9 86
Mr. Had isy B.dbury
Senior Environmental ngine.r
Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company
1149 E1lsworth Drive
Pasadena, Texas 77501
Dear Mr. Badburys
Thank you for your 1.tt.r of August 8, 1986, in which you
raised several questions related to th. final hazardous waste
tank system. ru l.• (51 PR 25422).
Your first question conc.rned th. applicability of the
secondary containment requir.m.nts to production tanks during
periodic cleanouts. 40 CPR 261.4Cc) tates that N hazardous
waste which is generated in a product or raw material storage
tank, a product or raw material transport vehicis or vessel, a
product or raw material pipeline, or in a manufacturing process
unit or an, associated non-waste-treatment-manufacturing unit is
riot subject tON th. containment regulations until it exits the
unit in which it was gensrated, . . •, or unless the hazardous
wast• remains in the unit nor. than 90 days after the unit ceases
to be operated for manufacturing, or for storage or transportation
of product or raw materials. Thus, if you are abl. to clean Out
your process tank within 90 days after production or product
storage is stopped, that process tank would not be considered a
waste accumulation tank and, therefore, would not be subject to
secondary containment standards. The waste removed, however, is
subject to the hazardous waste control system if it is determined
to be a hazardous waste.
A related question concern, th. applicability of th. hazardous
waste tank system standards to process transfer equipment normally
used for production purposes, but also used to transfer hazardous
waste residue to either a NPDES wastewater treatment system or an
onsit. RCRA treatment/storage facility. Assuming it i. removed
within 90 days after production or product storage is stopped.
the hazardous waste generated within product/raw material process
tanks does not become subject to the hazardous waste tank system

standards until it exits the unit in which it wa, generated. The
tank system standards apply to ancillary equipment used to handle
the hazardous waste during transfer from i . point of origin to a
hazardous waste storage/treatment tank. We consider the point of
exit from the process tank to be the introductory point for the
hazardous waste into a hazardous waste tank system. Therefore,
any process transfer equipment, even if normally used for produc-
tion purpose., that is also used to transfer hazardous waste residue
during equipment washout/cleanout procedures to a hazardous waste
storage/treatment tank, would be considered part of a hazardous
waste tank system and thus subject to the standards for such. tf
the hazardous waste residue is transferred to a wastewater treat—
msnt tank that is exempted from the regulations under c264.j(g)(6),
the hazardous waste tank regulations now appear t apply to—the
ancillary equipment. The Agency is considering whether to address
this issue in the near future.
Another related question concerns hose lines that are normally
used in connection with product storage but ar. also used as
loading/unloading equipment for hazardous waste. During any
hazardous waste transfer operation, CPA intend. that appropriate
control.e and practice. be provided to prevent the release of
hazardous waste to ground water 1 surface water, or soil should a
Leak, spill, or other incident occur during the loading/unloading
process. Prior to returning hos. lines that were used for this
purpos. to their nontal use in product storage, good practice
would be to clean the hoses so that all hazardous waste residues
are removed or decontaminated.
Another question addresses the applicability of the closed
loop recycling exclusion under 40 CFR 261.4 tO tanks that are
used in the reuse of materials Given your description of the
process, these reused materials that result from the incomplete
conversion of raw materials to final products, would not be
defined a. solid wait., and thus would not be hazardous wastes
(see 40 CFR 261.2(.)(l)(iii)). Thus, such reused material would
not be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C.
Finally, you questioned what effect future interpretation or
guidance manuals would have on the acceptability of a certifica-
tion made by an ind.pnd.nt professional engineer prior to the
availability of such guidanc. materials. tPA is developing a
technical guidance manual to assist both permit applicants and
p.rinit writer, in r. fully understanding the revised tank
system regulations. A noltics of the availability of this guidance
manual will be published, in th. near futur., in the Federal
A certifying engineer, in making an a .s.s. iW ? a
tank system, must take into account all the factors listed in
Sections 264.191 and 265.191 (for existing tank systems) and
Sections 264.192 and 265.192 (for new tank system .). U a tank

syst. i judged by an independent, qualified, registered pro
f.ssienal engineer to be appropriate for the storage or treatment
of hazardous waste, in accordance with the regulations, that
c.rtification should not be affected by guidance materials mad.
available subsequent to th. assessment.
If you need further clarification of these response. or if
you have any additional questions, please call William Kline at
(202) 382—7917.
Joseph E. Carra
Acting Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chi.fs

,iO ST4l ,
9483.1986 (12)
Mr. John Albert Slaughter, Jr.
Morton Thiokol, Inc.
P.O. Box 524
Brigham City, Utah 84302
Dear Mr. Slaughter:
This letter is in response to your letter of September 30,
1986, to William Kline of my staff. You requested clarification
on the applicability on the recently revised hazardous waste tank
system standards to a series of in—building floor drains and
outside—building trenches that are used to transfer wastewater
contaminated with propellant ingredients to an inground storage
tank at Morton Thiokol’s Wasatch Operations.
Based on your description of the processes at the Wasatch
Operations, I would consider the floor drains as well as the
outside—building trenches that are used to transport the waste
materials to an ingrourid tank to comprise an integrated tank
system used for the management of a hazardous waste. As is
explained below, the entire system must comply with the secondary
containment requirements of the regulations.
The system you describe appears to fit within the definition
of “tank system.” In section 260.10 of the regulations. “tank
system” is defined as “a hazardous waste storage or treatment tank
and its associated ancillary equipment and containment system.”
“Ancillary equipment” is defined as:
any device including, but not limited to, such
devices as piping, fitting, flanges, valves
and pumps, that is used to distribute, meter,
or control the flow of waste from its point
of generation to a storage or treatment tank....
In the system you describe, the hazardous waste is generated when
the cleaning process takes place. The in—building collection
drains and outside—building trenches are devices used to transfer

the hazardous waste to the tank outside the building. Accordingly,
both the collection drains and trenches are ancillary equipment
to the tank.
Alternatively, the-trenches inside the building may be con-
sidered a “sump.” Section 260.10 of the regulations defines
“sump” as “any pit or reservoir that meets the definition of
“tank” and those troughs and trenches connected to it that serve
to collect hazardous waste for transport to storage, treatment or
disposal facilities.” “Tank” is defined at 40 CFR §260.10 as:
a stationary device, designed to contain an
accumulation of hazardous waste which is con-
structed primarily of non—earthen materials...
which provide structural support.
The inside trenches clearly fall within that definition.
The hazardous waste tank regulations require that sumps
and tank systems meet the requirements for secondary containment
unless a variance is obtained or unless a tank or a sump is part
of a secondary containment system (see 40 CFR §ç264.190(b) and
265. 190(b)).
A system in which wash water from the periodic cleaning
operation is deliberately introduced into the floor drain would
need to be provided with secondary containment regardless of
whether it is a tank system or a sump system, since the system
does not qualify for the exemption for sumps or tanks that are
part of secondary containment systems.
EPA’s intent to fully regulate sumps that meet the defini-
tion of “tank” in the same manner as other tanks was made clear
in the preamble of the final rule where EPA stated that “. .
it IS EPA’S intention that hazardous waste tank systems, including
sumps used to transport hazardous wastes, are managed in a manner
that would ensure protection of human health and the environment
(51 FR 25441).
Your interpretation that the outside—building trenches and
tanks must be managed in accordance with the revised hazardous
waste tank system standards, is correct. These are “tank systems.”
However, contrary to your understanding, we believe that the
inside—building floor drains, being a integral part of the system,
are subject to the same regulations. They are either part of a
tank system or are trenches connected to a suinp.

I hope I have adequately addressed your questions. If you
should have any further questions, please call Bill Kline or me
at (202) 382—7917.
Since rely ,
Robert W. Dell nger
Chief. Waste Treatment Branch
cc: RCRA Branch Chief
Region VIII

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

9483 . 1986 ( 13)
2. Leak Testing for Existing Sizsrdcus tste Thnks
tzart. s ate tank regulations. pratuigatel in the JuLy 14 • £966
Federal Register (51 FR 25422), establish secondary containnent
standards for both ne7 and existing haza.rdaas aste tank systetz.
According to 40 R 264.191 ard 265.192, n tank systete caist be
constncted to neet the seconc3ary ntairu nt req iiretent.s, td%
inciLsie sufficient structural strength , a Leak detection systan, an3
rrosiat protection. Sections 2M. 193 and 265.3.93 estabL ish general
schedules of cazçliance for existing tank systsrs to neet secondary
attainre_’rt requirene.’tts. Altha4t r tanks and their ancillary
equipTent rtvst be installed with special leak detection and l1ection
systale, rany existing tank systate nay not have a methanisn to
detect and contain releases. the nay JtLy 14, 1986 regulations
have any leak testing requirsTtlt for existing tank syatse prior to
insta.Uatiat of secat1ary contairtrent?
?es, the n bazardoLs taste tank regulations do provide for
leak testing in existing tank systaze prior to installation of
secondary caitaiment. 40 ‘R 264.193(i) and 265.193(i) require
all xisting tank systs to be evaluated for leaks in sate
tner. Mon-enterable tu dergraind tanks mist be tested for
leaks at least annually. A I X other tanks (i.e. ail above
round a i d enterable underground tanks trader interim statue
uust be leak-tested, inspected internally, or exantined for
xacks, Leaks 1 rroaion aid erosion at Least annuaflv.
permitted tanks nist be either leak-tested annually or placed
on a sthedule for overall integrity asseesnents. The
fre .tecy of assesslenta scald depad on the naterial of
nastruction of the tank, the age of the systan, the type of
i ste stared or treated, the type of corrosion or erosion
protection, aid the rate of corrosion or erosion of the tart.
The annual leak testing requirete.’tt also a lies to aLl. ancillary
equiptent. In addition. c264. 191 aid §265.191 require the
aelerfa?erator of an existing tank systan that does not have a
seconiary catta.innt systan rreeting the requiretents of ;;264.193
and 265.193 to thtain a written asseastent that attests to the
tank systwt’ a integrity by 3anaxy 12, 1988. ll assessients
nust be certified by an independent, qualified, registered
professional engineer arK! av.ist be kept on file at the facility.
Sotrce: Bill fine (202) 382-4623
Research: Jennifer Brook

9493. 198 (02)
8. tste
t’bald vtdeo ncnitoring of the above-ground portions of a tank systen
neet the daily inspection reguirwisnts tr er §264.195(b){l) and
265.L95(aK2)? bbuld vidc rttx itorirq iteet the r uire’ien.s for a
leak detection systen for an a e-grourxt tank systan under §264.L93(c)(3)
and §265.193(c)(3)?
The regulations do not specify that any particular netho’is have
to S used to neet the requirenerits of inspection or Leak
detection. As a result the use of video nrnitorinq is not
at rica.Uy excluded for either of the above uses. There
nd4, ha.ever, be careful scrutiny of the effectiveness of
suth a systat. The systen aild have to provide a Level of
perfornarce caiparable to actual cl e-up visual inspection of
the entire sy nc and the cnpahility of effectively detectirq Leaks
within 24 bows.
Surce: William Kline (202} 382-7924
Specialist: Bandy tither

Z PR 8 • 7
Honorable J Jontz
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Jontz:
Thank you for your March 10, 1987, letter in which you
requested information regarding regulations on the disposal
of storage tanks.
As you are probably aware, EPA regulates storage tanks
under both Subtitle C and Subtiti. I of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA). Tanks that are
used for the storage or treatment of hazardous waste are
regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. On July 14, 1986, EPA
promulgated revised standards for hazardous waste tank systems
(51 FR 25422). A copy of these standards is enclosed for
your convenience.
The hazardous waste tank system standards require that
the owner or Operator, at closure of a tank system, remove or
decontaminat, all waste residues, contaminated soil, contaminated
containment system components and structures/equipment contami-
nated with waste. If these material. cannot be removed or
decontaminated, th. site itself must be managed as a hazardous
waste landfill in accordance with 55264.310 or 265.310.
Tanks, piping and other parts of the tank system that do
not contain hazardous waste are not subject to any further
Subtitle C r.quir.nts. The owner or operator may do what
e wants with this equipment. For example, it could b.
salvaged, us.d elsewhere on site for another purpose, or
abandoned on—site.
EPA r.c.ntly published and made available to th. public
a document ‘Technical Resource cumsrit for Storage and
Treatment of Hazardous Wast. in Tanks System’ (NTIS No. PB—
87—134391) that provides information regarding complianc.
with the hazardous waste tank syst.m standards. Chapter 12
of this document (a copy of which is enclosed) addresses
closure and post—closure requirements. Among other things,

there is a discussion regarding the abandonment of tank
system in place. EPA recommends that th. guidelines of the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), as contained in
M NFPA 30-Flammable and Combustible Liquids code. Appendix C.
(Abandonment or Removal of Underground Tanks) be followed.
A copy of these guidelines is also enclosed.
Under Subtitle I of RCRA. EPA is currently developing
separate standards for underground storage tanks containing
Thazardous substances as defined under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) or petroleum. The.. standards (which do not
address storage of hazardous waste) are expected to be pro-
posed in early April 1987, and will, Like the Subtitle C
rules, build upon the guidelines of ITFPA 30.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me
7. Winston Porter
Assistance Administrator

APR 201987
Mr 1 Gerald R. L rgant
Senior Environmental. Control Engineer
Celanese Chemical Company, Inc.
Box 56190
Houston, Texas 77258—0190
Dear Mr. Dorgants
This lett.r is in reponse to your letter of Mard 11,
1987. in which you requested clarification on the requirements
of EPAs hazardous waste tank system regulations for temporary
The term temporary tank used in the preamble to the
July 14, 1986 Federal (51 PR 25422) referred to any
tank system th TTiTecated or brought onsit. for the temporary
storage of hazardous waste in response to an emergency or cata
strcphic event • To classify a tank system as a temporary tank
system, it must be used in respons, to an unexpected occurrence.
A temporary tank system would be subj.ct to all applicable is—
quire nts of Parts 264, 266, and 270 as provided in am emergency
permit under *270.61. Unless a tank system is br aqht on—line in
response to an ea.rg.ncy situation, it is subject to all applicable
requirements for hazardous waits tank system., including secondary
containment. Bowever, a tank system that itself serves as part of
a secondary containment system used to collect or contain releases
of hasardous waste from the primary tank syste. does not need to
hav, secondary containment (see H264.190(b) and 265.190(b)).
Generally speaking. any tank system into whi hazardous waste is
deliberately introduced, regardless of frequency or duration of
storage is not comaidsr.d part of the secondary containment
system and tha:.for. must be provided with secondary containment.
5.e 51 FR 254 2 (July 14. 1986).
Of the four examples described in your letter where the
primary tank may be out of service or unusable, only example (a),
leaking primary storage/treatment tanks, would clearly present a
situation where a temporary tank system might be needed to respond
to an unexpected event, i.e.. a tank lsak. Thus, an emergency
permit issued by the permitting official under *270.61 would
include all those requirements necessary to protect human health
sMt . environment. The nc4 ezasple, tank overt illing due

to operator error or level control malfunction, is not clearly
an unexpected occurrenc. or emergency situation. A tank that
is designated as a stand—by tank for bypass of overf ills (see
f264.l94(b)(2), 265.194(b)(2)) from primary or secondary eon—
tainment sy.te is not considered to be a temporary tank.
Accordingly, such tanks are not exempt from the requirements for
haaardous waste tank system.. However, under c264.190(b) and
265.l90(b), a stand—by tank would not be required to have
scondary containment if used sol.ly as a means of secondary
containment. Additionally, a tank syste. that is i stall.d in
parallel with another tank cyst.. (where on. system Is intended
to be brought on-line during shutdown of the other cyst. .) doss
not constitute a temporary tank system. However, unlike the
previous exampl. where the standby tank was used solely for the
purpose of secondary containment, this exampl. of stand-by tank
would need to hav, secondary containment sinc, it would serve the
function of primary containment of the waste. Thus, suth tanks
would not be except from secondary containment requirements.
The other two example. that were listed in your letter, i.e..
Cc) routine maintenance cleanouts of sludqe/r.sidual material and
Cd) mechanical integrity inspections do not constitute scenarios
that are unplanned. Thus, a tank system brought on—line for
these purposes would not be classified as a temporary tank system,
and would be subject to s.condary containment requirements.
In some cases. suds as where there is complex piping and
manifoiding of tank systems, precis. information may be required
to determine whether a tank system is a temporary tank system or
is part of the secondary containment cyst.. and thus exempt from
the secondary containment requirements. In these instances, we
recommend that you consult with the EPA Region or State permitting
authority, as appropriate. If you have any further questions,
please contact Bill Kline (202) 382—7917 or Chester Osasan (202)
Marcia E. Williams
Office of Solid Waite
cc: iegional. RCRA branch Chiefs
Chester Oszman, PSPD
bill Kline, Wr1
uzanne ud:inski. PSPC

14P 29 9
Pir. David E. Sauer
Manager £nviron antai . AU air.
Buffalo Color Corporation
P.O. Boz 7027
Buffalo, ew York 14240—7027
Deer Mr. Sauera
Aft r reviewing the ech aatic drwing for the M pipc in a
trou n in a tr nch systea ii luded in your May 6, 19 7 letter,
and talking with you ovcr the phone, I be1iev your proposal to
b consist nt with the n w tank regulations in terms of •econcu rj
contaiflment. However, other provisions may apply.
In addition to proper secondary con ainsent a new tank
syste t nd its components must, ong otnor thincjs. be destyneQ
to be com atibJ,d with wastes manayed. protect against corrosion
structural failure, flotatlon dislodgement or frost hcav , ar G
witnstar*d vehicular (and other) overhead stresses. Along witn
approprlat design, th tank system must be installed properly
and tested for tightness before being place into service.
br your information, I’ve enclosed a summary of applicable
Part 2( . Subpart J provisions tor generators accumulating
hazardous waste on—site for 9 j day. or less. If I can be of an
Lurth r assistance pleas. teel tree to cjive m a call at
Qi•ster J. Oszman Jr.
Envi ro nm .• nt Lngi near
Enclosi re
bcc: Bill Kline, OSW
Marwan Fanek. Region II

fEffective in all unauthorized States and in all States
regulating new underground tanks or underground tanks
that cannot be entered for in.pection.
Generators may accumulate hazardous waste less than 90 days
1) complies with Part 265 Subparts C, D, & J (except H265.197(c)
& 265.200) and 265.l6. Need not comply with Part 265
Subparts G & H (as required in §265.197) except must comply
with 4*265.111 & §265.114;
2) date of starting accumulation is marked & visible for inspection:
3) labeled “hazardous waste”.
Note: 262.34(b) offers 30 day extension to be granted by PA.

MAY 87
1. Inspection R ui.rei nts for 1 azardous Waste Tanks
An ex.i.sti.nq fl.at- tta d tank containing hazardous waste SLtS oc a
concrete pad. The a ner/ erat .,r cannot inspect the ttom of the
tank nor the concrete pad for integrity. Is an Inspection of the
visable portions of the tank a satisfactory method for detecting
leaks and corrosion under 40 CFR 264.195 and 265.195?
ny a ve—ground port oris of a tank system are to be i.nspectai
daily for Leaks and corrosion. .reas surr .indutg the externaL .y
access Lble portions of the tank are to be inspected each Jay as
well. In this case, the tank’s bottom an. the concrete d cannot
be observed. The Lntent of 40 CFR 264.195 and 265.195 is that alL
accessible and visibLe ve- rc . nd portions of tank systerr be
inspected at Least once each operating day. In a case where the
tink bottom s doscured from view (e.g., sit:ing on concrete).
.ich an tsoectiori s iot feasibLe. 4o ever, special efforts
shou .J be made to carefLilly observe any leakage around the base Df
the tank. Such leakage ouL 1 indicate releases frDm the tank
E’urther re, when second .:j containment is provided in accordance
i ith 40 CF 264.193 and 265. 193. the ftter/3perator st also
provide a Leak detection system capable of detecting any release
from the tank ttom. ta gathered from leak 1etection equipment
also nust be inspected each cçeratirig day, and the riner/operator
u.iat inspect overfill, controls and cathodic protection systen i.rt
accordance with 4 0 CFR 264.195 and 265.195. ever, the ci ,r’ner/
operator is riot required to lift the tank in order to conduct this
daily inspection. Likewise, daily internal inspections are not
Soirce:(s) Chester Oszman (202) 382—4499
William Kline (202) 382—4623
Research: Mark Janaskie

MAY 87
6. Hazardous Waste Tanks
An exist Lag above-ground hazardous waste tank is rovel t 4rtother
location at the saite faciLity. L) es it beco e subject to new tank
standards when it is vei? What douLd the situation be if the tank
F r both above-ground and underground tanics. the tank uLd e
LassLf e.i as a new tank after being toved and reinstalled (see 50
FR 25446, JuLy 4, 1986). The tank uld be subject to the
requirenerits for new tank systems. The tank would have to be
reinstaLled with secondary ontainn nt •teetiag the requirements
specified in 264.L93(a) or 265.193.
Source: Ciet Oszn n (202) .382—4499
Research: Randy Eicher

9483.1987 (08)
MAY 87
7. ? ppLica ility of Contingent Closure and Post-Closure Plans
Section 264.19 7 (c)(l) and (2) requires that, unless a tank has
secondary containxI nt, contingent plan for closure as a Landfill
and a contingent post-closure plan r iust be prepared. 40 CFR
264.L93(a)(3) requires that an existing tank be retrofit with
secondary contairu nt by the time it reaches 15 years of age. If the
ner of an existing tank is planning to install secondary contai.nment
before the tank reaches 1.5 years of age, is the ner/operator required
to prepare the contingent plans?
Yes, the contingent closure and contingent post-closure plans are
required for all tanks not having secondary containment, even if
the c Jner/operator is planning on installing secondary containment.
The plans would be required until the secondary containment meeting
the requirements of 264.193 or 265.193 is instaLled.
Source: William kline (202) 382—7912
thet Oszman (202) 382—4499
Research: Randy Eicher

fDSZI1 9483.198709 1

JUN25 1981
Mr. Thomas G. Neitner
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Affairs Division
Eli Lilly and Company
Lilly Corporate Center
Indianapolis, Indiana 46285
Dear Mr. Neitner:
I am sorry for the delayed response to your letter of
May 6, 1987. However, I have attempted to resolve the issues
concerning the definition of welded flanges and your proposed
use of plastic— or teflon—lined, threaded pipe joints without
secondary containment.
In general, your interpretations are correct. However, I
have several comments/concerns which are attached and follow the
same format as the attachment to your letter titled: “Hazardous
Waste Tank Interpretations of the July 14, 1986 Regulations”.
Please be reminded that Lilly facilities must comply with all
applicable provisions relating to the management of hazardous
waste, not just the July 14, 1986 tank rule.
If you have any questions or need additional clarification,
please feel free to call me at (202) 382—4499 or Bill Kline
at (202) 382—7917 or our Region V office.
c!’Idz4 ?
Chester . Oszman Jr.
Environmental Engineer
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Bill Kline, 0 5W
Gary Victorine, Region V

1. Dike Design
I generally agree with your “Dike Design concept. However.
you should be prepared to demonstrate compatibility of the
impermeable interior coatings with the stored wastes. If the
dike system is designed like a “vault” (e.g., built in the ground
with concrete floors and walls) and if the dike/vault is subject
to hydraulic pressure, then the design must include an exterior
mosture barrier or be otherwise designed to prevent migration of
moisture into the dike/vault.
2. Leak Detection
Again, all impermeable barriers must be compatible with the
stored waste(s). If existing technology or site conditions will
not allow detection of a release within 24 hrs, for the “vertical
tank” and the “insulated tank” situation, the EPA Regional
Administrator will make a determination which will define the
“earliest practicable time” to report releases. This determination
will be based on your design and subsequent demonstration.
3. Assessment and Certification
In the third and fourth paragraphs the word “system 1 ’ should
be inserted after the word “tank” wherever the word “tank” is
not followed by the word “system”. Doing this adds clarity to
your interpretation of the inspection and construction require-
ment s.
1. Pipe Arbors
Large, sudden failures, although uncommon, must be accounted
for in the facility’s contingency plan. Being in the contingency
plan, sudden failures could influence the design of the tank
Flanges bolted together, with the pipe welded to the flange,
with a gasket between the flange faces, will not require secon-
dary containment. However, it is essential that welded pipe to
flange systems be tested for tightness before being placed in use
and that the flange be inspected daily for leaks. If the welded
pipe to flange system is dismantled and reassembled, then the
system would have to be retested for tightness before being
placed back in service.

It is the intent of the rule to require secondary containment
for threaded joint system. The plastic- or teflon—lined,
threaded pipe jo. ,nt would be no exception. Your description of
the plastic- or teflon—lined, threaded pipe to flange joint is
inadequate to determine the reliability of the system. To use
this threaded pipe to flange system without secondary containment
you will, need to demonstrate to the applicable permitting authority
(EPA Region or authorized State) that the joint is significantly
more reliable than other (unlined) threaded pipe to flange systems.
If you choose to make this demonstrations we at Headquarters would
like to see the data and complete design.
2. Loading/Unloading Stations
Your description of the sump in the loading/unloading stations
is inadequate. More detail relating to the design and operation
of the sump is needed before we can judge its adequacy. Why was
the containment volume of 10% picked? The suuip should be designed
to provide capacity to hold any expected spiii or Leak plus any
subsequent wash—down products. Also, additional capacity is needed
to contain precipitation from a 25 yr.., 24 hr. rainfall event if
the stations are in the open. Your design should cons-ider howl
when the sump will be inspected, sampled and emptied. Also, the
loading/unloading station sump will have to be designed to prevent
any uncontrolled release of hazardous waste to the environment.

Mr. Irv ing D. Press
Vice President—Technology
Resistoflex Company
iioodlan l4oad
RoselanO. ew Jersey 07068
Dear Mr. Press;
This letter ii in response to your letter of June 16, 1987,
in which you expressed concern with EPA’s regulation. and sub-
sequent interpretation regarding secondary containment of piping
EPA appreciates your concern and is likewise aware of the
problems associated with piping systems. As appropriately pointed
out in your letter, the piping is on. of the most vulnerable
areas of a tank system and needs to be given careful and special
consideration during its design, installation, and operation.
You also correctly stated the Agency’s determination that secondary
containment with teak detection provides the most reliable means
of preventing release. to the environment.
For underground piping, EPA believes that secondary containment
with leak detection is an absolute necessity. Not only is under-
ground piping sore prone to failure due to corrosion and other
soil related str.ss.s, than is aboveground piping, but it is also
impossible to visually obeervs any impending or actual failure of
the piping syste., particularly for less than catastrophic releases.
On th. other hand, EPA believes that with aboveground piping,
where corrosi related failure Is minimized, visual inspections
performed daily will. enabl. the owner/operator to proi ptly rimedy
observed impending or actual failure. Furthermore, for any
release that does occur fr an aboveground piping syst the
res ons. actions r.quired by ths regulations should prevent, in
all but the most unusual circumstances, any contamination of
ground water or surface water. It is EPA’s opinion that the
risks associat.d with abov.grcund piping do not justify the
necessity of providing secondary containment for th. entire

aboveground piping systems. However. the Agency is requiring
that secondary containment be provided where threaded connections,
packing —typ. pump seals, and other equipment with greater risk of
failure is used
The revised hasardous waste tank system standards place an
emphasis on proper design and installation of the piping system,
daily inspect tOns of equipment, and the requirement of secondary
containment for all underground piping and for the re failure
prone areas of aboveground piping systems. Given this focus, EPA
believes that its revised standards for piping and other ancillary
equipment will be protective of the environment. Thus, the Agency
has no intention of amending ft264.193 or 265.193 to •l.. .inata
paragraph (f). A Federal notic. to clarity certain
terms in paragraph (f I is, however, being prepared. For example,
the term ‘welded flange will be clarifi.d as meaning a flange that
is joined to the pipe by some type of welded connection. EPA will
not interpret ‘welded flange’ as being the sealing of assembled
flange )ointa The notice is sKpect.d to be published this summer.
it you should have any further questions, or wish to further
discuss your concerns, please contact Bill Kline or Bob April
of my staff at (202) 382—7917.
Siric.r.ly ,
Robert W. Dellinger
Q ief, Waste Treatment Branch

iL20 pg
era1 jne V. Cox
‘lice Prebid.nt—Technical Director
he ical Manufacturers I ssociation
2501 Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Ms. Cox:
This letter is in res nse to your letter of May 20, 1987 P
Sill Kline of my staff, in which you expressed concerns with
certain aspects of EPA’s regulations and guidance materials for
hazardous waits tank systems. Specifically, two concerns were
raiiedz 1) requirement for an ind.pendent qualified, registered
professional engineer to conduct tank system assessmente/certification
and 2) interpretation of the term welded flang. .
The first concern addressed in your letter i.e., independent
engineers, raises two issues 1) the need for such an engineer
and 2) stats registration of such •ngiri..rs. On the first issue,
EPA believes tnat it is necessary to ensure that the engineer who
is attesting to the condition of a hazardous i ste tank system
feel no obligation or other pressure to certify a tank system a.
being sound, regardless of its actual condition. EPA bslives
that although such a situation eight occur infrequently, the
circumstances creating such a predicament could undaubtably occur
at certain facULtie, and should be avoided.
The Ct’ is correct in stating that the July 14, 1986. revIsed
hazardous waste tank systam standards do not r.quire tha% the
certifying engineer be licensed in the same stats in which the
facility is located. Likewise, the CIIA correctly cites the
Technical Resource for the Storage and Trsatmsrtt of
Hazardous Waste in Tank Systams, Dsc.aber 1986, as stating that
such state registration is d.sir.able.
The Agency did not intsnd to mandate that engineers must be
licensed in the State in which the facility’s tanks that are
being certified are located. However. EPA believes registration
in-state is csrtainly desirsabl.. -For example, registration of
tne engineer in the state of the facility would ensure that the
a iplicabLe and appropriate Stats laws are abided by a. well as
tne iedsral regulations.

The other issue raised by th. CMA concerns the aning of
the term Nwelded f lange. The Agency has received numerous Other
inquires regarding this issue. EPA has reached an opinion on the
a.aning of this term and is now developing a notice to be published
in the Federal Re ist.r (hopefully, by the SM of the summer of
1987) that w l1 clarify the sCope of the term weldsd flange.
In general, the term weldsd flang., for the purpose of the
revised hazardous west. tank systme standards, will be intepreted
as meaning a flange whereby a welded connection between the
flang. and piping is provided. As such, weld n.ck flanges, Lap
3oint flanges, slip-on flanges, and also ockt welds will be
accepted as being a welded flange. As EPA will point out in its
interpretive notice, the primary concern of the Agency is to
ensure that threaded connections ar. provided with secondary
Pleas. forgive the delay in r.s nding to your letter. I hop.
that we have clearly responded to your concerns. If you have any
further questions or concerns, please contact either Bill Xlin. or
Bob April of my staff at (202) 382-7917.
Yours truly,
Bobert DslLing.r
Q i.f
Waste Treatment Branch
cc: aill Kim.
ob April
bcc: Suzanne RUdZifl$k2
i4att Hale
cnet Qs man

it 29 1987
..r. i no .ias . . e. tner
vjro t i taj ..n ineer
..LL L.illj and Con Qany
llj Corporate Centcr
Ifluiàfl4 )Olj8, Indiana 462b5
Liear Liz. Lieltner:
This letter is in response to your letter of May 28. 1978,
requestiny that EPA re—examine the validity of data in the
Technical Resource Document for 5torage of Hazardous Waste in
Tank Systems. regarding the compatibility of ethanol with stainless
We have reviewed the information that you submitted supporting
your contention that ethanol is indeed compatible with stainless
steel. The Agency also evaluated additional information gathered
from contacts with tank menufacturers, ethanol producers, and
corrosion expert..
As a result of our evaluation of all of the above data, we
believe that it is reasonable to correct the TRD so as to indicate
that ethanol and stainless steel are compatible. EPA plans to
update the TPD this Fall and will make the necessary correction at
that time. If you have any further questions, please call me at
(202) 3U2—7917.
tours truly.
William J. Kline
Environmental Scientist
bce: Matt Hale
iep.*r ,i Ptii4,4 p q.kj
( rTi , l. lip1

9483 .1987(13)
5. Secondary Contairr nt for Thnks
The hazardous waste tank restrictions pra ilgated in the July 14, 1986
Federal Register (51 FR 25422) thcluded regu. . r nts for secondary
contair1n t ( 265. 193). c e of the three methods of secor ary conta. .rment
is a vault ( 2€5.l93(d)(2)). The vault systeii rm st be designed or c erated
to contain 100 percent of the capacity of the largest tank within its
boundary. If the largest tank within the boundary contains ron-hazardous
waste, must the vault be designed to contain the capacity of the r n-hazarzious
waste tank or the capacity of the largest az9rdous waste tank?
The har rdous waste tank regulations are r t applicabLe to tanks
containirx ron-hazardous waste; therefore the vault r .ist be designed to
contain 100 percent of the capacity of the largest hazar us waste tank.
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-4623
Research: Betty Wilsat

$ 3 198T
Mr. Timothy P. Love
Allied Corporation
Fibers Division
tIargaret and Bermuda Streets
Philadelphia, PA. 19137—1193
Dear Mr. Love:
This letter is in response to your letter of February 19,
19b7 requesting confirmation of a telephone conversation on
February 9, 1987, between you and Bill Kline of my staff.
The topic of that telephone conversation was the intent of
4265.l93(f)(4) regarding whether secondary containment is
required for pressurized aboveground piping systems that are
provided with automatic shut-off devices.
As was discussed in the telephone conversation, I can
confirm that the 265.193(f)(4) provision, as now written, would
exempt pressurized piping systems with automatic shut—oft devices
from the secondary containment requir ient. Furthermore, this
provision would allow this exemption even if welded flanges,
welded joints, welded connections, sealless valves, and sealless
or magnetic coupling pumps are not used.
The Agency has been reconsidering the ramifications of this
provision, as currently written. EPA may have over—estimated
the effectiveness of automatic shut-off devices. Although these
devices should certainly limit the quantity of waste released
in case of a substantial failure somewhere in the piping system
(e.g., pipe rupture), they would unlikely have any effect on
reducing the number or size of releases in piping systems due to
small or slow leaks at valves, connections, flanges, etc.
It was not EPA’S intent to prescribe less importance to
swaller than major leaks in pressurized piping systems. In fact,
su less tF n major £eaics J N reaisr concern in pres
surized piping systems compared to non—pressurized systems
due to their potential to release larger quantities of
hazardous waste.

Thus, the Agency believes that it may be prudent to require
all aboveyround piping systems, pressurized a. well as non—
pressurized, even if automatic shut—off devices are used, to use
welded joints, sealless valves, seal].esa or magnetic coupling
pumps, etc., in order to be exempted tram the secondary contain-
ment requirenent. In fact, we are contemplating that automatic
shut—off devices should likewise be welded so as not to be a
source of leakage. Using this approach, automatic shut—off
devices might, rather than serve as a means for a piping system
to be exempted from secondary containment, would be used to
protect against catastrophic releases and serve as a means to
limit the size of the secondary containment system(s), where
needed. CPA is considering proposing such an amendment to the
tank system standards.
We appreciate your comments on this issue. Please accept
our apology for any inconveniences caused by our delayed response.
If you nave any further questions, please contact Bill Kline or
bob April at (202) 382—7917.
Robert W. Dollinger
Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
cc: Regional Hazardous
Waste Branch Chiefs
Chet Oszman, PSPD

2. Tank Integrity 4ssess ients
40 CFR 264.191 of the hazardous waste tank
regulations was promulgated Li the July 14, 1986 rederal
Register . It requires owner/operators of existing tank
systems without secondary containment to conduct an
integrity assessment by January 12, 1988, to determine
that the tank system is not leaking or unfit for use.
Is an integrity assessment necessary for a hazardous
waste tank system where the tank has secondary
containment but the above—ground piping does not? Does
the interpretation change if the tank is above—ground,
in—ground or underground?
No. km integrity assessment is not required for
hazardous waste tanks that have secondary
containment even when the above—ground piping does
not. 40 C R 264.191 states that existing tank
systems that do not have secondary containment and
meet 40 CFR 264.193 requirements must perform an
integrity assessment. A “tank system” includes
both the tank and its ancillary equipment (e.g.,
attached piping).
Since the tank has secondary containment (provUed
it is in compliance vith Section 254.193) and 4 )
CFR 264.193(f) excludes above—ground piping
(exclusive of flanges, joints, valves and ether
connections) that is visually inspected for leaks
on a daily basis from secondary containment
requirements, the “tank system” has secondary
containment meeting the requirements of Section
26 .’. 193. Therefore, it is not subject to the
initial integrity assessment requirement. The
above—ground. in—ground or underground
classification of the tank would not influence the
Source: Chet Oszman (202) 382—4499
Research Kate Anderson

SEP 11 1987
‘sr. Philip L. Couella
£nvironx nta1 Counsel
Cnemical Waste ‘4anageinent, Inc.
3003 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
D.ar rr. Comella:
Thi. letter is response to your letter of July 16. 1987, in
which y a rque .ted confirmation of an interpretation given to
you by both th. RCRA Hotliris and sill Kline of my staff.
£p.cifica lly, you are se.kinq confirmation that, in unauthorized
seat.., the int.grity assessment for existing hazardous waste tank
systems, as requirsd in 44264.191(a) and 265.191(a) n•ed not b. per—
farmed if s.condary containment is installed in accordance with
H2I 4.L93 or 265.193 by January 12, 1988.
Your interpretation of this provision is correct. Your
efforts to proviae s.condary containment for your tank systems are
appreciated. If you have any further questions, pleas. call Bill
Kline of my staff at (202) 382—7917.
Yours truly,
Robert D.]ling.r
Chiif, Waste Treatment Branch
bcc: Susanne Ru&tinski
Matt Bale
Bill Kline
OSWsBi11 Kline’s disk#2:jpj:84— 87

9483.1987 (17)
23 T
Ms. Wendy S. Goerss
Environmental Engineer
SSOE, Inc.
1001 Madison Ave.
Toledo, Ohio 43624
Dear Ms. Goerss:
This letter is in response to your letter of September 2, 1987,
requesting confirmation of 40 !.! 264.193 interpretations given
to you by me in recent telephone conversations. Specifically,
our discussions centered on the applicability of EPA’S requirement
for secondary containment of aboveground welded flanges and the
scope of the term •welded flange’. You likewise inquired of
the applicability of secondary containment for aboveground
sealless valves.
As I pointed out in our telephone conversations, one of EPA’s
primary concerns with aboveground piping is the threaded connection.
As such, the Agency’s intent is that secondary containment be
provided at these type connections. An exemption from secondary
containment is allowed for welded piping connections due to EPA’S
belief that the threat of a release from these locatiorts will be
substantially lower than for a threaded connection. Of course,
EPA realizes that even aboveground welded connections are not
completely leak—proof and will need to be inspected on at least
a daily basis and properly maintained.
EPA has been asked by numerous parties of concern to define
the scope of meaning of the term ‘welded flangew. A clarification
of this term is being prepared and should be published in the near
future in the Federal Reqiater . Although I cannot send you a copy
of the draft upcoming notice, I can comment on EPA’s intended
clarification regarding the types of flanges that you referred to
in an attachment to your letter taken frcm Perry’s Chemical Engi-
neer’s Handbook, Fifth edition. Your assessment of the applicabil-
ity of secondary containment to the five pictured flanges is correct.
That is, the threaded flanges would need secondary containment.
The other four flange types (slip—on, socket, lap joint, and welded
neck) will be viewed as falling within the intent of EPA’s definition
of welded flange and thus weuld not require secondary containment.

The Agency also believes that aboveground sealleas valves that
are visually inspected on a daily basis should be exempt from the
secondary containment requirements. EPA alluded to this in the
preamble to the July 14, 1986 (51 PR25450) but, due to an over-
sight failed to include this term in the S5264.193(f) and 265.193(f)
regulatory language. We plan to likewise make this correction in
the above-mentioned upc ing f notice. The Agency does not,
however, intend to define ‘sealleas valve’ specifically. Given the
wide and ever changing array of valves available on the market, EPA
believes it would be impractical to define th. meaning of this
term. Instead, the Agency would rather allow that a determination
of whether or not a valve is “eeall.ss”b. made on a case b case
basis by Reqional/state permitting authorities, keeping in mind
that the intent of the exemption is to encourage the use of valves
that employ a design that strictly minimizes valve stem leakage,
particularly in comparison to valves using traditional pickings.
As an example of this type of valve, EPA is aware of a valve that
uses a welded metal bellows to seal the valve stem. This or other
valve designs that essentially achieve contaii ent within the valve
body would meet EPA’s intended meaning of sealleas valve.
I hope that I have adequately addressed your questions. Please
call me at (202)382—7917 if you have any questions.
William J. Xlin.
Enviroi ienta1 Scientist
cc: Chet Ossain, PSPD

Mr. Ed Parker
Keystone USA
P.O. Box 40010
Houston, TX 77040
Dear Mr. Parker:
This letter is a foll —up to our recent telephone
conversation regarding the EPA standards for storage/treatment
of hazardous waste in tank systems. As you requested, I am
enclosing a copy of the July 14, 1986 Federal Register containing
the revised hazardous waste tank system standards.
we also discussed the meaning of the term usealless valve.
Although EPA has not specifically defined this term, the Agency
intended that the term ‘seallese valve refer to any type of
valve whose design prevents the leakage of liquids from valve
eLena, a common problem with valves employing typical packing
or 0—rings. One such example of a sealless valve that is
currently on the market is one that uses an internal welded
bellows to prevent valve stem leakage. Other valves that are
designed to likewise provide containment of the media within the
valve body would also likely meet. the intended meaning of eealless
va1ve .
If you should have any further questions, please call me at
(202) 382—7917.
William J. Kline
Environmental Scientist

W*S INGTON D.C. 20460
OCT 161987
oIc cI 0,
$0 D vv*lfI £‘ ‘( G NCY mISPONSI
Mr. P. E. Gerwert
Industrial Waste and Toxic Substances
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
30400 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 48090—9015
Dear Mr. Gervart:
Thank you for your letter of September 25 1987, to Mr. 3.
Winston Porter of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regarding General Motor’s interpretation of the term ‘operating
day’, as it is used in the regulations promulgated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Your interpretation of once each operating day’ in Section
265.195 (hazardous waste tanks), to mean once each day during
which manufacturing operations are being conducted, conforms
with EPA’S interpretation Of the term. EPA’S interpretation of
the term ‘operating day’ in Section 265.226(a)(1) (surface
impoundments) is that inspections must occur on every day that
any waste is placed in the surface impoundment.
I would like to emphasize that Section 265.193(c)(3) states
that secondary containment systems must, at a minimum, be
provided with a leak-detection system that is designed to detect
the release of hazardous waste within 24 hours. This mandates
daily checking of secondary containment systems, including days
in which manufacturing operations are not conducted. Also,
Section 265.193(f) r.quirss visual inspection on a daily basis,
wheth•r or not manufacturing operations an being conducted.

i nope that these comments resolve the questions you have
about interpretation of these regulations. If you have any
further questions, please contact Bill Kline of the Waste
Treatment Branch for questions about tanks at (202) 382-7917 or
Paul Cassidy of tne Land Disposal Branch for questions about
surface impoundments at (202) 382-4654.
Ma cia £. Williams
Office of Solid Waste

oc,,C oc
SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Tank Regulatory Clarifcation
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Off ice of Solid Waste
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
This is in response to your November20 1 1987 memoraiwitu
requesting a clarification concerning a hazardous waste t 1 iiik
regulatory issue submitted to you by the Utah Bureau of Solid
and Hazardous Waste. The Bureau requested a determination
concerning whether an engineer in e Army Corps of Engineers
would meet the criteria for an independent, qualified,
professional engineer for assessments, inntallation, and, r test
for the Department of Army facilities (specifically Tooe1 Prrny
The Corps of Engineers is independenta in that the Corps is
generally considered a separate entity from an Army facility
like Tooele. As such, the Corps could provide the needed
certifications. EPA believes that this reading is consistent
with previous discussions of Nindependentu as described in the
preamble to the July 1986 rule and the tank rule question and
answer document (EPA/530-SW—87-012). The Corps’ relatioi’ ;hip to
the owner/operator (e.g., Tooele) is similar to the rela i n. ’iIiip
between a private company and a consultant. Thus, TooelE and
the Corps maintain sufficient independence.
Th Corps would continue to be considered •independent 0 even
when it certifies its own design drawings, construction
projects, etc. That is, if Tooele retained the Corps to design
or install a tank storage system, then the Corps could also be
retained to certify proper design or construction.
I hope I have adequately addressed your questions. If you
should have further questions, please call Chester Oszman at
(202) 382—4499 or Bill Klineat (202) 382—7917.
cc: Chester Oszman
Bill Kline
Carrie Wchling
Regional Tank Contacts

JAi4 21
Mr. Peter S. Puglionesi, P.E.
unit Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Weston Way
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380
Dear Mr. Puglionesi:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 22,
1987, in which you requested confirmation on the applicability
of the 1 luly 14, 1986, revised hazardous waste tank system
standards to ancillary equipment and to exempted elementary
neutralization systems.
You are correct that these revised standards do not apply to
ancillary equipment that is associated with non—regulated units,
e.g., surface impoundments or exempted tanks. It was indeed
EPA’s intent not to regulate ancillary equipment itself. In the
three examples you gave in your letter, I question only the
wording that seemingly differentiates the level of regulation
between the Federal and State governments. For States to
receive authorization from EPA to implement their own programs,
they must show that their programs are as stringent as the EPA
program. As such, I would expect that both the existing
enterable underground tank and the aboveground tank, described
in your third example, would be subject to the hazardous waste
tank system standards.
A second issue raised in your letter is related to the RCRA
exemption for wastewater treatment/elementary neutralization
units. In your particular case, elementary neutralization is
used as a pretreatment of acidic wastewater prior to discharge
to a POTW. You question whether equipment used in association
with a RCRA exempted pretreatment system is likewise exempted.
As stated previously in our conversation, such equipment would
likewise be exempt so long as it is used exclusively for the
purpose of handling the hazardous vastevater in conjunction with
the exempted unit. However, if this equipment is used, even

intermittently, for storage/treatment of a hazardous waste or
wastewater prior to shipment offsite as a hazardous waste, the
exemption is not applicable. The revised hazardous waste tank
system standards of uly 14, 1986, would then apply.
Please call me at (202) 382—7917 if you have any further
William J. Kline
Environmental Scientist
Waste Treatment Branch, WMD
cc: Bob April
Bob Del].inger
Chet Oszman
Sherry Gallagher, Region 3
Carrie Wehling

9483. 1988(02)
M £8 i9 8
Mr. James D. Roberts
Environmental Engineer
Department of Natural. Resources
State of Michigan
Stevens T. Mason Building
Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
Dear Mr. Roberts:
This is in response to your request far a clarification from
this off ice on whether the remot. secondary containment area for
the direct oUloading of hazardous waste—derived fuel, into a
cement kiln ii subject to permitttflq requirements under the
Resource Conservation and RecorerT Act (“RCRA). As discussed
below, based on the information provided, such tanks are exempt
from RCRA permitting requirements. In arriving at this
conclus ion, I have consulted with relevant personnel in the
Office of Solid Waste and Region V.
The facility specifically at issue in your letter, St. Mar75
Peerless Cement COmPany, plans to unload hazardous waste-derived
fuel directly from tank trucks into the cement kiln for burning.
While unloading, those trucks will be located in a secondary
containment area. The trenches surrounding the truck bay
containment area drain into a remote secondary containment
structure which is a concrete tank, s’ p. In your letter, YOU
inquire whether this sump is subject to RCMA permitting
requirements as a hazardous waste storage tank.
As you are aware, sumps which meet the definition of “tank”
and which collect hazardou. waste ar. generally subject to the
regulations under RCRA concerning hazardous waste tank systems.
However, as discusaed in EPA ’s July 14, 1986 final rul. revising
the regulations for hazardous waste tank systems, not all tanks
are subject to full. permitting or regulatory requirements.
Specifically, depending on its use, a eump may fall, within any
one of three type. of tanks which are subject to different
regulatory requirements unde’r these rules: primary containment
tanks, secondary containment a d “temporary tanks”.

Sumps that store hazardous waste as primary containment
vessels an, subject to all tank system requirementi including
permitting requirements. Primary containment suaps are sumps
designed to collect and tr sport ro ittns and systematic
discharges of hazardous waste. 51 Fed. Req. 2544 - (July l ,
1986). Sumpi designed to serve as the storage fo hazardous
waste fros periodic cleaning of process equipment, for example,
ar. primary containment vessels.
In contrast. suips that serve as part of a secondary
containment system i.e . to collect spills from a primary
containment vessel storing hazardous vast., are subject to all
applicabl, requirements for tank systems except for the
requirement to obtain secondary containment. 51 Fed. Req. 25441
(July 14. 1986).
Finally, “temporary tanks” are tanks used for the storage of
hazardous wast, in response to a leak or spill, and other
temporary, unplanned occurrence.. ucb. tanks are exempted from
regulatory and permitting requirements under 40 C.F.R. Sections
264.1(g)(8). 285.1 (c) (11), and 270.1(c) (3), except for
requirements concerning pr.parednsss and emergency procedures.
51. Ted. Req. 25445 (July 14, 1986). Under these provisions, a
suap that may be used to collect hazardous waste in th. event of
a spill, whether accidental or intentional, and which is not
designed to serve as a secondary containment structure for a tank
storing hazardoum waste, is gsm.rsl3.7 exempt iron regulatory and
permitting requirements so long as it is used to contain
hazardous waste only as an immediate response to such a spill.
A. you have described the remote secondary containment
device at St. Marys, the lump will, contain hazardous waste only
in the unusual event of a spill during the of floading of
hazardous waste—derived fuel into the cement kiln. t will not
collect routine or systematic discharges of hazardous waste and
thus is not a primary containment tank. In addition; it is not
serving a. a secondary containm.nt structure for spills from a
primary containment vessel storing hazardous waste because the
trucks containing the hazardous waste-derived fuel are not
storage vessels when located on-site f or short periods during the
transfer 0 f hazardous waste into th. kiln. See 40 CJ.R. 263.12
and letter of clarification to Mr. Richard Stall etCached1.
Accordingly, the remot, secondary containment suap is not subject
to RCRA permitting requirements to the extent that it is only
used to contain hazardous waste as an immediate response to a

x c you have further questions concerning this issue, please
fee], free to call me at L202) 382—7706.
Caroline U. Wehlin&
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response Division (LE’4325 1
cc: Robert Dellinqer
- Matthew Hale
Karl Bremer

Mr. David Miilinan, P.E.
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
855 Springdale Drive
Exton, Pennsylvania 19341
Dear Mr. Miliman:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 15, 1988,
requesting confirmation of our telephone conversation on the proper
classification of tank systems as new vs. existing once these
systems become subject to RCRA Subtitle C standards subsequent to
July 14, 1986, as a result of changes made to the definition of
hazardous waste. For example, a tank system that was being used to
store a substance that was previously not considered to be a
hazardous waste becomes, as a result of changes to the definition of
hazardous waste, a hazardous waste storage tank system. As I had
previously stated in our conversation, such a tank system that was
in existence prior to time when its contained material becomes a
hazardous waste is considered an existing tank system. These tank
systems would need to provide secondary containment per the phase-in
schedule presented in 40 CFR 264.].93(a)(3)—(5). Of course, a tank
system that is used to store/treat a hazardous waste subsequent to
the waste being newly identified as a hazardous waste, but that was
not used to store the material prior to its becoming a hazardous
waste, would be regarded a new tank system. These tank systems
would need to have secondary containment prior to being put into
service and would also be subject to other new tank system
standards, including design and installation requirements.
If you have any further questions, please call me at
William 3. Kline
Environmental Scientist
Waste Treatment Branch

P4PR 6 %988
SUBJECT: Concrete Liners for Hazardous Waste Tank Systems
FROM: Robert W. De].linger
Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Stan Siegel
Chief, Hazardous Waste Facilities Branch
Region 2
This memorandum is in response to a February 24, 1988 memorandum
from Clifford Mg of your staff to Bill lime of my staff, requesting
guidance on evaluating the acceptability of concrete liners.
Concrete structures are used widely as primary or secondary
containment of hazardous wastes. Although these structures can be
expected to perform well, we are concerned about several unique
problems posed by the use of concrete, for example, settling.
cracking, permeability, and detectability of cracks or leaks. In
genera]., we believe that a concrete structure, if properly designed,
ihstalled, and maintained, is acceptable as either a primary
storage/treatment unit or as a secondary containment structure. This
memorandum focuses on the use of concrete as a liner for the purpose
of secondary containment. Please note, so as not to cause future
uncertainty, that concrete liners (structures), as discussed in the
memorandum, refer to structures that are typically constructed of
steel-reinforced concrete and are essentially self—supporting. Any
endorsement of this type of concrete structure for secondary
containment of tank systems should not be construed to mean similar
approval of concrete liners that are non-steel-reinforced and of
relatively small thickness such as have been used for lining of
surface impoundments.

The purpose of secondary containment is to contain any releases
from the primary ..storage/treatment tank system until the released
material is detected and removed. Hence, an objective of “no
migration” is sought. The term “no migration” means that released
material is prevented from entering the environment and preferably
from entering into the secondary containment liner.
Many, if not most, above—grade tank systems use concrete on the
floor and dikes as the means for providing a secondary containment
liner or structure. Synthetic membrane liners also are used. We
believe that most concrete, of itself, is relatively permeable.
Also, most concrete structures are subject to cracking sooner or
later. For these reasons, we believe that concrete
liners/structures should be provided with a coating or lining, for
example, an epoxy, to minimize these deleterious conditions. Such
a coating/lining will not only make the concrete “impermeable” but
will also enhance the drainage capability of the secondary
containment system, enable easier and quicker clean-up of releases,
and ultimately allow for easier clean-closure of the tank system.
Zn 40 CFR 264.193(e) and 265.193(e), vaults constructed of concrete
are required to be provided with an impermeable coating or lining
that is compatible with the stored waste and that will prevent
migration of waste into the concrete. We intended that other
concrete structures likewise should meet this requirement. A
Federal Register notice of clarifications is now being prepared
that, among these subjects, will provide a discussion regarding
impermeable coating/lining for concrete structures.
Although a permeability of 1O• 7 cm/sec has been traditionally
required of liners used in the management of hazardous waste, we
have deliberately avoided quantifying a permeability for concrete
liners/structures. We are not aware of a standard method by which
to determine the permeability of concrete. In any event,
permeability measurements would likely be difficult to interpret
given that the permeability of the concrete may substantially vary
from location to location within the structure, depending upon, for
example, the number of pours of concrete, and the manner in which
any individual pour is placed. As such, the degree of permeability
afforded a concrete structure, with or without a lining, must be
subjectively and qualitatively determined by a visual inspection of
the structure. That is, one must ensure that the coating/lining
entirely and uniformly covers the surface of the concrete structure
that could come in contact with a released material. Obviously,
regular inspections will play an important role in ensuring that
the integrity of the concrete structure is properly maintained.
The lining/coating, as well as the concrete structure, must be
inspected for wear, cracks, etc. Any cracking of the concrete
structure/lining/coating must be promptly repaired. Similarly,
abnormal or uneven wear of a lining/coating should be repa ired.

Concrete is an acceptable material of construction for
secondary containment structures and, in fact, may be preferable in
many situations. We believe that these structures, if built in
accordance with the standards of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, will
provide containment of releases from primary tank systems thus
ensuring protection of the environment.
If you have any further questions on the issue, please call Bob
April, Bill Kline, or me at FTS 382—7917.
cc: EPA Regional Branch Chiefs
Clifford Ng, Region 2
Bob April WMD
Bill Kline, WMD
Matt Hale, PSPD
Elizabeth Cotsworth, PSPD
Lee Otte, WMD
Chet Oszman, PSPD
Carrie Wehling, OGC

2. Secondary Containment for Hazardous Waste Tanks
A facility intends to install a series of underground hazardous waste accunmiation tanks.
The projected facility design specifies provisions for double walled tanks to meet the
secondary containment requirements of Section 265.193. Section 265.193(e)(3)(i) states
that the tank “must be: designed as an integral structure (i.e., an inner tank within an outer
shell) so that any release from the inner tank is contained by the outer shell....” Does this
imply that the void space between the primary waste tank and the secondary outer shell
needs to be capable of containing one hundred percent (100%) of primary tanks contents?
No, secondary containment requirements for double walled h ’ardous waste tanks do
not include provisions for containment of one hundred percent (100%) of the waste in
the system’s interstitial void. For the majority of such tank systems, inherent design
criteria would make it unnecessary for such a specification. If a portion of the primary
tai k were to fail, the release would result in the two (2) tank systems acting as one (1)
unit, whereby the entire contents of the primary tank would be confined within the
overall structure. The properties of fluid dynamics would prevent a release (as long as
spill and overfill protection where adequate) due to equilibrium of the waste volume
between the primary tank and secondary tank.
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-7924
Research: Andy O’Hare

MAY 88
6. Hazardous Waste Tank - Leak Detection
40 CFR Sections 264 and 265.193(b)(2) require that hazardous waste tank systems
must be provided with secondary containment systems that are capable of
detecting releases. The leak detection system must be able to detect the presence
of any release of hazardous waste or accumulated liquid in the secondary
containment system within 24 hours as specified in Sections 264 and
265.193(c)(3). The type of leak-detection method used is afforded some flexibility
according to the October 2, 1987 OSWER Policy Directive No. 9483.00-3 titled,
“Questions and Answers Regarding the uly 14, 1986 Hazardous Waste Tank
System Regulatory Requirements.” The directive explains that “In some cases,
daily visual inspection will be allowed as a means to comply with the leak
detection requirement.”
Can a daily visual inspection be used as a means to comply with the leak-
detection requirement when a hazardous waste tank is resting on a concrete pad?
For completely aboveground tank systems, or portions thereof, a daily visual
inspection of the hazardous waste tank system is an acceptable method of
leak-detection. When a tank is resting directly on a concrete pad, it is not
possible to visually inspect the bottom portion of the tank that is in contact
with the concrete.
In this situation, if the owner/operator can demonstrate that any release of
hazardous waste from the tank bottom will be promptly detected by a daily
visual inspection before the released material potentially migrates to the
environment (e.g., via cracks in the concrete), then a daily visual inspection
may be allowed by the appropriate permitting authority. To enhance the
detectability of releases in these situations, the concrete pad must be
impermeable and free of cracks. The pad would have to be sloped or
otherwise designed to facilitate the flow of released waste from beneath the
tank to a point where it can be readily detected in order for the
owner/operator to make a showing that a release can be detected within a 24-
hour period. Other methods of leak-detection for the secondary containment
may also be used.
Other options are being used by the regulated community to provide release
detection for this situation. When a tank, especially one of greater than 20,000
gallons, is resting directly on a concrete pad and is not tightly surrounded by
any structural walls, an area for a leak detection system can be created by
physically entering the tank and welding a new tank bottom above the
existing bottom of the tank (double bottom or false bottom tank). The space
between the two tank bottoms is the area where the leak detection system will
be installed. Assuming the rest of the rest of the tank is not double-walled, a
secondary containment system, such as diking the perimeter area of the tank,
would also be n d ’d.

6. Hazardous Waste Tank - Leak Detection (Cont’d )
If the tank is within a concrete vault and resting directly on the floor of the
vault, a leak-detection system can be installed between the outer tank wall
and the inner vault wails. The leak-detection system may be positioned at the
lower end of the sloped vault floor and all portions of the floor including the
area on which the tank tests must be lined or coated. These specific
requirements and all other applicable provisions in Sections 264 and 265.193
must be met. The leak-detection system, installed entirely within the walls of
the vault, is sufficient. No leak-detection system outside of the vault walls,
such as monitoring wells, is required.
Another possibility for leak detection if the tank is resting on a concrete pad
unsurrounded or on the floor of a concrete vault, is raising the tank above
the floor or pad permanently with structural support such as metal legs. If
the support is provided and the tank bottom is exposed, a visual inspection
may be used to fulfill the leak-detection requirement for the hazardous waste
tank’s secondary containment system.
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-4623
Research: George Kleevic

M I I I 88
7. Hazardous Waste Tanks - Existing vs. New Tank
An interim status treatment and storage facility stores liquid hazardous waste in
several concrete sumps that are isolated from the other treatment and storage
units on-site. The owner of the facility intends to install a hazardous waste
storage tank inside of each sump. These sumps will now serve as secondary
containment to the newly installed storage tanks.
Is this type of tank system modification regulated as a new tank installation, or is
this practice recognized as providing secondary containment for an existing
hazardous waste storage tank?
40 CFR Section 265.193 requires that secondary containment must be provided
for new and existing tanks that treat or store hazardous waste at an interim
status facility. Installing a tank in an existing hazardous waste sump or
another tank to facilitate compliance with secondary containment
requirements is one method being employed by the regulated community.
This hazardous waste storage tank installation must be in compliance with
the regulatory requirements for the design and installation of a new tank
system or component in 40 CFR Section 265.192. A su.mp, now serving as
secondary containment to the tank must be provided with a menas of leak
detection and must meet the technical requirements of Section 265.193(e)(1)
and (2) and all other applicable provisions in Section 265.193.
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-4623
Research: George Kleevic

Messrs. Daniel W. Conway and
Victor 0. Marz, Jr.
Owen Ayres and Associates, Inc.
2445 Darwin Road
Madison, Wisconsin 53704
Dear Messrs. Conway and Marz:
This letter is in response to your letter of May 16, 1988, to
me, requesting confirmation of several points that we discussed
during our May 11 telephone conversation. The focus of our
conversation was the 40 CFR 264.193 requirements for containment
and detection of releases from hazardous waste storage tank
In 40 CFR 264.193 (c)(3), a leak detection capability must be
provided integral to a secondary containment system. As I
mentioned in our conversation, daily visual monitoring may be an
acceptable means of leak detection, where appropriate. For
example, daily visual monitoring would be appropriate for most
tanks that are elevated above ground-level, such that the entire
external surface area of the tank can be inspected. If the
external bottom of the tank is not accessible for visual inspec-
tion, e.g., it is set directly on a foundation, the appropriate-
ness of visual leak monitoring is dubious, pending an acceptable
demonstration by the tank system owner/operator that a prompt and
reliable means of leak detection is provided.
The sy.t . that you propose to use in which a tank is placed
on a g oov crt• pedestal above the secondary containment
system may vide an acceptable means of leak detection. You may
want to c 4sr sloping the grooves in the concrete pedestal to
enhance d.tction capabilities of th. system further.
Also, rema bii’ the coacrets must be impermeable. Th. final
determination as to th. acceptability of your proposed design
will be made by the appropriate EPA Regional or State authority.

The a mt for which confirmation was sought involves
the requi pacity of a secondary containment system. As
40 CFR 264.193(e)(1)(i) and (ii) provide, the secondary contain-
ment system must be designed/operated to contain 100% of the
largest hazardous waste tank within its boundary. If the
secondary containment system is exposed to precipitation, an
additional capacity equal to the precipitation from a 25-year,
24-hour rainfall event must also be provided.
If you have any further questions on these or other issues
regarding the standards for storage/treatment of hazardous waste
in tank systems, please call me at (202) 382—7917.
Yours truly,
William 7. Kline
cc: Bob April
Bcb Dellinger
Chet Oszman
Carrie Wehling
Suzanne Rudzinski
Matt Hale

9483 • 1988(11)
June 9, 1988
Mr. Timothy P. Love
Envirorunenta 1 Engineer
Allied Signal Inc.
Fibers Division
Margaret and Bermuda Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19137-1193
Dear Mr. Love:
This letter is in response to your letter of May 17, 1988,
requesting EPA to make a determination as to if pumps using the
“Barrier Fluid Pump Sealing System” would be exempt from the
requirement for secondary containment. You stated in your letter
that you believe that this “system” provides the same level of
assurance against the possibility of a release of hazardous waste
to the environment as do sealless and magnetically sealed pumps
which are allowed an exemption from secondary containment in 40
CFR 264(5).193 (f)(3).
As you are aware, the primary reason for EPA requiring
secondary containment of pumps is the high incidence of seal
failures that occur using traditional packings (e.g., flax,
rubber, metallic braids, teflon), resulting in releases to the
environment. Other pump types, e.g., sealless pumps,
significantly lessen the probability of a release. Based on the
description of the Barrier Fluid System that you provided with
your letter, we believe that it may meet EPA’S intent insofar
that the system seemingly rectifies the problem of packing seal
failure. However, this system is not, to our knowledge, well
established and your description of the system does not include a
sufficiently detailed analysis of potential failure modes.
Rather than attempt to make a determination of approval/
disapproval for this specific system or any other of the many
types of pumps, seals, etc. that currently are or will be
available in the marketplace, such determinations should be made
by the appropriate EPA region or State authority having
responsibility for implementation of the standards at a
particular facility. We believe that these officials, being
cognizant of the intent of the provisions for hazardous waste
tank systems, can best make the determination regarding the
acceptability of a specific device or technology for a given tank
This has been retyped from the original document.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please
call Bill Kline of my staff at (202) 382—7917.
James R. Berlow
Acting Chief
Waste Treatment Branch
cc: Bill Kline
Chet Oszman,PSPD
Carrie Wehling, OGC
RCRA Branch Chiefs
This has been retyped from the original document.

9483.19 88(12)
I. Hazardous Waste Tanks
An above ground tank was installed in 1976 and used to store product diesel
fuel. In 1979 the tank ceased to store product and was used for hazardous
waste storage. For purposes of 40 CFR 264.193 requirements, is the age of the
tank calculated from 1976 or 1979?
The 1976 date should be used. The primary cause for tank failure, i.e.,
external corrosion, acts on the tank regardless of what substance is stored
in the tank. Thus, the older the tank the higher the probability of failure.
Likewise, although perhaps not in the same degree, many other modes of
failure of tanks become increasingly probable with an increase in age of the
tank. Because the intent of the regulation is to ensure secondary
containment for aging tanks, the age of the tank itself, and not the time for
which it has been subject to hazardous waste regulation is pertinent.
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-4623
Research: Laurie Huber

9483.1988 (13)
4. Hazardous Waste Tanks—Installation/Certification of Secondary
The owner of an interim status hazardous waste storage facility is installing
secondary containment on his tanks which were in existence and in use
before July 14, 1986. if installation occurs after July 14, 1986, must it be
certified by an independent installation inspector or independent registered
professional engineer? If a piece of ancillary equipment, such as a pump or
valve, needs to be replaced, must the replacement also be certified by art
independent installer or engineer?
The standards in 40 CFR 264(5).192 require that the correct installation of
new tank systems or components be certified by an independent registered
professional engineer or independent qualified installation inspector. The
Agency’s intent in promulgating this provision was that such a
certification provides EPA with a means of knowing that hazardous waste
tank systems were initially installed in a correct manner. EPA was
concerned that many tank systems were being improperly installed
thereby resulting in failure of the tank, piping, etc. The failures were of
particular concern because in the absence of secondary containment many
of these releases could go undetected indefinitely.

4. Hazardous Waste Tanks—lnstallationlCertificatiori of Secondary
Containment (Cont’d)
Proper installation on new tank systems and components is an ongoing
concern to the Agency. However, it was not EPA’s intent that every
minor or routine replacement of a tank system component need
recertification each time it is replaced. Replacement of valves, pumps, or
even small sections of piping were not envisioned as needing
recertification since they do not affect the structural integrity of the tank
system. Rather, the Agency intends this requirement to apply to
components affecting the system’s structural integrity, e.g., the more
major, non-routine and complex retrofit/replacement tasks. For example,
the installation of new tanks including reinstallation of existing tanks, the
installation of new secondary containment systems, and the replacement
of extensive piping are relatively complex tasks that are critical to
structural integrity and require oversight to ensure proper installation.
This oversight is supplied by the independent registered professional
engineer or independent qualified installation inspector.
It is not feasible for the Agency to lay out a detailed menu of the items that
do or do not need certification of installation. Facility owners and
operators should contact the appropriate EPA Regional or State authorities
to determine which new tank system components need certification of
proper installation.
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-7917
Research: Becky Cuthbertson

5. Hazardous Waste Tanks/Containers — Capacity of Secondary Containment
A hazardous waste storage facility is in the design stage. The owner/operator
is designing the storage area for both hazardous waste tanks, and hazardous
waste containers. A vault system will be designed to fulfill the requirements
of secondary containment. The vault system will have sufficient capacity to
contain 100% of the largest tank within its boundary. Hazardous waste
containers will also be managed inside the vault system. The containers
must be provided with a containment area which has sufficient capacity to
contain 10% of the volume of containers, or the volume of the largest
container, whichever is greater. The vault system, as designed for the
hazardous waste tanks, has sufficient capacity in excess of the 10% container
requirement. Must the owner/operator design the vault system for 100% of
the largest tank plus 10% of the largest container, or will the 100% capacity
supplied for the tanks also fulfill the containment requirement for the
In order to prevent the release of hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents to the environment, secondary containment is required for
new hazardous waste tanks per Section 264.193. Container storage areas
are also required to have secondary containment which will meet these
same goals per Section 264.175(b)(3). Hazardous waste tanks, using a vault
system, must be supplied with a volume equal to 100% of the largest
capacity per Section 264.193(e)(2)(i). The container storage areas must be
supplied with a volume of secondary capacity equal to 10% of the volume
of containers or volume of the largest container, whichever is greater.
As long as the vault system has sufficient capacity to hold 100% of the
largest tank inside the system, and that volume is greater than the amount
of secondary containment required for the container storage area, both
requirements have been fulfilled. The owner/operator would not have to
supply the summation (i.e., 110%) of the required volumes for the
secondary containment system.
Source: William Kline (202) 382-7924
Research: Craig Campbell

2. Wastewater Treatment Unit/Generator Accumulation Tank
A manufacturing facility generates a wastewater which is a listed hazardous
waste. The wastewater is pumped to a tank for treatment where a wastewater
treatment sludge is generated and subsequently sent off-site for disposal as a
hazardous waste. The treatment effluent is discharged to a lake under a NPDES
permit. When the facility operates in this manner, the tank meets the
definition of a wastewater treatment unit in 40 CFR 260.10. However, regularly
occurring batch processes produce a wastewater which cannot be treated to the
standards specified in the facility’s NPDES permit. When this occurs, the
wastewater is removed from the tank and sent off-site for disposal. Is this tank
classified as a wastewater treatment unit or a generator accumulation tank
subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34 and 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart J?
The tank would not be classified as a wastewater treatment unit under 40
CFR 260.10. The exemption from RCR.A TSD Standards in 40 CFR Parts 264
and 265 for wastewater treatment units applies to any tank system that
manages hazardous wastewater and is dedicated for use with an on-site
wa.stewater treatment facility. However, if a tank, in addition to being used in
conjunction with an on-site wastewater treatment facility, is used on a
routine or occasional basis to store or treat a hazardous wastewater prior to
shipment off-site for treatment, storage, or disposal, it is not covered by the
exemption. If the facility stores the hazardous wastewater in the tank prior to
off-site treatment or disposal for 90 days or less, it will be subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR 262.34.
Source: Emily Roth (202) 382-4777
Research: Jim Styers

DEC 12 i988
Mr. Larry Drake
Manager, HWST Programs
ENSR Constructors
3000 Richmond Avenue
Houston, TX 77098
Dear Mr. Drake:
This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1988, to
Sill Kline of my staff requesting clarifications of the
regulations addressing secondary containment systems. I will
address each of the five questions you raised in the same order
as presented in your letter.
In your first question, you ask if secondary containment
systems for new tank systems must be certified by an indepen-
dent, qualified, registered, professional engineer (IQRPE). As
you will note, 40 CFR 264(5).192(a) of the revised hazardous
waste tank system standards does require that an IQRPE review
and certify a written assessment for each new tank system and
component. This requirement likewise applies to secondary
containment systems because the term “tank system”, as defined
in 40 CFR 260.10, includes the containment system. It is EPA’s
intent that all new primary containment as well as secondary
containment systems be properly designed and installed (and
certified as such) prior to the use of the structure.
Similarly, new secondary containment systems for existing
tank systems must be certified by an IQRPE. The Agency’s
position of ensuring the complete containment of hazardous
wastes manag in storage/treatment tank system . requires
assurance that such structures have proper structural integrity,
compatibility with the waste to be managed, corrosion protection
(if necessary), etc. Th. certification of such by the IQRPE
serves this need. The requirement for IQRPE certification, in
fact, extends to all new tank system components.

You also asked if a secondary containment system must be
designed to prevent lateral migration of the waste in the event of
catastrophic failure of the tank or ancillary equipment. That is,
for example, should a secondary containment system be designed and
constructed with a capability to withstand and contain the impact
of an overland tidal-like wave of waste resulting from a spon-
taneous worse-case failure of a tank wall, similar to that
experienced in the collapse of the Ashland Oil Company tank on
January 2, 1987? Simply, the answer is no, but let me elaborate
on this matter.
In the process of developing the revised hazardous waste tank
system standards, EPA identified the causes of tank system
failure. Thus, the revised standards are designed to address
these causes of releases and thereby prevent the introduction of
hazardous waste into the environment. For example, much emphasis
is placed on the proper design and installation of tank systems,
including secondary containment systems. We believe that if the
owner or operator complies with these regulations and likewise
adheres to proper operation and maintenance of the tank system,
the secondary containment system will rarely, if ever, be needed.
Also, the regulations require that special consideration be given
to the design of tank systems located in areas that pose risks of
seismic activity or flooding. In addition to being able to
contain at least 100% of the volume of the largest tank within the
containment structure, many secondary containment structures may,
to some degree, be able to handle a catastrophic failure due to
the requirement that such structures must be designed to handle
the precipitation resulting from a 25 year, 24 hour storm.
The bottom line is that we are confident that the standards
for hazardous waste tank systems are completely adequate for fully
protecting the environment under all but the rarest of circum-
stances. Although compliance with the regulations should
eliminate most catastrophic failures, the Agency recognizes that
no system can provide an absolute zero risk. Because of the type
and frequency of catastrophic failures that could still occur
(e.g., airplane crash), the Agency does not believe it necessary
to mandate that secondary containment systems be designed and
constructed in anticipation of such catastrophes.
Another question you raised regards the required reactionary
capability and effectiveness of an automatic shut-off device as
mentioned in 40 CFR 264(5) .193(f) (4). This is an issue that EPA
perhaps needs to more definitively address with regard to
hazardous waste tank systems. We have to some extent addressed
this issue in a recent Federal Register notice (53 FR 34084,
September 2, 1988). As you know, it is EPA ’s intent to prevent
the migration of hazardous waste into the environment.

Therefore, a device that is designed to automatically
shut-off the flowin a pipe should a failure occur in the piping
must ensure that a minimum of waste is released. Of course, the
greater the quantity of waste released, the greater is the
facility’s potential clean—up costs. In lieu of specifying that
automatic shut-off devices be capable of restricting a release
to a defined quantity, we have allowed the permitting authori-
ties the discretion to approve the use of these devices, in
accordance with those constraints provided by the facility’s
piping system, e.g., pipe size, amount of piping, and pressure.
The acceptance of a particular automatic shut-off device is
predicated on its demonstrated capability to meet the underlying
intent to minimize, to the extent feasible, the quantity of
waste that might be released in a failure of the piping system.
Subsequent to promulgation of the hazardous waste tank system
standards, the Agency has developed specific requirements for
automatic shut-off devices used on Subtitle I underground
storage tank systems (see 53 FR 37082, September 1988).
The data in this notice reflects EPA’S most recent thoughts
on this issue. As you will notice, §280.44(a) of these
regulations requires that such devices be capable of detecting
leaks of three gallons per hour at 10 pounds per square inch
line pressure within 1 hour. We are considering whether to
apply those same criteria to automatic shut—off devices on
hazardous waste tank systems.
The final question in your letter seeks clarification of the
term ‘ 1 pressurized” as applied to aboveground piping in 40 CFR
264(5).193(f)(4). EPA has not assigned a specific numerical
value to distinguish pressurized from non—pressurized piping.
Many aboveground tanks use a pipe located at or near the bottom
of the tank to transfer waste from the tank. Such piping, due
to the inherent static head provided by the level to which the
waste is stored in the tank, could technically be referred to as
Itpressurizedn piping. However, the Agency’s intent in using
this term in 40 CFR 264(5).193(f)(4) is that only aboveground
piping through which waste is transferred via a pump (not
including suction pumps) be referred to as being pressurized.
It is intended that aboveground pressurized piping when used in
conjunction with an automatic shut—off device represent a
situation whereby such a device is used with a known positive
“constant” pipeline pressure as provided by a pump.

If you have any further questions on these or other issues
related to the technical standards for hazardous waste tank
systems, please call Bill Kline at (202) 382—7917.
David Bussard
Acting Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Bill Kline, WTB
bcc: Robert Tonetti, WMD
James Ber].ow, WTB
Chester Oszman, PSPD
Kirsten Ertgle, OGC
Timothy Kasten, OWPE
Thomas Schruben, O JST

3. Generator ClosureIFinancial Requirements
Under 40 CFR Section 262.34 generators may accumulate waste on-site for less
than 90 days if they comply with the container/tank regulations of Part 265.
Generators are exempt from the requirements of Part 265 Subparts C and H,
except for Sections 265.111 and 265.114. The operation of a generators tank
system has resulted in the contamination of soil around and under the tank
system. If the generator cannot remove all of the contaminated soil at closure of
the tank system, must he then comply with all sections of Subparts C and H
nduding Section 265.197(b)?
Yes. Under 40 CFR 262.34, 90-day generators must dose their accumulation
units in accordance with the closure performance standards of Section 265.111
and the standards for disposal of decontamination of equipment, structures,
and soils under Section 265.114. Section 265.111 specifically requires these
generators to close their units in a manner that “minimizes or eliminates, to
the extent necessary to protect human health and the environment, post-
closure escape of hazardous waste, hazardous constituents, leachate,
contaminated run-off, or hazardous waste decomposition products to the
ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere.”
There are no specific closure requirements for small quantity generators
under 262.34; however, small quantity generators (SQGs) must comply with
the tank closure requirement specific to them, Section 265.201. Under Section
265.201(d), SQGs must “remove all hazardous waste from tanks, discharge
control equipment, and discharge confinement structures.” Furthermore,
generators of 100-1000 kilograms per month must respond to spills and
“...clean up the hazardous waste and any contaminated materials or soil.”
(Section 262.34(d)(5)(iv)(B))
Ninety-day generators who operate tank system accumulation units must
also meet certain additional closure requirements Tank system accumulation
units must be closed in compliance with Sections 265.111, 265.114, and
265.197(a) and (b) which call for the removal or decontamination at dosure of
all waste residues, contaminated containment system components 1
contaminated soils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste.
Furthermore, if the generator demonstrates that all contaminated soils at the
tank system accumulation unit cannot be practicably removed or
decontamrnated at closure, then the generator must close the tank system and
perform post-closure care in accordance with the closure and post-closure
requirements that apply to landfills (see Section 265.310). Such a tank system
is then considered to be a landfill and the generator must comply with all of
the requirements for landfills specified in Subparts C and H of Part 265.
Owners and operators of hazardous waste management units must have
post-closure care permits during the post-closure care period for any units
that received waste after July 26, 1982, or certified closure after
January 26, 1983. (See Section 270.1(c) )
Source: Emily Roth (202) 382-4777
Research: Renee Pannebaker (202) 382-3112

. n strAYS uSVIRCssfSrAI. p*o ylma 9483 • 1989(02
JAN 9tO8
Mr. Larry Drake
Manager, HWST Programs
ENSR Constructors
3000 Richmond Ave.
Houston, Texas 77098
Dear Mr. Drake:
This letter is in response to your correspondence of
November 22, 1988 to Bill Kline of my staff, in which you
requested an additional clarification regarding the 40 at
264.193 and 265.193 standards for secondary containment of
hazardous waste tank systems. Specifically, you asked if
existing concrete secondary containment systems that are to be
coated in accordance with ft 264.193 and 265.193 must be
certified by an independent, qualified, registered professional
engineer (IQRPE).
AS stated in paragraphs 264.191(a) and 265.191(a), any
existing tank system (including the secondary containment system)
that does not comply with the secondary containment requirements
of §264.193 or §265.193, must have an integrity assessment that
is certified by an IQRPE. Therefore, an existing concrete
secondary containment system to which a coating or lining is
applied to provide the enhanced level of impermeability to the
concrete structure, required by §264.193 and §265.193, must be
certified by an IQRPE.
Likewise, a coating or liner that is installed in conjunction
with a new tank system (including secondary containment) or a
liner thata instófled to serve as secondary containment of an
existing t system, must receive an IQRPE’s certification.
In situ*ntrswtan an IQRPE certification is not required, we
would recommend, however, that the owner or operator obtain and
keep on file a statement from the coating/liner manufacturer or
installer that indicates the compatibility of the coating/liner
with the type of wastes that will be stored within the e ’

P1M ii Bill Kline at (202)382—7917 if you have any
further ‘ — -tone regarding the hazardous waste tank system
D d A. Bussard
Act n$ Director
Waste ‘Management Division
cc: Bill. Kline, WTB
bcc:Jim Ber].ow, WTB
Chet Oszman. PSPD
Kirsten Engle, OGC
Tim Kasten, OWPE
Tom Schruben, OUST
Region 1-10 Haz. Waste Division Directors

948 3.1989(03)
Mr. Yuh—Jer(Burt) Lee, P.E.
Senior Engineer
NTJS Corporation M, I 4
16360 Park Ten Place
Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77084
Dear Mr. Lee:
This letter responds to your letter of February 9, 1989,
to Mr. James R. Berlow, in which you requested clarification
of the requirements regarding the design and installation of
secondary containment for existing hazardous waste tank
systems. I, rather than Mr. Berlow, am responding to your
letter because responsibility for the hazardous waste tank
system standards has recently been transferred to me.
You asked which provisions of the tank system standards
need to be complied with when designing and installing
secondary containment for existing tank systems, noting that
the section 260.10 definition of “component” does not
explicitly address secondary containment, We consider
secondary containment to be a vital part of any tank system
and, as such, have defined the term “tank system” in section
260.10 to be inclusive of secondary containment. Our intent
is that all new portions of a tank system, including secondary
containment, be properly designed and installed in accordance
with the requirements in sections 264.192 and 265.192.
However, in addition to these general design and installation
requirements, the owner/operator must also comply with other
specific requirements for secondary containment systems, as
contained in sections 264.193 and 265.193.
As you correctly stated, the section 260.10 definition of
“component” does not specifically mention secondary
containment. In defining “component,” we did not attempt to
include an exhaustive list of devices that are considered to
be components of a tank system. EPA has determined that a
secondary containment system is a component of a tank system.
As such, both the design and installation of a new secondary
containment system for an existing tank system must be
certified by an independent party as required in sections
264.192 and 265.192. This interpretation is consistent with
our intent that all new tank systems and new components of
existing tank systems be properly designed and installed. The

owner or operator must obtain a certified written assessment
that documents the integrity and acceptability of the tank
system or component for use in storing or treating hazardous
waste. This certification provides EPA with reasonable
assurance that these systems will be protective of human
health and the environment. Furthermore, the certified
written assessment should provide the necessary information
for both the permit writer and enforcement official to
evaluate the basis for the certifier’s assessment of the tank
system or component.
If you have any further questions on these or other issues
regarding the standards for storage/treatment of hazardous
waste in tank systems, please call Bill Kline of my staff at
(202) 382—7924.
Arthur Day, Chief
Land Disposal Branch
cc: Jim Berlow, WTB
Bill Kline
bcc: Les Otte
Chet Oszman, PSPD
Kirsten Engle, OGC

3. Integrity Assessment for Hazardous Waste Tanks and Post-Closure
An owner of an existing hazardous waste tank wants to dose the tank.
The tank does not have secondary containment. The owner_successfully
performed a tank integrity assessment in a rdance with 40 CFR 264.191.
Even if the tank passed the integrity assessment, must the owner still
perform post-closure care if the tank does not have secondary
Regardless of the success of the integrity assessment, an
owner/operator of a tank that does not have secondary containment
must comply with the closure and post-closure care requirements of
40 CFR 264.197. Neither 40 CFR Sections 264.191 or 264.197 exempt
tanks from the closure and post-closure requirements based upon a
successful tank integrity assessment. However, some special closure
requirements do exist for owners/operators of tanks which do not
have secondary containment. According to 40 CFR 264.197, an
owner/operator of a hazardous waste tank system which does not
meet the secondary containment requirements of Section 264.193 (b-f)
must submit a closure plan which complies with both paragraphs (a)
and (b) of Section 264.197.
Such a closure plan must include a plan for decontamination of the
tank system and a contingency plan for post-closure care. The
contingency plan for post-closure is required in case the
owner/operator cannot comply with the decontamination
requirements of Section 264.197(a).
The owner/operator of this existing hazardous waste tank, which
does not have secondary containment, must submit a contingency
plan for post-closure care in addition to the closure plan required
under Section 264.197(c). He would only have to perform post-
closure care if he demonstrated that he could not practically remove
or decontaminate all contaminated soils in accordance with Section
Source: Bill Kline (202) 475-9614
Research: Renee Bench

8. Temporary _ Closure of USTs
Owners and operators of UST systems which are temporarily closed are
subject to certain technical standards, according to 40 CFR Section 280.70.
In the case of a temporarily dosed empty UST, does the owner/operator
have until December 22, 1998 to comply with upgrading requirements or
would the tank have to be permanently dosed after twelve months of
temporary closure if not upgraded?
The owner/operator has until Decembei 22, 1998, to comply with the
upgrading requirements. Owners/operators of temporarily closed
UST systems are required to continue operation and maintenance of
corrosion protection and release detection, according to Section 280.70
However, release detection is not required if the UST system is
empty. After twelve months of temporary closure, owners/operators
must permanently close the UST system if it does not meet either the
performance standards in Section 280.20 or the upgrading
requirements in Section 280.21. Under this provision,
owners/operators of operating existing USTs have until December 22,
1998, to meet the upgrading requirements. Thus the owner/operator
may postpone upgrading his or her temporarily dosed UST until
December 22, 1998, but not after this date. After December 22, 1998,
any tank that is temporarily dosed for more than 12 months must
permanently close unless it meets the new UST performance
standards of Section 280.20 or the technical upgrading requirements
under Section 280.21.
Source: Kim Green (202) 475-9395
Research: Mary Beth Clary

s, 4 ,
______ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
NOV 30 I g
Environmental Specialist
C-K Associates, Inc.
11200 Industriplex Boulevard
Suite 150
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809
Dear Mr. Patton:
Thank you for your letter of October 30, 1989, requesting
EPA’S interpretation of the phrase “operated to contain” as found
in the 40 CFR 264.193 and 265.193 secondary containment require-
ments for hazardous waste tank systems. We appreciate your
obvious work in developing the example assessment document that
was enclosed with your letter. This document focuses on the
concept of using auxiliary equipment or procedures, such as a
sump and pump arrangement that operates on a continuous basis to
remove accumulated liquids, as the means of achieving full
secondary containment. You are seeking EPA concurrence that such
a system fully meets the intent of the regulations.
As you are aware, the primary intent of the hazardous waste
ik system standards is to prevent the migration of hazardous
waste or accumulated liquid into the environment. Secondary
containment is a critical component of a tank system management
plan for achieving protection of the environment. As such, EPA
places a strong emphasis on the need for properly designed,
operated, and maintained secondary containment systems. At the
same time, it is EPA t s intent to be flexible and not needlessly
limit the design and operation parameters of secondary
containment systems. Conceivably there is room for employing
both design and operation controls so that complete containment
(no releases into the environment) is achieved. However, any
system that uses operation controls as a partial substitute for
standard secondary containment (barriers) will be closely
scrutinized to ensure that the level of environmental protection
af forded by barriers is not compromised.
EPA believes that a secondary containment system that is
designed to hold 100% of the volume of the largest hazardous
waste tank within its boundary, as well as the volume of
precipitation from a 25—year, 24—hour storm (if applicable), will
provide the most reliable and fail-safe means of protecting the
environment from hazardous waste spills, leaks, or accumulated

liquids. In the example that you provided, the curbed area
(using a 12 inch high curb) around the 9700 gallon tank, although
of sufficient capacity to adequately contain the full contents of
the tank, would not be sufficient to likewise contain the volume
of precipitation from the 25—year, 24-hour storm ( in this case,
twelve inches of precipitation). For this situation, however,
increasing the height of the curb to 18 inches would provide the
volume of secondary containment needed. We recommend, wherever
feasible, that the secondary containment be designed so that it:
is capable of holding the entire volume of precipitation expected
from a 25—year, 24-hour storm, in addition to the volume of the
largest tank within its boundaries. EPA believes that the risk
of release to the environment is much less when a full barrier is
used, as opposed to relying on a downsized barrier operated in
conjunction with pumps. The chances of a mechanical device
(pump) malfunctioning are significantly greater than with a
passive measure, i.e., a barrier. Examples of failure-that may
be associated with pumps are loss of power and clogging. As
such, the owner/operator would need to address protective
measures, such as backup power availability and redundant pumps.
Although EPA has strong concerns about using operational
controls , e.g., pumps, as a means of achieving complete
secondary containment for hazardous waste tank systems, we
believe that certain situations may warrant their use. In
locations where, for example, space considerations restrict the
area available for constructing an adequately sized secondary
containment structure or make retrofitting infeasible,
operational controls may be appropriate. Where operational
controls are employed, EPA believes that the burden of
demonstrating their adequacy is placed upon the facility
owner/operator. It is the responsibility of the facility
owner/operator to demonstrate that the system being proposed as
an alternative means of secondary containment does not increase
the risk of a release of hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents into the environment above that expected from a
system using a passive secondary containment barrier. The
acceptability of operational controls as part of a secondary
containment system should be determined on a case by case basis,
with the appropriate EPA Region/state authority making the
decision regarding the adequacy and reliability of such a system;
I do not believe that your proposed use of operational controls
(rather than passive ones) is acceptable as a generic
demonstration of compliance with the secondary containment

— .3 —
If you have any further questions on this issue or regarding
other requirements for the proper management of hazardous waste
tan) systems, please call. Mr. Les Otte or Mr. Bill Kline of my
staff at (202)475—8860 or (202) 475—9614, respectively.
Since ly, .—
Syi%a K. Lowrance, Director
O2 ice of Solid Waste
cc: Chester Oszman
i1]. Kline
Les Otte

RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE st v 9483.1989(07)
2. Secondary Containment Systems for Hazardous Waste Tanks
An owner/operator of a hazardous waste tank facility wants to install several
above ground petroleum tanks within the secondary containment system
maintained for the hazardous waste tanks. Is this permissible under the
hazardous waste tank regulations in Title 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart J? If so,
what additional requirements apply? Specifically, must an external liner or
vault secondary containment system be capable of containing 100% of the
capacity of the largest tank within its boundary per Section 264/265.193(e) if that
tank contains petroleum?
There are no provisions in Subpart J that prohibit the installation of
petroleum tanks within the same secondary containment area with
hazardous waste tanks. Under Sections 264/265.193(b), secondary
containment systems must be “designed. installed and operated to prevent
any migration of wastes OT accumulated liquid out of the system....” The
term “accumulated liquid” was intended primarily to encompass
accumulated water from precipitation. However, this term would be
expanded to include leaks or spills of petroleum that may accumulate from
petroleum tanks within the secondary containment structure. No matter
how extensive the secondary containment area containing petroleum tanks,
if hazardous waste tanks occur within the same structure, the entire
secondary containment system is subject to all applicable requirements
under Parts 264/265 Subpart J.
An external liner or vault system constructed to satisfy the requirements of
Sections 264/265.193(e) must be “designed and operated to contain 100% of
the capacity of the largest tank within its boundary.” This requirement
refers to the largest hazardous waste tank within the boundary of the
secondary containment system. Certain above ground petroleum tanks
would be required to have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Plan under 40 CFR Part 112 of the Clean Water Act regulations to address
leaks and spills from those units. The Agency would encourage
owners/operators of hazardous waste tanks and above ground petroleum
tanks to segregate them into separate secondary containment areas for
logistical purposes. There are currently no provisions under RCRA that
apply to above ground £ . oL.um tanks, regz. of their acement in a
secondary containment structure for hazardous waste tanks. This may
change in the future with passage of House Bill 1993, the Tank Spill
Prevention Act. If enacted, this legislation will expand on Subtitle I of
RCRA, the underground storage tank program. The new law will address
above ground tanks containing petroleum and hazardous substances.
Source: Bill Kline, OSW (202) 475-9614
Research: Jenny Peters

- I - • • 4: DrtcToh ‘
____ - - - )‘i ‘D Z34 )
MAR 17 1988
SUBJECT: Inclusion of Loading/Unloading Area in the Definition
of Tank System
FROM: Bruce R. Weddle,
Permits and State Programs Division (W’H—563)
TO: Stanley Siegel, Chief
Hazardous Waste Facilities Branch
Region II
This is in response to Clifford Wg’s memorandum dated
February 24, 1988, and provides interpretation of the definition
of a tank system in relation to loading/unloading areas
associated with tank piping components. Apparently, hazardous
waste is off—loaded from a transport vessel at a loading and
unloading area which is a concrete pad with a surrounding 6 inch
curb. This area also serves as a common loading point for raw
materials to raw material tanks. The vessel is coupled (dry
disconnect) to the appropriate tank (waste or raw material) by
way of a piping component.
A tank system is a hazardous waste storage or treatment
tank, its associated ancillary equipment, and its containment
system. Ancillary equipment means any device including, but not
limited to, such devices as piping, fittings, flanges, valves,
pumps, that are used to distribute, meter, or control the flow
of hazardous waste from its point of generation to a storage or
treata ent tank(s), between hazardous waste storage and treatment
tanks to a point of disposal on-site, or to a point of shipment
for disposal off—site. In the above scenario, the piping
component to which the transport vessel couples is considered
part of the hazaidous waste tank system as ancillary equipment.
The transport vessel would not be considered part of the above
hazardous waste tank system. However, in some cases the
transportation vessel may be considered a tank system or a large
storage container.

As ancillary equipment, the piping from the
loading/unloading area must be provided with secondary
containment unless it is above ground piping (exclusive of
flanges, joints, valves, and other connections) that is visually
inspected for leaks on a daily basis. The dry disconnect couple
could be considered a welded connection or a pressurized pipe
system; therefore, secondary containment would not be required
for the connection. (See 40 CFR 264.193(f)). However, if you
determine that the dry disconnect is neither a welded connection
or a pressurized pipe system, then secondary containment would
be required for the dry disconnect couple. In this case, the
concrete pad with its surrounding 6” curb would serve as the
connection’s secondary containment and the exemption in 40 CFR
264.190(b) applies. Therefore, the pad itself does not need
secondary containment.
To the extent the concrete pad with the surrounding 6” curb
serves as secondary containment, it must be designed to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 264.193(b) and Cc) as indicated in
Section 264.1.93(f). Se ticn 264.193(b) (2) states that the
secondary containment system must be “capable of detecting and
collecting releases and accumulated liquids until the collected
material is removed.” This answers your last question.
Adequate secondary containment for the connection would be the
expected volume of a spill (up to the size of the largest
transport vessel) before it can be remedied.
Clifford Ng’s memo indicated that the loading/unloading area
would qualify as a solid waste management unit. As explained in
a memo from Marcia Williams to Hazardous Waste Division
Directors dated July 24, 1987, areas which have become
contam:n..: - d through routine and systematic releases of
hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents are considered to be
solid waste management units. One time accidental spills which
cannot be linked to a discernible solid waste management unit
are not included. If the loading/unloading area meets these
criteria, than this area would be considered a solid waste
management unit.
If you have any further questions or would like further
clarifications, please contact Chet Oszman at 8-382-4499 or Bill
Kline at 8—382—7917.
cc: Clifford Ng, Region II
Chester Oszman, OSW
Bill Kline, OSW
Carrie Wehling, OGC

Mr. Michael J. Parley
McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe
One James Center
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Parley,
This letter responds to your January 11, 1990 request for a
regulatory determination on a system developed by your client,
MIUSON, to treat wastewater and associated solid wastes
generated by radiator shops. I apologize for the delay in
responding to your request.
As I understand your letter, the “AMUSON” system reclaims
and reuses rinsewaters and generates metal-rich residues which
the shops send to AMUSON far further shipment to a metals
reclaimer., Your client’s system is used to consolidate and
treat two types of waste streams: 1) a pressure washer
rinsewater and 2) the residues generated during each of the five
cleaning operations (i.e., bailout tank, ultrasonic cleaner,
pressure washer, glass bead machine, and the test tank). These
residues exhibit (or are likely to exhibit) a characteristic of
hazardous waste. Neither your letter, nor the enclosed process
diagram indicate that the other rinsewaters (i.e., heated waste
and alkaline solution from the bailout tank) are pertinent to
the ANUSON treatment tank process or its regulatory status.
Likewise, there is no indication that the system may involve the
presence or generation of a listed hazardous waste (e.g., a
spent solvent from a prior cleaning operation) which may impact
the regulatory status of the system.
As I understand your client’s system, the pressure washer
rinsewater is recirculated within a closed system until it needs
cleaning and is then pumped 6irect y into the treatment tank
(thus initiating treatment). Additionally, small amounts of
residues generated in the other process operations are
transferred directly into the treatment tank. It would appear
that neither the pressure washer rinsewater nor the process
residues would be counted when determining the regulatory status
of the hazardous waste generator (i.e. to determine whether the

generator qualifies as a conditionally exempt small quantity
g nezator). However, this is dependent upon: 1) a determination
by the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e., the State agency or
EPA Regional office) that the treatment tank is a “reclamation
unit” and 2) that no intervening storage of the rinsewater or
residue occurs prior to those materials introduction into the
treatment tank (see the preamble discussions found in the April
4, 1983 Jj, (48 14489) and March 24, 1986
. (51 10152), respectively).
In your letter you state that radiator shops using the
AXUSON system usually quality as conditionally exempt small
quantity generators. To substantiate this claim, you explain
that these generators are not required to count the wastewater
from the treatment tank because it is recycled back into the
cleaning process and reused. However, in the anuary 4, 1985
f W, (50 634), EPA addresses the regulatory
status of “reclaimed” wastewater. While the regulatory language
allows for flexibility in determining whether a reclaimed waste
may be considered a product (thus losing its status as a solid
waste), the preamble discussion indicates that reclaimed
wastevaters are not to be considered products. The bases for
this approach (i.e., that vastewaters are not ordinarily
considered to be commercial products and are often discharged,
and that the Agency did not intend to allow facilities to exempt
their vastewater treatment surface impoundments from regulation
by being classified as “recycling 4 ’ facilities) are not
necessarily applicable in this case. Accordingly, after the
wastewater is reclaimed and fit for reuse, the regenerated
rinsewater would lose its status as a solid waste pursuant to
40 CFR 261.3(c) (2) (i), provided it is truly reclaimed as an
effective substitute for what is typically used in radiator shop
cleaning processes (subject to the State regulatory agency’s
determination on a site—by—site basis).
The regulatory status of the treatment tank residues which
are collected in the conical tank bottom depend upon whether the
residues are being legitimately recycled rather than being
subjected to further treatment under the guise of recycling. As
Table 1 of 40 CPR 261.2(c) states, a characteristic sludge is
not a solid waste (and thus, not a hazardous waste) when
reclaimed. This status applies at the point of generation
(i.e., when the sludge is removed from the treatment tank). You
should note that, pursuant to 40 CFR 261 .2(f), your client would
bear the burden of proof that the residue is not a solid waste
(e.g., documentation that the sludge contains recoverable levels
of metals and is processed by an appropriate metals reclaimer).

Your interpretation of two possible regulatory exemptions
which may apply to your client is essentially correct. You have
corxectly stated that if the radiator shop qualifies as a
conditionally exempt small quantity generator, the waste is
subject to the reduced requirements of 40 CFR 261.5. In
addition, the treatment tank may be exempt from regulation
pursuant to the 90-day accumulation tank exemption found at
40 CFR 262.34. However, you should be aware that this
interpretation is derived from Federal regulations. Thus,
relevant provisions and interpretations of State regulations may
differ. For example, some States may not allow a 90-day
exemption for the accumulation of wastes in tanks; others may
allow 90 days for accumulation of wastes in tanks, but may not
allow treatment in the accumulation tanks without a permit.
Regulatory determinations from the appropriate State regulatory
agencies and/or the appropriate EPA Regional office could differ
from site to% site.
In summary, your assessment of the regulatory status of your
client’s process is essentially correct. There are, however, a
number of variables which may require a case—by—case
determination from the appropriate State or Regional regulatory
agency. If you have any further questions or require additional
clarification, you may contact Nitch Kidwell, of my staff, at
(202) 475—8551.
David Bussard, Director
characterization and
Assessment Division

PLO 151990
Mr. Ted A. Hopkins
Environmental Specialist III
Department of Environmental Quality
Willaniette Valley Region
750 Front Street, Northeast
Suite 120
Salem, Oregon 97310
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1990 regarding
an electroplating plant inspection and how the facility’s
treatment processes are regulated. You described the facility as
a circuit board manufacturer which conducts common metal
electroplating, precious metal electroplating, etching, stripping
and sulfuric acid anodizing. The facility also treats and stores
the wastewaters from these processes in tanks and containers.
In responding to your questions related to the status of
various containers, the units are addressed in the order that
they occur in the process. That is, the vastewater containers
(the subject of your second and third questions) will be
discussed first.
Containers are used initially to store process wastewater
prior to introduction into a 500 gallon round tank used for pH
adjustment and settling. You wanted to know whether the
containers were “ancillary equipment” to the tank which you
classify as either an elementary neutralization unit or a
wastewater treatment unit. It was never EPA’ s intent to include
containers in the definition of “ancillary equipment”, which is
defined in 40 CFR 260.10. Also, since the containers are
apparently not used for elementary neutralization, they are not
exempt from regulation a, elementary neutralization units. The
containers used for rinsewater storage prior to treatment are,
therefore, subject to generator standards including the
accumulation time limits under 40 CFR 262.34, provided that these
rinsewaters are hazardous. These standards require, among other
things, labelling-and dating of the containers.

This interpretation also applies to the second container
area (item #3 of your description of system #1), used for
additional settling of sludges which are generated in the round
500 gallon tank. As stated above, these containers are not
ancillary equipment and are not exempt elementary neutralization
units. Note that the generator accumulation time limits began
when the rinsewaters were placed in the first containers used for
storage prior to tank treatment (if these rinsewaters are
hazardous). Thus, a storage permit would be needed for either
container area used for storage or sludge settling should the
rinsewaters remaih in the containers for more than 90 days.
Your remaining questions relate to wastewater treatment and
elementary neutralization. First, you asked whether the Agency
has ever formally defined “wastewater.” The Agency 1 has never
defined “wastewater” in the Subtitle C regulations. Typically,
EPA has used a very broad interpretation in other regulatory
programs ( e.Q. , the Effluent Guidelines Division’s Development
Document for Electroplating Pretreatment Standards defines
wastewater as “any water that has been released from the purpose
for which it was intended to be used”). The “few percent source
contaminant” criterion reflected in your question is not a
regulatory definition of wastewater and, thus, not part of the
definition of a wastewater treatment unit. While at the time
that the referenced memorandum was issued we intended to modify
the wastewater treatment tank definition, we never finalized that
Next, you requested the definition of wastewater treatment
sludge and asked whether a wastewater treatment sludge can be
generated in an elementary neutralization unit. “Sludge” is
defined at 40 CFR 260.10 as “any solid, semi—solid, or liquid
generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater
treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution
control facility exclusive of the treated effluent from a
wastewater treatment plant.” , wastewater treatment sludge
is any material that precipitates or otherwise is separated from
wastewater during treatment.
The identity of wastewater treatment sludge, for the purpose
of the hazardous waste listings, is independent of the permitting
status of the unit in which the sludge is formed. Accordingly,
sludge generated from the treatment of electroplating wastewaters
in an elementary neutralization unit meets the definition of
The Agency has defined wastewater under the Land Disposal
Restrictions program for the purpose of establishing
EDAT treatability groups; however, this definition is not
pertinent to this issue.

Your next question dealt with whether a unit could be a
wastewater treatment unit one day and an elementary
neutralization unit the next. The definitions of “elementary
neutralization unit” and “wastewater treatment unit” differ
primarily in the type of waste that is influent to the unit.
Influent to an ENU meets the hazardous waste characteristic of
corrosivity (or is listed due solely to corrosivity) whereas
influent to a WWTU either is hazardous or forms a hazardous waste
upon treatment. Thus, the two definitions are not mutually
exclusive (a unit that neutralizes a corrosive wastewater could
potentially meet either definition). Further, the same unit
could meet different definitions at different times, depending
upon the influent. However, it is important to keep in mind that
the unit is exempt from permitting if it meets either definition,
but the sludge, upon removal, is subject to all applicable
Your next question related to the treatment of a specific
type of waste. Generally, you cannot treat a waste that is both
corrosive and otherwise hazardous (due to listing or by
exhibiting a different hazardous characteristic) in an ENU since
the influent must be corrosive only in order to meet the
definition of an ENTJ. Units that treat wastes such as that
mentioned in your example are likely to meet the “wastewater
treatment unit” definition, so long as they meet the remainder of
the 40 CFR 260.10 stipulations regarding Clean Water Act
regulation and the definition of tanks.
You next asked about the status of tank systems related to
treatment units. Tank systems used to treat or store wastewater
are excluded if they meet the definition of wastewater treatment
unit in 40 CFR 260.10 and are dedicated for that purpose. If
these wastewater tank systems are ever used for hazardous waste
storage or treatment prior to off—site disposal, they would not
be excluded units and would be subject to storage and treat-
ment standards for hazardous waste tanks (see 53 34079,
September 2, 1988).
With regard to the manufacturing of printed circuit boards,
you correctly note that, although the industry is no longer
specifically included in the listing, the processes used ( e.g. ,
chemical etching) still cause the wastes to meet the F006
listing. The F006 reinterpretation, which was published in the
December 2, 1986, J 1 Reaister was essentially a correction
to reflect the Agency’s policy of referring to “processes” only
rather than a specific industry ( e.a. , printed circuit board
manufacturing) in the “non—specific source” F listings. The
notice did not otherwise change the scope of the listing with
respect to this industry.

As to sludges from sulfuric acid anodizing, these wastes do
not meet the P019 listing since anodizing is not considered to be
a “conversion coating” process. Anodizing is an electrical
process wherein the part is made anodic, whereas conversion
coating uses non-electrical processes.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact my staff. Contact Dave Topping for electroplating
questions at (202) 382-7737 and Chet Oszman or Bill Kline on
wastewater treatment and tank issues at (202) 382-4499 and
(202) 475—9614 respectively.
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Office of Solid Waste

_ . IO

SEP 20 1990
Philip F. Fox
Heritage Remediation/Ertgineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 51020
Indianapolis, IN 46251
Dear Mr. Fox:
This letter is in response to your letter dated July 16, 1990,
requesting several regulatory interpretations of the Federal
hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260 — 271. In your
letter, you had outlined your assumptions about the Federal hazardous
waste regulations’ applicability in certain situations. ou also
requested answers to a number of questions related to listed
hazardous wastes from petroleum refining, as well as the exemption
from permitting requirements available for certain wastewater
treatment units (WWTU’s).
My staff has prepared responses to the assumptions about the
regulations that you outlined in Sections I and II of your letter,
and to the questions in Section III of your letter. The responses
are enclosed. However, please note that State or local regulatory
agencies may have regulations that are more stringent or are broader
in scope than the Federal hazardous waste regulations. Thus, any
facility-specific questions must be addressed by the EPA Regional
Off ices, authorized States, and/or localities. If you have questions
on the responses provided here, please contact Becky Cuthbertson of
my staff at (202) 475—9715.
c Df tor
Office of Solid Waste
R. pcI d P4p.r

Enclosure 1
I. Response to Section 1. .
This section responds to certain points in Section I of the July
16, 1990 letter that we would like to clarify.
• In Part A., Wastewater Treatment Unit Exemption, your
discussion refers to aci1ities in several places. Please be
aware of the specific meaning attached to the word “facility” in
the federal hazardous waste regulations: the wastewater
treatment unit exemption only applies to wastewater treatment
units that, among other things, meet the definition of “tank” in
40 CFR 260.10. -
• In your discussion of the 1981 Lehman letter, the broad
interpretation of “tank” in the Lehman letter refers to “unit
operations which are not obviously tanks such as filter presses,
filters, sumps, and many other types of processing equipment.”
It does not specifically mention filter pressing and cake
drying. (You should also be aware that EPA has proposed
regulating sludge drying units that do not qualify for the
wastewater treatment unit exemption. See Enclosure 2 (the July
18, 1990 Federal Register , 55 29230).]
• At Line 70, the tank systems you refer to are subject to
permitting requirements if they are not eligible for another
exemption (including, but not necessarily limited to, the 90-day
• In Part B., Ninety Day Storage Exemption, we presume you meant
40 CFR 262.34(a) (1) — (4).
II. Response to Section II,
The discussion of the regulations in II.A. and II.B. of the July
16, 1990 letter is fairly accurate. The determination of petroleum
refinery listing applicability is not addressed here; we presume that
the listing applicability has been correctly determined at the
refineries in question.
The discussion in II.C. of the July 16, 1990 letter contains
three terminology problems:
• In Line 155, the exemption includes tanks and ancillary
equipment - not all process units.
• In Line 156, we woi ld say “which treat or store a sludge of a
wastewater treatment plant” — the term by—product has a spec .f
meaning and use in the Part 261 regulations ( 261.1 and

Enclosure 1
261.2). sludges and by-products are two distinct types of
secondary materials for determining a material’s status under
In Line 161, on—site tanks and ancillary equipment that meet
the wastewater treatment unit definition in §260.10 are exempt
under §270.1(c) (2) (v).
We use different reasoning regarding the status of the tank
bottoms in your discussion in III.D. We agree with your
assessment that the tank bottoms at petroleum refineries / are
by-products (as the term is defined in §261.1(c) (3)), because
the listing background document discusses storage of the
petroleum during a cooling step in the refining process, or
before the petroleum is “sent out.” The tank bottoms result
from the corrosion that takes place when water condenses during
the cooling.
If these tank bottoms from petroleum refineries were “recycled
to produce petroleum refining process feedstocks” they are a
solid waste and a hazardous waste if they are used to produce a
fuel or are otherwise contained in fuels (see
§261.2(c) (2) (i) (B)) 1 and are either listed or exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste. However, if they were
reclaimed to be used as feedstock in a lubricating oil refining
process, they would be hazardous wastes only if specifically
listed (see §261.2(c)(3)). (If used as a feedstock at a
petroleum refinery that produces both fuels and lubricating
oils, the §261.2(c) (2)(i) (B) ruling governs, and the tank
bottoms are a solid and hazardous waste if specifically listed
or if they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic.)
Your statement that the leaded tank bottoms from refinery
tanks are a hazardous waste even if refinery feedstock is
reclaimed from the material is correct, because leaded tank
J Note, however, that tank bottoms from a storage terminal not
located at a refinery are not by-products. If they were to be
reclaimed, they could be considered as analogous to a commercial
chemical product (see 40 CFR 261.2(c) (3) and the April 11, 1985
Federal Register , p. 14219, which explains that commercial chemical
products not specifically listed in §261.33 are also not solid wastes
when recycled in a manner consistent with their use as products). In
this instance they are neither a solid nor a hazardous waste, unless
used to produce a fuel when they are not normal constituents of fuel.

Enclosure 1
bottoms are specifically listed under §261.32 as K052, and by-
products that are specifically listed are hazardous wastes when
reclaimed (40 CFR 261.2(c) (3)).
In lines 208 through 214, you state broadly that 40 CFR Parts
262 — 270 apply to recyclable materials. However, certain
recyclable materials are not subject to regulation, or are
subject to reduced requirements, when they are managed according
to the terms of their, exemption in Section 261.6.
III. Response to Section X II .
Listed below are portions of the questions in Section III of
your 7uly 16, 1990 letter, along with responses.
A.1. Does the refinery stand to lose its coverage under the
exemption if it accepts wastewater treatment sludges from other
facilities 1 such as neighboring refineries, for dewatering at its
facility ?
We initially addressed this question in the July 31, 1981 letter
from John Lehman to Richard Boynton. rn this letter, Mr. Lehman
explains that although the Agency contemplated limiting the exemption
to on-site wastewater treatment units, the Agency decided not to
differentiate between on—site versus off-site wastewater treatment
units. This policy was reiterated in the September 2, 1988 Federal
Register (53 34079), where we explained that “the applicability of
the exemption does not depend on whether the on-site wastewater
treatment facility also treats vastewater generated off-site.”
Accordingly, the refinery may be able to use the wastewater treatment
unit exemption in 40 CFR 270.1(c) (2) (v) when accepting wastewater
from off-site. However, your question asked about wastewater
treatment sludge; while wastewaters may be accepted under the
exemption, the Lehman letter goes on to state that the facility can
receive wastewaters, but not concentrated chemicals or non-aqueous
wastes. As long as the wastewater treatment sludge is not a
concentrated chemical or non-aqueous waste, the receiving facility
may receive it and still be potentially eligible for the wastevater
treatment unit exemption.
In addition, we note that the accepting refinery must qualify as
a “designated facility” in order to accept hazardous waste shipments
from off-site via air, rail, highway, or water (see the definition of
“designated facility” in 40 CFR 260.10, recently revised at 55 ,
2. Does it matter whether the company that owns the refinery
accepting sludge from the neighboring refineries also owns the
neighboring refineries?

Enclosure 1
The ownership of the receiving wastewater treatment facility and
the neighboring refineries is only relevant in that one of the
neighboring refineries may qualify as “on—site” if owned by the same
person. The definition of “on-site” in the regulations at 40 CFR
260.10 reads:
...the same or geographically contiguous property which may be
divided by a public or private right-of-way, provided the
entrance and exit between the properties is at a cross-roads
intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going
along, the right-of-way. Non-contiguous properties owned by
the same person but connected by a right-of-way which he
controls and to which the public does not have access, is also
considered on-site property.
For neighboring refineries that are not “on—site,” the refineries’
ownership is irrelevant to determining the applicability of the
wastewater treatment unit exemption.
3. Does it make any difference if the refinery accepting the
sludge receives expense reimbursement for or profits from process ing
the other refineries’ sludge?
The receipt of expense reimbursement or profits from processing
another refinery’s sludge is also irrelevant in determining the
applicability of the wastewater treatment unit exemption. The value
of a commodity-like material can be a relevant factor in determining
whether sham recycling is occurring, or in determining whether a
secondary material is more waste-like than commodity-like, in a
variance from the definition of solid waste (see 40 CFR 260.30 and
260.31). However, these questions do not appear to be at issue in
the scenario you pose in the question.
4. Does it make any difference whether or not the neighboring
refineries and the refinery receiving the sludge are contiguous to
each other or are located some distance apart (5/50/100 miles)?
Again, if the wastewater and/or wastewater treatment sludges are
moved “on-site,” as the term is defined in 40 CFR 260.10, then the
distance between the receiving refinery and the neighboring
refineries is irrelevant (i.e., it is possible that a refinery owned
by one company could receive wastewater from a refinery 5 miles away,
provided the same company owns both properties, controls access to
the road connecting the properties, and does not allow public access
to that road). If the neighboring refinery is “off-site” from the
receiving refinery, the distance between them is also irrelevant. We
suggest that you contact the agency responsible for implementing the
hazardous waste regulations in the state in question for a specific
determination of “on—site” vs. “off—site” for the refineries in

Enclosure 1
5. If the wastewater treatment unit exemDtion covers an onsite
facility, is the exemption modified or endangered if the facility
treats natroleum tank bottoms, either as a non—waste or as a
recyclable material (hazardous waste)? Does it matter that the tank
bottoms come from an offsite facility such as another refinery ora
product terminal? Does it make any difference whether or not the
exempted onsite facility’s owner owns the tank bottomsl
Addressing your first question in this scenario, is the
exemption modified if the facility treats tank bottoms (which are a
non-waste) - we reiterate our explanation from Section II. that only
in certain situations arc the tank bottoms not a waste (i.e., if they
are not listed and are reclaimed for use as feedstocks in a
lubricating oil refining process and not in a process where fuels are
made). In such situations, the placement of the tank bottoms in the
wastewater treatment unit has no effect on the availability of the
exemption, because the hazardous waste regulations govern only those
materials that are hazardous wastes. Addressing the variation where
the tank bottoms are a hazardous waste that is a recyclable material,
the wastewater treatment unit exemption is not available because he
tank bottoms are neither wastewater nor sludge (the two types of
material that can be managed in an exempt wastewater treatment unit).
The question of the tank bottoms’ origin is thus moot, as is the
question of who owns them.
6. Do the answers to any of the above questions depend on
whether or not 50% or more of the treated waste is wastewater
treatment sludge generated onsite at the facility operating under the
wastewater treatment exemption?
No. There are no criteria that limit the exemption’s
availability based on the facility where the sludge is generated.
B.l. If the [ listed sludaes X048 and K051 arel taken offsite to
a facility owned by a third party who is in the hazardous waste
treatment business and if the sludae treatment at the offsite
facility consists of dewaterina (centrifuge/belt rass/filtar
press/or similar), is the offsite dewaterin system e1i ib1e for the
40 CFR 270.1(c) (2) (v) wastewater treatment system exemption ?
If the off—site facility meets the conditions in 40 CFR 260.10,
then it may be eligible for an exemption under §270.l(c)(2)(v). The
definition of wastewater treatment unit is specified in §260.10.
Assuming the unit is a tank and is subject to regulation under
sections 307(b) or 402 of the Clean Water Act, the remaining
criterion specified in §260.10 is the type of material received and
t) e activity conducted (“Receives and treats or stores an influent
wastewater...generates and accumulates...or treats or stores a
wastewater treatment sludge which is a hazardous vaste...”). Mr.

Enclosure 1
Lehman’s discussion in the July 31, 1981 letter indicates that to
qualify as a facility that is eligible for the wastewater treatment
unit exemption, that facility “must in fact be treating wastevaters”
and not concentrated chemicals or non—aqueous wastes. The definition
of wastewater treatment unit also includes a device which treats or
stores a sludge. As long as the wastewater treatment sludge is not a
concentrated chemical or non-aqueous waste, the receiving facility
may receive it and still be potentially eligible for the wastevater
treatment unit exemption.. Therefore, if an implementing agency
determines the listed sludges (1 (048 and 1(051) are wastewater
treatment sludges, then the receiving tanks meet this criterion.
2. What percentage water must the sludge contain for water to be
a “substantial” constituent?
As discussed in the response to question A.l., as long as the
wastewater treatment sludge is not a concentrated chemical or non—
aqueous waste, the receiving facility may receive it and still be
potentially eligible for the wastewater treatment unit exemption.
Thus the answer to this question is not needed; however, for your
information, there currently is no federal hazardous waste regulatory
definition for the percentage of water in “wastewaters, ” outside of
the regulatory definitions in the land disposal restrictions program
(which apply only to the land disposal restrictions regulations.)
3. What is the definition of “contaminant” which Mr. Lehman used
in his letter. Does this definition include RCRA regulated
contaminants only (lead, hexavalent chromium, eta), or does it alsb
include other non—RCRA contaminants (oil & grease, petroleum coke,
rust, soil, etc.)?
As discussed above for question B.2., the answer to this
question is not needed. There is no formal definition of
“contaminant” that is applicable to the use of that term in Mr.
Lehman’s letter. On a case-by-case basis, the EPA Regional offices
(and states authorized to implement the RCRA Subtitle C program) make
determinations of the type you request in questions B.2. and B.3.
4. What effect, if any, does the TCLP have on the wastevater
treatment unit exemption?
The Toxicity Characteristic (TC) is estimated to affect
approximately 730 million metric tons of wastewater per year.
Accordingly, EPA expects that there will be a substantial increase in
the number of wastewater treatment units under the wastewater
treatment unit exemption. As explained in the March 29, 1990 f g 1
Register (55 11838), EPA expects many owners and operators of
wastewater treatment facilities to choose the option of replacing
surface impoundments with tanks that are subject to Clean Water Act

Enclosure 1
requirements. However, the wastewater treatment unit exemption
itself is not altered by the TC.
5. Is th. answer to the main question starting at Line 276
different if two or nor, refiners jointly own the offsit. facility as
a partnership and if the refinery partners each send their respective
vastewater treatment sludges to the offaito facility?
The answer is not affected by the joint ownership (i.e.,
partnership) of the off-site facility receiving the sludge.
6. If the vastawater treatment unit exemption covers an offeite
facility, is the exemption endangered or modified if the facility
accepts petroleum tank bottoms, either as a non-waste or as a
recyclable material (hazardous waste)?
The exemption’s applicability is indeed “endangered,” or rather
the wastewater treatment unit’s owner/operator would not be able to
claim it, if s/he did not meet the terms of the exemption in the
definition of wastewater treatment unit in §260.10. Specifically,
the unit must receive and treat or store a vastewater, generate and
accumulate a sludge, or treat or store a sludge. As explained in the
response to question A.5., when the tank bottoms that are a hazardous
waste are neither a wastewater nor a sludge, the exemption is not
Note that if the recycling process where the tank bottoms are
reclaimed is legitimate recycling, then under §261.6(c) (1) the
recycling process is exempt from regulation.
Wben the tank bottoms are not a waste (i.e. in the limited case
where they are being recycled for use as a lubricating oil refinery
feedstock, and are not specifically listed) or when they are not a
hazardous waste (i.e. are neither listed not exhibit a characteristic
of hazardous waste) the exemption’s applicability is moot because the
hazardous waste regulations apply only to hazardous wastes.
c.i. Can the refinery preserve the wastawater treatment unit
exemption for units downstream of the storage tanks if it obtains
RCRA permits for the storaae tanks for the offsite wastewater
treatment sludge and/or for the netrolaum tank bottoms ?
The wastewater treatment unit exemption is not altered by the
regulatory status of other storage tanks located at the same
facility. If a hazardous waste storage tank does not meet the
necessary criteria in the definition of vastewater treatment unit,
that unit cannot be eligible for the wastewater treatment unit

, 1 1tD S?d,
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4( 1 0 *.G
JAN 4 1991 ccE :
0L ‘ C .C’
SUBJECT: Request for Solid Waste Management Unit
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Directp J\ 1 ’ ,..
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. tjllrich, Director
Waste Management Division, Region V
We have reviewed your memorandum of July 10, 1990, and
your follow-up memorandum of November 20, 1990, in which were
requested a determination as to whether an area which
formerly held a leaking product tank constitutes a solid
waste management unit (SWMU) subject to corrective action
under RCRA S3004(u).
The information provided in your correspondence
describes the unit in question as a concrete chamber built
into the floor beneath the chromium plating apparatus, which
functioned to temporarily store chromium plating solution
whenever the plater was drained for servicing. After the
servicing, the contents of the chamber were returned to the
plater. We further understand that releases have occurred
from this tank, and that some remedial measures have been
Based on this information, it seems reasonably clear
that the holding tank itself would not be considered a SWMU,
since it appears that it was used exclusively to store
product (i.e., plating solution), rather than solid or
hazardous waste. However, the primary issue in this case is
whether the area surrounding and underneath the holding tank,
which was apparently contaminated from leakage from the tank,
should be considered a SWMU.
The leakage from the tank which apparently caused
contamination of soils and ground water at the facility was
presumably the result of some type of defect in the tank’s
structure. Thus, the releases were in essence caused by the
lack of physical integrity of the unit. As you may know, the
Agency addressed the issue of “passive” leakage from product
storage tanks in the preamble to the proposed Subpart S rule.
Several policy memoranda (two of which we have enclosed) have

also dealt with the issue. As you might expect, however, a
substantial number of comments that were submitted on the
Subpart S proposal also addressed this particular aspect of
the definition of “solid waste management unit”. We thus
recognize this to be an important issue for further review in
finalizing the Subpart S rulemaking.
In the meantime, however, we support Regions V’s
decision to use the §3OO5 c)(3) “Omnibus” provision to
address the reLeases in q uestion at the GM Delco facility.
The contamination problem clearly appears to warrant further
investigation and remedial action. Although GM has appealed
the permit partly on the basis of this use of the Omnibus
authority, we believe that its use by the Region in these
circumstances is both appropriate and consistent with the
mandate of 3OO5(c)(3). Several recent permit appeal
decisions dealing with this same issue and under very similar
fact patterns have consistently upheld the Agency’s authority
to deal with non—SWMtJ releases in this manner. We have
enclosed copies of two pf these appeal. decisions.
If you have any further questions, please contact Dave
Fagan (FTS 382-4497) or Judy Goldberg CFTS 382—4534)
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs

9483. 1993(01)
OCT — T ig
Mr. Jim E. lames
James River Corporation
P.O. Box 2218
Richmond, VA 23217
Dear Mr. James:
Thank you for your letter of August 2, 1993, in which you
requested clarification of the regulations that apply to the use
of underground storage tanks to contain hazardous waste spills.
With respect to your questions, we cannot provide specific
responses as to whether the units you described in your letter,
under the various circumstances you presented, are subject to the
hazardous waste tank regulations in 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart S
because the answers in part depend on the very site-specific
configuration of the systems. En general, though, you noted that
the underground storage tank may collect material from a spill of
reclaimed solvent, hazardous waste entering the distillation
unit, or liquid waste from the distillation unit. These are key
factors in determining the regulatory status of the units
receiving the materials. If a material entering the tank system
exhibits any hazardous waste characteristic and meets the
definition of solid waste, then the material is a hazardous waste
and the unit is subject to all applicable requirements for
hazardous waste tank systems. If the material entering the unit
is not a solid waste, e.g., the reclaimed solvent you mentioned,
then the unit is not regulated as a hazardous waste unit. If both
hazardous waste and other materials enter the unit, generally the
unit is regulated as a hazardous waste tank. You should note
that tanks that do not contain hazardous wastes may be regulated
under Subtitle I (40 CFR 280).
The applicability of the requirements to your particular
situation must be determined based on a site-specific assessment
of each unit. This assessment can best be made by the authorized
state agency (or, if the state is not authorized, the EPA
regional office) that implements the hazardous waste program in
the state in which the facility is located. I have enclosed
lists containing the addresses of State and EPA Regional offices.
p,tII_ urn ’ Ioyi ’sis v* on
con sis m 50% rI l UId 05W

If you have further questions about this letter, you may
contact Ann Codrington of my staff at (202)260-8551. Thank you
for your interest in the safe management of these materials.
,L 2’c c L&
Jef á y D. Dertit
ActiKg Director,
Office of Solid Waste

9483.1 997(01)
F’ DD fl i 1997 OFF C OF
liII% U ‘ SOLID WASr (.4NDEM€ )€NCv
Mr John T. Salkowski
Environmental Projects
Solite Corporation
P0. Box 228
Ashland, VA 23005
Dear Mr. Salkowski:
Thank you for your letter of March 19, 1997 describing the use of silica fume lightweLght
aggregate (SFLWA) concrete liners as secondary containment structures in hazardous waste tank
systems. Your letter noted that SFLWA concrete liners were installed at two permitted
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, and that both installations were approved by the State
of Virginia, a State authorized to implement the RCRA program. Your letter also requests EPA
confirmation that SFLWA concrete liner systems would meet the secondary containment system
requirements in other States.
Concrete structures are used widely for secondary containment of hazardous wastes.
Although these structures can be expected to perform well, we expect owners and operators to
address several unique problems that may be encountered when using concrete. These problems
include settling, cracking, permeability, and detectability of cracks or leaks. En general, we
believe that concrete structures, if properly designed, installed, and maintained, are acceptable as
secondary containment structures. We are unable to determine, from the information provided,
whether SFLWA concrete liners meet the Federal criteria for secondary containment in any given
Finally, we cannot provide confirmation that the liners would be acceptable in other
States Because authorized States mfty have more stringent regulations than the Federal
program, we recommend that owners and operators of facilities considering SFLWA concrete
liners for secondary containment contact their respective States regarding the applicable
. s ’ I • -r ’ 1’*! n cycIedPsDer i4O . P ,jm r.

We appreciate your interest in developing and using innovative secondary containment
structures If you have any further questions, please contact Jeff Gaines of my staff at
(703) 308-8655.
21 4
uIabethA. Cotsworth, Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc Steve Heare, PSPD
Sonya Sasseville, PSPD

P .0. BOX 228 • ASHIJAND • V1R(’ 1NIA 23005 • PHONE 804 798-7981
March 19 1997 CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
We at Solite Corporation have recently installed high strength ( > 5000 psi) silica fume
lightweight aggregate (SFLWA) concrete liner systems in two fully permitted RCRA Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities ( SDE) in compliance with 40 CFR 264.190, Standards for
Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities,
Subpart J - Tank Systems. Both installations were approved by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, fully authorized to implement RCRA Programs. The high strength
SFLWA concrete liners are essentially impermeable and are highly resistant to chemical attack
from the wastes stored in the tanks within the conts’inment systems. The systems are installed
with chemical resistant water stops in place at all construction joints. This type of liner is far
superior to coatings or linings used in industrial applications because the SFLWA high strength
concrete liner: 1) is not degraded by ultra-violet radiation or chemical compounds, 2) has
exceptional resistance to freeze/thaw conditions, and 3) will not puncture or tear when exposed
to heavy duty industrial service.
Since installing the high strength SFLWA concrete liners, we have recently received many
inquires as to the application of such a system in other states and the status of EPA’s approval
of its use. We believe the SFLWA concrete liner system, when properly installed, exceeds the
requirements of 40 CFR 264.190 and provides long term advantages over traditional troweled or
painted coatings. Therefore, we ar requesting EPA’s cnnfirmalicm of the acceptability ofthjs
Jyp&oiner system to meet the Subpart I secondaiy cont2inmej2ts stPn1s ‘equirements in othr r
We appreciate your assistance in this matter, and look forward to hearing from you in the near
future. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (804) 798-
798 1.
7 _
olin T. Salkowski /
Manager, Environmental Projects . Iii 97
On t¾,c clrxI 1’H4*Z

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

w WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Ms. Jill A. Weller
Thompson, line, & Flory P.L.L.
312 Walnut St.
Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4029
Dear Ms. Weller:
This letter is in response to your June 16, 1997 letter to Timothy Fields regarding the
applicability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regulations to indoor piping and
flow equalization tanks used to convey solvents from spray painting booths to exterior
accumulation tanks.
Your letter contains the following description of your client’s circumstances. As we
understand it, your client uses solvent to clean automated spray painting guns when changing
paint color. The waste solvent is regulated as DOOl (Characteristic of Ignitability) or, on
occasion, F003 (spent solvents listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 261.31).
During cleaning used solvent is collected in funnels and then piped to a “flow equalization” tank
located near the booth, and then finally piped to an outdoor above-ground accumulation tank
which is equipped with secondary containment and is managed pursuant to the requirements at
40 CFR 262.34. The requirements at §262.34 require that generators accumulating waste in
tanks comply with the provisions of Part 265 Subpart J. You ask whether EPA considers flow
equalization tanks and associated indoor piping to be part of a manufacturing process unit and its
associated non-waste-treatment manufacturing unit. Waste contained in manufacturing process
units and associated non-waste-treatment manuf cturing units is exempted under 40 CFR
261.4(c) until it is removed. You also ask whether the indoor portions of the unit are subject to
regulations such as the requirements for secondary containment found at 40 CFR Subpart J, and
the air emission requirements of 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart BB.
Based on the information provided in your letter, the Agency believes that the used
solvent is a waste once it leaves the spray painting unit, and that the equalization tank and
Re ycladlPlecycleble .Pñited wIth Vegetable O Based InI on 100% Recyded Pape, (40% Po consumet)

associated piping are subject to hazardous waste regulatory requirements. Since the used solvent
is physically removed (i.e., piped) from the spray painting unit, and since it will no longer be
used to clean spray paint guns once removed, the solvent is considered a waste when it leaves the
unit. All tank system components (the equalization tank, outside accumulation tank, and all
associated piping) are part of the waste storage tank system and are subject to the relevant
generator accumulation requirements including those for secondary containment unless
otherwise exempted for reasons described at 40 CFR 265.193(f), (g), and (h). The exemption at
261.4(c) applies where waste is generated and then contained for some period of time within
process units (typically tank-like units), such as sludge that accumulates on the bottom of raw
material product tanks. However, the system you have described is not part of the production
system, but serves solely to manage wastes.
We suggest that you contact you$tate agency with questions you may have about a
specific location or about the specific q 1 described in your letter since this letter is a general
interpretation of the federal regulation nd your authorized state agency is responsible for
interpreting its own regulations and making site specific re ulatory determinations. Should you
have any questions about the contents of this letter, please contact Jeff Gaines at (703)308-8655,
or Ann Codrington at (703)308-8825. Thank you for your interest in the safe management of
hazardous waste.
Elizabeth Cotsworth, Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste

H I N E & F 10 R.Y P. LL
Attorneys is L w
June 16, 1997
Jill A. Weller
(513) 352-6678
________ f:2—
Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr. 4/ ’ Of 4
Acting Assistant Administrator IVi;
United States Environmental Protection Agency 14.L 2i 7 —
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
401 M St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Fields:
I am writing on behalf of a client to request your interpretation of which RCRA standards, if
any, apply to indoor piping and flow equalization tanks used to convey solvents from spray
painting booths to exterior accumulation tanks. The solvents at issue are used to “purge” or
clean out spray painting guns. In particular, I have been asked to evaluate whether such indoor
piping and equplization tanks are subject to the secondary containment requirements of 40
C.F.R. Part 265, Subpart J, and the air emission restrictions of 40 C.F.R. Part 265, Subpart
In researching this issue, I have identified two possible and contradictory conclusions. In
addition, I have learned that several U.S. EPA Regions and RCRA-authorized states have also
addressed this same issue and bave formulated inconsistent interpretations of the same relevant
rules. Upon the recommendation of Ms. Vicki Patton of U.S. EPA’s Office of General
Counsel, I am asking your assistance in providing U.S. EPA’s written guidance concerning
this issue, which is more fully described below.
The facilities at issue are located in a state that has been authorized by U.S. EPA to implement
its program in lieu of the federal RCRA program. The state’s ha vdous waste regulations are,
in relevant part, identical to the federal regulations. The state did not develop an independent
rationale for its hwi2ardous waste regulations, and has not rendered an opinion concerning the
issues addressed in this letter.

Mtonttys at Law
Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr.
June 16, 1997
Page 2
My client’s issues relate to the handling of purge solvents associated with the operation of paint
spray booths at the client’s facilities. The facilities were designed and built to include fully
automated, integrated paint application systems. The core of these systems are paint booths
equipped with robotic paint spray applicators. In order to accommodate color changes, the
booths’ paint spray applicators are cleaned several times a thy by flushing (or “purging”) with
a solvent. (This solvent, when discarded, would be regulated as DOOl hanrdous waste or,
less typically, as F003 hazardous waste.) During cleaning, the paint spray applicators within
the booth are directed to funnels within the bcioth which collect the purge solvent. The used
purge solvent is then piped from the funnels to a flow equalization tank located near the booth,
then piped through the plant to an outdoor above-ground accumulation tank. The outdoor tank
and any associated outdoor piping are either equipped with secondary containment or
otherwise comply with 40 C.F.R. Part 265, Subpart J. Portions of the piping and flow
equalization tanks located inside of the building are not equipped with secondary containment.
The facilities at issue are large quantity generators which accumulate hazardous wastes for 90
days or less in the outdoor storage tanks• The facilities are subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 265,
Subparts I, BB, and CC solely by virtue of their 90-day accumulation pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §
262.34(a)(1). The facilities are not TSD facilities otherwise subject to the full hazardous waste
facility standards.
1 am requesting your consideration of the following issues:
1.. Do the paint spray booths and associated indoor piping and flow equalization tanks
constitute “manufacturing process units” and/or “associated non-waste-treatment-
manufacturing units” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(c) so that the purge solvent is
exempt from regulation until it “exits the unit in which it was generated,” that is, when
it exits the piping and enters the accumulation tsnkc ?
2. If any indoor portions of a solvent collection system axe deemed to be part of a “tank
system” subject to regulation tinder the hazardous waste facility standards, is this indoor
ancillary equipment subject to the secondary containment requirements of 40 C.F.R.
Part 265, Subparë J, and the air emission requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 265, Subpart

Attorneys as Law
Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr.
rune 16, 1997
Page 3
40 C.F.R. § 261.4(c) provides that a ba’ ardous waste which is generated in a manufacturing
process unit or an associated non-waste-treaIment-m nufacturing unit is not subject to
regulation until the waste exits the unit in which it was generated. U.S. EPA’s rationale for
this provision is set forth in the Federal Register preamble:
Except where the unit is a surface impoundment or is not operating. . . , the
Agency believes that the hazardous waste generated in such a unit should only
be subject to regulation when it is removed from the unit. In most cases, it is
only after the removal of ha .ardous wastes from these units that the wastes have
the potential for releasing haiardous constituents into the environment and
posing a substantial hazard to human health or the environment.
45 Fed. Reg. 72025 (Oct. 30, 1980).
Neither the term “manufacturing process unit” nor the term “non wasw treatment .
manufacturing unit” is defined in the regulations or the Federal Register preamble.
Furthermore, I have found no judicial or administrative decisions which interpret the terms.
However, over the years U.S. EPA has addressed the definition of “process unit” in the context
of other rule development. For example, in the context of the Th”ardous organic NESHAP”
or “HON” rule, “process unit” is defined as follows:
Process Unit means the group of equipment items used to process raw materials
and to manufacture a product. For the purposes of this subpart, process unit
includes all unit operations and associated equipment (e.g., reactors and
associated product separators and recovery devices), associated unit operations
(e.g., extraction columns), any feed and product storage vessels, and any
transfer racks for distribution of final product.
40 C.F.R. § 63.191(b), 61 Fed. Reg. 31442 (June 20, 1996).1 Applying this definition to the
paint application system, the solvent piping and flow equalization tanks could be characterized
‘There is no substantive difference between the VOC equipment leak requirements of the Subpart H of
the HON rule and those set forth in the RCRA Part 265, Subpart BB rules. In fact, U.S. EPA allows compliance
with Subpart H in lieu of Subpart BB. 61 Fed. Reg. 31437 (June 20, 1996).

Attorneys as Law
Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr.
June 16, 1997
Page 4
as “associated equipment” or “associated unit operations” which are part of the same process
unit as the paint booths themselves.
U.S. EPA has also djscussed the related issue of “point of generation” of waste materials in
several rulemaking contexts. See, e.g., 60 Fed. Reg. 11702, 11715 (March 2, 1995) (Phase
III LDR); 55 Fed. Reg. 22520, 22652 (June 1, 1990) (Phase III LDR); 61 Fed. Reg. 43698,
43711 (Aug. 26, 1996) (HON rule). These discussions have tended to underscore the inherent
difficulty of this concept. Id. Probably the simplest and most relevant discussion of this
concept is set forth in the original preamble to the 1980 final RCRA regulations. Here, U.S.
EPA stated that a becomes a characteristic waste, as a practical matter, “whenever the
management of the solid wastes would potentially be subject to EPA’s Part 262 through 265
regulations.” The Agency offered two examples where waste materials piped into tank or tank
trailer became subject to regulation only after the materials exited the piping and entered the
tank or trailer. 45 Fed. Reg. 33094-95 (May 19, 1980). Although these statements predate
the § 261.4(c) exemption, they seem to illustrate the Agency’s original intent concerning this
In light of 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(c) and U.S. EPA’s apparent stance on “point of generation,” I
believe that the my client’s indoor piping and flow equalization tanks are all part of a single
“inanufacturmg process unit,” since the paint spray booth, paint application process, gun
cleaning process, and solvent transportation pipeline constitute one uninterrupted production
process. In my client’s facilities, the solvent would not “exit the unit in which it was
generated” until the solvent exits the piping and is discharged to the 90-day accumulation tank.
Thus, under § 261.4(c), the piping and equalization t2nlc.c would not be subject to regulation
under the § 262.34 accumulation rules or Part 265, Subpart I or BB. The accumulation tanks,
on the other hand , would constitute “tank systems” subject to regulation under Part 265,
Subparts 3, BBaELICC.
Of course, the difficulty with the above interpretation is that Subparts 3 and BB apply not only
to tank c , but to “ancillary equipment.” The term “ancillary equipment” is defined as any
device, including piping, fittings, flaTiges, valves, and pumps, used to distribute, meter, or
control the flow of h rdous waste from its point of generation to a storage or treatment tank.
40 C.F.R. § 260.10. 40 C.F.R.. § 265.193(f) states that unless ancillary equipment qualifies
for certain exemptions, such ancillary equipment “must be provided with full secondary
containment (e.g., trench, jacketing, double-walled piping)” that meets the requirements of §
265.193(b) and (c).

Attorneys a, Law
Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr.
June 16, 1997
Page 5
U.S. EPA’s stated rationale for regulating ancillary equipment under Subpart J is its
determination that failures of ancillary equipment, including piping systems, constituted a
significant cause of documented releases from tank systems. 51 Fed. Reg. 25422, § ffl(B)(4)
(July 14, 1986); 50 Fed. Reg. 26444, § W(E)(2)(b) (June 26, 1995). However, the studies
supporting this determination appear to have been focused primarily upon outdoor and
underground tank systems, which are more subject to corrosion and the effects of the elements.
Id. Nowhere in the preambles to Subpart J does U.S. EPA cite actual or threatened releases of
ha, ardous waste to the environment from indoor, above-ground piping systems.
There are several legal and practical reasons why the § 261.4(c) exemption is the more logical
resolution to this issue. First, the simple fact that Subpart J regulates ancillary equipment
such as piping does not mean that § 261.4(c) does not apply to this equipment. U.S. EPA has
acknowledged the independent status of the § 261.4(c) exemption in other contexts, such as the
°third third” LDR rule, where the Agency emphasized:
The Agency notes that the issues in this rulemaking concerning when havardous
wastes become prohibited from land disposal do not change the status of other
regulatory or statutory inclusions or exclusions to the definition of solid or
hazardous waste found at 40 C.F.R. 261.2-261.6. These provisions can
override the LDR point of generation evaluation to keep wastes from being
prohibited and subject to a dilution prohibition or treatment standard.
55 Fed. Reg. 22520 (June 1, 1990). Similarly, nothing in Part 265, Subpart I (or, for that
matter, Subpart BB) indicates that the new rules were intended to override the § 261 .4(c)
exemption. Such an intention would require an amendment to § 261.4(c) itself, since that rule
states that exempted materials are not subject to Part 265 at all.
Second, from the standpoint of protection of human health and the environment, the fact that
the pipes are part of one continuous automated paint application process within a facility
ensures against releases. I can think of no reason to regulate pipes and tanks which direct
purge solvent from the paint booths any differently from the equipment used to supply unused
paint and solvent to those booths. This is particularly the case with piping and flow
equalization tanks located within the building where, from an occupational safety standpoint,
the facility maintains the equipment to insure that spills and leaks do not occur.
Third, from a practical perspective, characterizing these pipes and flow equalization tanks as
something other than manufacturing process units could require a substantial financial
expenditure. Not only is this cost very high, there is probably no corresponding environmental

Attorneys at Law
Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr.
June 16, 1997
Page 6
benefit to be realized from applying secondary conthinnient to piping located inside a well-
constructed building, where the possibility of releases to the environment is already very low.
As discussed above, these facilities have other incentives for keeping this piping as well
maintained as possible. If a leak occurs, it is dealt with quickly, without any potential for
impacting the environment. In contrast, the facility has explored other means of collecting and
transporting used solvents from the booth other than through pipes. One possibility is to
simply accumulate solvent in satellite containers which are periodically removed by forklift.
However, from the environmental protection and worker safety perspectives, this solution
involves far greater potential for harm than the reliable pipes. For instance, there is always the
possibility of a release from the satellite accumulation area as well as the h27ards of
transporting h ’- rdous wastes through the facility via forklift.
For all of the above reasons, I believe that the secondary containment requirements of Subpart
J and the emission restrictions of Subpart BB are inapplicable to my client’s indoor piping and
flow equalization tanks. However, if it is U.S. EPA’s position that Subpart J is applicable to
this indoor equipment, I would appreciate the Agency’s viewpoint on whether a building floor
constitutes secondary containment which meets the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 265.193. In
the alternative, if additional secondary cont iimient is required and my client installs jacketing
or otherwise cont2ining joints, valves, flanges, and connections, would the emission standards
of 40 C.F.R. Part 265, Subpart BB apply to those jacketed valves, flanges, and connections?
As you can appreciate, these issues are important to my client and I welcome your thoughts. I
look forward to receiving U.S. EPA’s assessment of these. issues. Once you have considered
the issues and consulted with other appropriate U.S. EPA staff, I would appreciate a letter
setting forth the Agency’s viewpoint.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss these issues, please call me at (513) 352-6678 or
my colleague, Chris Walker, at (937) 443-6860. Th2nk you for your consideration and

Jill A. Weller
cc: Christopher A. Walker, Esq.
Ms. Vicki Patton
Fields 1w 061397.wpd

Surface Impoundments (Subpart K)
. I

9484 - SURFACE
Parts 264 & 265 Subpart K
ATKLI1 1O4 43 kp

i w .rc eoii .cy Directive No.
Second Corr ct ed Version; SuperCedes All Other Copies
oc; c
SOL .\. ‘! NG E 1E OE ...v E3? .r,
I 15 ç i
S J3JECT: Surface Impoundment Retrofitting and Time Allowed
for Closure
FRO i: Marcia 8. ‘Ji1liams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (, H—563) \
TO: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I — X
This memorandum is distributed in anticipation of the
November 3, 1988 deadline prescribed by Section 3005(j) of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. The memorandum
clarifies the relationship between retrofitting and closure
requirements for surface impoundments. It supplements the
guidance document dated July 8, 1986, entitled Interim Status
Surface Impoundments Retrofitting Variances (OSWER Policy
Directive No. 9894.00—1B).
November 8, 1988 Requirement
Under S3005(j), surface impoundments that were in existence
on November 8, 1984 and eligible for the authorization to operate
under interim status must meet the minimum technological require-
ments (NTRs) oi 53004(o)(1)(A) by November 8, 1988. These MTP.s
for double liners and leachate collection systems ‘nust be met
unless an exemption was recuested under S3005(j)* and has been
* An exemption may also be granted under S3004(o)(2) (5264.221(c)).
There are no specific deadlines applicable to EP& review and
approval of S3004(o)(2) exemption requests. However, if a
3OO4(o)(2) exemption request is not approved by November 8,
1988, then the unit in question must be retrofitted or cease
receipt of hazardous waste by November 8, 1988.

OSvJE ?O1Lcj Directive ‘10. 434.1)—S—a
approved by EPA.** For the exemptions in Sections 3005(j)(2),
(j)(3) and (j)(4), the statute establishes art application deadline
of ovember 8, 1986 and a deadline of November 3, 1997 for EPA
aoproval. Section (j)(13) does not speci.fically outline
application deadlines or procedural requireme 1 ts. However, PA
believes it is appropriate to require deadlines and proceoures
for (j)(13) equivalent to the other S3005(j) exemptions.
If the owner/operator of a surface impoundment without an
approved exemption does not retrofit as requjrad under §3005(j) o
4ovember 9, 1993, the unit must cease accepting hazardous waste.
Surface impoundmeits required to cease receipt of hazarious wastes
on November 9, 1988 will not be required to ceçtify closure of the
unit by that date. However, the closure process must proceed
expeditiously after November 8, 1988 and must be consistent witn
applicable closure regulations in Part 264 or Part 265. These
rules are discussed in greater detail in later sections of this
Information on permit requirements at interim status surface
imooundments was orovided in the RCR’ Reauthorization Statutory
Interpretation CR51) $1, issued on November 9, 1984, ‘Immediate
Permit Peauirements . This docurent directed that all RCRA
permits issued after the enactment of ?SWA must include the
condition that surface impoundments in existence on November 8,
1984 are to be retrofitted by Tovember 8, 1988, unless an exeiiption
was requested and approved by the permitting agency by the
S3005(j)(5) deadlines. This requirement should be addressed in
the HST4A portion of the permit, when the permit is issued by EPA
where a state program is not authorized under SWA.
RCR permits that fail to require compliance with S3005(j),
however, may not be used as shields against the implementation
of this provision, unless the permit was issued before November 8,
1984. That is, the owner/operator of a surface impoundment
permitted after Moventer 8, 1984 cannot claim that t te S3005(j)
requirements do not apply to that surface impoundment; the i SWA
requirements will take precedence over any permit conditions.
The proposed Codification Rule, published March 28, 1986 (51 FR
10706), viii clarify the fact that a permit cannot be used as a
snield fros r.quirea.nts that go into effect oy statute. This
proposal is expected to be published im ninerttly as a final
** The retrofit deadline may vary oer §30i 5(j)(6) which
oertains to surface impoundments that become subject to
§3005’(j)(l) after November 3, 1984 due to the listing of
additional hazardous wastes

OSWER Policy Directive t ic. 548 . 3O—5 -a
the surface impoundment retrofit requirements are not affected
by the recent decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in
United Technologies Corporation v. EPA , which remanded EPA’s cod-
ification rule for iMTRs under S3004(o). Section 3004(o) requires
permits to impose MTRs on new, replacement, and expansion surface
i ipoundments and landfills. The court held that this requirement
applies only to new, replacement, and expansion units at facilities
that submitted permit applications after the enactment of tne
1934 aniendn ents. Section 3005(j), however, addresses existing
surface impoundments, which are generally a different set of
units. Moreover, §3005 (j) establishes its own separate set of
applicability reauirements based on the physical existence of
the surface intcoundments rather than the submittal of a permit
apolication. Conseouently, EPA does not believe that the
applicability requirements in §3004(o) apply to 53005(j).
Wowever, the statutory language of §3005 (j) imposes retro—
fitting requirements on all surface impoundments qualifying for
interim status on November 9, 1984. surface impoundments
permitted prior to November 9, 1584 did not qualify for interim
status on that date, and therefore are not subject to §3005(j).
Closure Requirements
As stated earlier, surface impoundments that have not been
retrofitted or have not received a waiver must cease to receive
hazardous waste by November 3, 1938, and they must begin closure,
because §5264/265. 113 trigger closure after final receipt of
hazardous waste. However, 55264/265.113, are currently the
subject of liti;ation. Existing requirements regarding timing
of closure wilt ce affected by any settlement agreement associated
with this litigation. Lurther, regardless of the success of on—
going settlement negotiations, EPA believes that adjustaients to
§5264/265.113 requirements are desirable. We are currently
drafting a proposed regulatory amendment that would allow the
continued receipt of non—hazardous waste at units that no longer
receive hazardous wastes in certain circumstances that assure
the continued protection of human health and the environment.
A notice of proposed rulemaking is anticipated for January 1938.
Until specific regulation changes are finalized, however, current
requirements remain in full force. t ’ we will provide additional
guidance, early in 1988, on how these proposed changes will
affect the closure requirements, timeframes, and priorities for
closure activities prompted by the November 1988 deadline.
Some states still may not have changed their program require-
ments to conform to the May 2, 1986 rulemaking. As a resuLt,
there may still be existing, less stringent requirements on
a temporary basis. However, these requirements will not
affect the retrofitting deadline. In no case can applicable
state law authorize the continued receipt a hazardous waste
at surface impoundments subject to the statutory deadline.

OSWER Policy Directive No. 94 4.0).5 -a
Under current regulations, a facility owner/operator without
an approved closure plan who intends to close an interim status
surface impoundment must submit a closure plan to the Recional
Administrator by no later than June 13, 1988 (180 days before
the “expected date” of closure — which is December 8, 1988 - as
required by S265.112(d)(1) and (2)).
An owner/operator with an approved closure plan who intends
to close a permitted or an interim status surface impoundment must
notify the Regional Administrator 60 days prior to the tLme closure
is expected to begin, as required by §S264/26 .l12(d)(l) and (2)).
Since closure must begin no later than December 8, 1988, notification
must occur by October 10, 1988.
Closure Activitiel
For facilities with approved closure plans, the activities
presented in the approved closure plan must begin within 30 days
after the final volume of hazardous waste is received
(55264/265.112(d)(2)). The one—year extension period that may
be allowable for owner/operators (5S264/265.112(d)(2)) does not
apply to surface impoundments which must close. These impound-
ments are barred by statute from further receipt of hazardous
wastes. dditionally, under SS264/265.113(a) within 90 days
after receipt of the final volume of hazardous waste, the owner/
operator must treat, remove from the surface impoundment, or
dispose of on-site all hazardous wastes in accordance with the
approved closure plan. For interim status facilities without an
approved closure plan, these actions must occur within 90 days
after the last receipt of hazardous waste or approval of the
closure plan, whichever is later (S265.L13(a)).
Under S5264/265.113(b), facilities with approved closure plans
must complete closure activities within 180 days after receipt of
the final volume of hazardous wastes. For interim status facili-
ties without approved closure plans, the deadline is 180 days from
the last receipt of hazardous waste or the approval of the closure
plan, wbichever is later.
Sections 264/265.1.12(e) allow for the removal of hazardous
wastes prior to notification of partial or final closure. tn
the case of interim status facilities, the removal of hazardous
wastes, or any other closure activities, may be conducted prior
to the approval of the closure plan if the activities are con-
sistent with the closure reauirementa (51. FR 16430, May 2, 1996).
The activities would be included and reviewed in the closure
plan. The activities conducted prior to approval would only
e considered unacceptable if they are inconsistent with the
closure regulations.

OSWER Policy Directive No. 94 . z_a
While the unit or facility is undergoing closu.re, it ay
continue to receive non—hazardous wastes, provided that such
receipt does not delay or impair the effectiveness of the
closure activities.
Extension of Closure Period
Under § 264/265.113 (a) and (b), the Regional Administrator ay
approve a closure period longer than the 90/180 days prescribed
in the regulations if the owner/operator can demonstrate that
certain specified circumstances are met. specifically, in the
case of interim status surface impoundments undergoing closure
as a consequence of the §3005(j) requirements, the Regional
Ad.ministrator could approve a longer closure period if the
owner/operator demonstrates that the closure activities will of
necessity take longer than 180 days to complete. This might be
the case, for example, if owner/operators treat hazardous wastes
during closure or clean close, and if such activities would
require more than 180 days.
Closure Priorities
As stated earlier, interim status surface impoundments which
have not retrofitted or received an approved exemption from the
§3005(j) require uent, or received a waiver under §264.221(c),
shall cease the acceptance of hazardous wastes no later than
November 8, 1988. Closure of these units should proceed expedi-
tiously thereafter. Regional priorities for the approval of
closure plans for these facilities should be established within
the context of the facility management planning process. In
setting priorities, you should take into consideration that
impoundments which fail to meet the §3005(j) req iirements are
likely to allow for the escape of hazardous constituents into
the environment.
Please contact Sharon Prey at P13 475—6725, if you have any
cc: J. W ineton Porter
Jack McGraw
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
Regional C4w1eel, Regions I—X

Protective Covers for Interim Status Surface Impoundments
Section 265.223 requires s xface nçour& ents with earthen dikes to
have a protective cover • D es 264, Suopart K have a s thu lar requ ir nent?
If not, u1d an anteru status facility need to ccznply with this
interim status requir nent pri to per:nittirç?
The January 12, 1981, Federal Recister did have 3 264.223 requir nt
fx protective cover on a cike. h ver, the July 26, 1982. Federal
l !.L regulation replaced the 1981 version, and Part 264.223
is n reserved. Regulation 264. Subpart K indirectly ad esses
protective cover through the 264.221(d) and 264.226(b)(4) perf nance
standards. A guidance specifically recaii ends otective cover
(see aft Permit Writers Guidance Manual f Irn Js Waste Land
Trea nt, St age, and Disposal Facilities. Vol .r 1, page 6—79,
October, 1983). An interim status facility would need to iç1y
w th the Part 265 require ent pri ‘ erinitting.
Soizce: chris Rhyne, 094

9484.1984 C 02)
Post—Closure Requirements for Surface Impoundments
Located in a 100—Year Plan
it c’.mer/oç eratr of a sosal surface i n nt pc pcses to 1 ser
the dikes of tne ç n nertt at closure and cap to avoid several feet of
fill. S nce the im rói nt is in a 100 year flocz plain 1 mist the or.’ner/
cper t sh c ç1 ance with 264.1S( ) dixinç post—closure?
Even during post—closure, caipliance with 264.18 (b) is reçuired.
If the dikes are 1 rad, the rJJner/cçeratx would have to detcnstrate
that the design of the cap, etc. will prevent washout, if washout
occurs, there wLll be no adverse effects on h .mian health oc on the
envir rrnent.
Source: Alex 1fe , r

9444.1 •5( )
JUL 25
SUBJ CTz interpretation of S.ction 3O05( )(])
FRONt John H. Skinn.r, Director
Offic. of Solid Wait.
TO: Jam.s H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Manag.m.rtt Branch
R.gion IV
This is in r.sponae to your rartdum of Jun. 26, 1985,
requesting an int.rpr.tation of Section 3005( j)(1) of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ( LSWPi) of 1984.
Section 3005 ( j) (1) requir.. that interim status surfac.
i oun nta not r.e.ive store , or treat hazardous wastes
aft.r November 8,1 7un 1eas the it eundmsnt in question
is in cuuiplianc. with the iniimia tschuol.ogical standard.
or the impoundment has obtained cc. of the four exemptions
listed in the provision.
You asked what has to be don. by the November 8, 1988.
d.adltn. by the owner/operator of an interim status surface
impoundmsnt who seeks a storage permit but does not intend
to r.trofit with the eini im technological standards. end
who doss not s•sk and obtain a waiver. You asked if the
of such a facility by that dat. had to,
1) e u p3 8ing hazardous waste in the surface impoundment,
2) .cL ure. or 3) conduct s other step in the
c1su*’S ’ ss... You propos.d issuing RCM permits to the
owners or operators of such unit. with a condition to stop
placing hazardous wastes in the impoundasut on or before
November 8, 1988, thus triggering closure.

Tb. statate r.quir.s, in the cas. of a storag. impoun .nt,
that the £ nt not receiv, or store bagardous west, after
?bSW %r6tZSOt way to d.monstrate coi 1iance with section
3OO5( )(1,) is to provid, a certification of closur, by November
8, 1988. If the owner or operator has obtained a Certification
of closure, the Ag.ncy can be cur. that the i oundment is not
storing hazardous waste after November 8, 1988.
If, however, a certification of closure is not presented
by November 8, 1988, an own.r or operator may still show
compliance with section 300S(j)Cl) by demonstrating on.plianc.
with the technical closure requirements in 264.238(a)(l) or
265.228(a) and (b) to the satisfaction of the Regional Administrator.
If the owner or operator has complied with th. technical requirements
of these sections, as appropriate, then the impoundment would be
cousid.r.d to be no longer storing hasardous wastes • This
second approach is necessary because it riot be possible to
present a certification of closure for the surfaas impoundment in
question by November 8, 1988.
Therefore, what is required by November 8, 1988, is either
a certification of closure or a d.mo’.tratioa by the owner or
operator that the technical closure r.quir.nts hay, been
Tb. Agency is examining what the statutory language requires
concerning the addition of non—banardous wastes to an impoundment
after November 8, 1988.
If you have additional concerns regarding this issue, pleas.
contact Mr. Paul Cassidy (ITS 382-4682) of my staff. Thank you
for your interest in this matter.
cc: RCRA Division Dirsctoru, Regions I-I ll and V-X
Jack Lhaan. 08W
en Shuster, 08W
Paul Cassidy, 08W
Barbara. Pace • OOC

9484.1985 (Olb)
JV I 4 I9 5
SUBJECT: Surface I poundnent at Al Tech’s Watervi iet
PROM, Alan S. Corson, Chief
Studies and Methods Rrancpi ( —562B)
TO: Richard M. Walka, Chief
Solid Waste Branch
In your letter of Nove’ ber 12, 1985, you requested our
determination of the status of Al Tech’s Waterv]jet, New York
facility surface i”ipoundnent. You defined the surface i’ poundi’ ent
as the receptor for leachate fron an adjacent landfill. The
leachate exhibits the characteristic of EP toxicity because it
exceeds the RCRA regulatory threshold or chr i’iium. (The
characteristic is based on total chror iu contents if the leachate
exceeds the threshold on the hasis of hexavalent chro iiui i it r ust,
of necessity, also fail for total chroriiu .)
Rased on the infor” ation you i rovided it is clear that t) e
leachate is a hazardous waste. Thus, the facility (the Al Terh
inpoundrtent) is a hazardous waste facility, subject to CRA
renulatjons. If you need additional infnr”atit,n, I can he reached
at FTS 382—4770.

9484 . 1985 (02)
3. T .tie 40 CYR 5264.222 1 ved L the codificaticn .ils, Jul.y 15 , 1985 (50 FR
28748). S.cti. 264.222 cor ta r.ed the ext .o f Su act F çround tr p ot t .or.
eq r ts for ib1t-Li d surfac it .ar& t . L.e.d 5264.222(b )(t) (2) cu’—
ai. d ctiii ticr. , uie rr.s for occursr.cs of a lesk into tJ lesk detct on syst
at a douø1e-L .ned surface uiçc J t. Ar. ther . arty t fjcetj f . e—
cti.cr of a Leak under the .-eguiat or.s f nd in S264.221 of • jfj (cr
ar.y . I er. e l s e as r.qu ed by HS4 of 1984 (?.L.. 98616)?
Sectior 264.221 and 265.221 of the 2.ficaticr ie cta2 .n r.vised desLqn and
op.r*ti.ç r.quiei.r.ts for -ew surface Lnç ar nts • . surface i çcurswr.s at
ex .3ti.rq fac 1. t es, and Lat. 1 eiçareioc and r.p1ace nts of existi.. q surface
.&zd nts. Secticr 264.221 and 265.221 riquir. the L aU.aticn of ti or t re
1i.- rs and a L.a at. 1lecticn syst b.t en 1ir rs. rbcificeticn rsquiwrt.s
for detection of a lOak are ? t f nd in this section. r. the Draft ir.iaa
on D iDle C.irar Systm for Candftlls and Surface uts
(EPA/530—SW-85—014 dated y 14. 1985) conta s cp. au.t i t xticc for the use
of se dary L.adiate Uection syst es het men Li.ars. draft guidance (piqs
46) states: A a ge ra1 tt.r A vii . ] . includ, in daft p. mits a r.quiei r.c
that the sr or operator notify the gicc 1 inistm , in writi. ç, of the
pra..nce of liquids in the se ndacy Leachate Uecticn syst in a tiz Ly
Such notiflceticr y thcl.ude. if cesury:
1. leakage at. (quantity):
2. the ntatiori of hi rd m r.stit ants
(indicetor paca t.r. specified by S264.98(a)).
trt addition. If a leak is detected ri interim status, the r.r/crarator m .st
dify Part B apLicetion.
Sourcei Kent M rscn (203) 382 -4490

94 34.1986(01)
till. si
SUBJECT: Definition of Replacement Unit
FROU: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH—56
TO: Harry Seraydarian, Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division (T—l)
Region 9
This is in response to your March 10, 1986, memo requesting
confirmation that the IT Corporation surface impoundments
(D-2, D—3, and E) at Martinez, California are replacement
units under Section 3015 of RCRA. Based on the information
contained in your memo and my staff’s conversations with
Bob Boesch of your staff, we agree with your conclusion that
the units should be regarded as replacement units under the
The legislative history to the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (as noted in the draft guidance entitled, ‘ t Guidance
on Implementation of the Minimum Technological Requirements of
HSWA of 1984, Respecting Liners and Leachate Collection Systems”
dated May 24, 1985) reveals that Congress intended EPA to
consider three criteria in the definition of a replacement
unit: (a) the unit is taken out of service; (b) all or
substantially all of the waste is removed; and (c) the unit
is reused. The attachment to your memo, alonq with information
provided to us through phone conversations, indicate that the
units stopped receiving wastes and were emptied of 95% or
more of the liquid and sludge that they had contained.
As explained in the May 24, 1985, guidance, we believe
that an impoundment has been taken out of service if the
normal flow of waste to the impoundment has ceased. We
also would consider removal of 95% of the waste in each of
the impoundments to be “substantial” removal. When the
impoundments again begin to receive hazardous waste, this
will constitute reuse. Further, we agree that it is consistent
with the legislative history to argue that, based on this
information, the units qualify as replacement units.

Therefore, before haz r s be igain placed in
these units, they must be retrofitted to comply with the
requirements of Section 265.221 for liners and leachate
collection systems.
If there are any questions on this matter, please call
Les Otte of my staff at 475—8860.
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions 1—Vill and X

April 2, 1986
SUBJECT: Closure of a DOE Surface Impoundment Unit that has Lost
Interim Status
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch, Region IV
Thank you for your memorandum of December 30, 1985, in which
you requested clarification of several issues relating to the
closure of a DOE surface impoundment unit in South Carolina that
has lost interim status. This memo addresses your questions in
the same order in which you stated them. Your first issue is
further divided into two related issues.
1. Can hazardous waste be removed from a surface
impoundment unit, and then be placed back in that unit
at closure if it has lost interim status?
Yes-—if the wastes are removed during closure for
the purpose of treating them to enhance the
effectiveness of the closure. The closure period
occurs after the active life of the unit and calls for
activities not normally carried out during operation of
the unit (e.g., application of the final cover).
Removal of waste, treatment, and replacement for the
proposes of enhancing the closure process may be
essential to assuring long-term integrity of the
closure (e.g., stabilization may be required to prevent
differential settlement of the final cover). Other
activities which may be necessary to effect proper
closure of the unit may also be allowed. (We note that
a contrary policy would merely act as a disincentive to
taking appropriate steps to enhance closure.)
The position outlined above is consistent with
closure regulation language at §265.113(a): “within 90
days after receiving the final volume of hazardous
waste... the owner or operator must treat , remove from
the site, or dispose of on-site all hazardous
wastes. .“ (emphasis added). EPA took a similar
position regarding the closure of surface impoundments
after January 25, 1983 when it stated that removal and
This has been retyped from the original document.

3. As part of closure, can hazardous waste be removed from
the Lost Lake area and placed in the settling basin?
Assuming this can be considered to be one waste
management area, is it acceptable to remove waste from
one part of the waste management area and place it in
In reviewing the drawings contained in the
“Closure Plan for the M-Area Settling Basin and
vicinity at the Savannah River Plant” (July 1985), it
is apparent that the waste in the settling basin is the
same as that found in the Lost Lake area. In fact,
these two areas are hydraulically connected by an open
ditch such that these areas could be construed to be a
single waste management unit for the purposes of
closure. As such, waste movement during closure from
one part of a single unit to another part of that unit
is permissible, and may be desirable from an
environmental standpoint. In this case it would appear
that removal of waste from the Lost Lake area to
consolidate these wastes in the settling basin enhances
environmental protection far more than leaving the
waste where it is and applying the final cover to the
entire area.
It should be noted, however, that a significant
change in the configuration of the impoundment
structure during the closure process, i.e., moving
existing dikes to increase the areal extent of the
impoundment, does constitute a lateral expansion and
will require retrofitting with a double liner.
Mounding of waste or soils within the existing dike
area for the purpose of promoting runoff and preventing
ponding is allowable, since it may be necessary for the
proper construction of the final cover.
4. A remedial action program to remove chlorinated
organics from the ground water in M—area is in
operation. DOE would like to remove sludge and soils
from the ditch, seep area, and Lost Lake and not cap
these units. All metals contamination can be removed
but some chlorinated organics will remain. Is it
absolutely imperative that these units be capped?
As discussed in issue 13, this area could be
considered one unit. Since all constituents are not
going to be removed during closure, the requirements of
§265.210 (including final cover) apply. In this case,
however, delay of the final cover may be desirable if
it is found that construction of the final cover might
interfere with the objectives of any corrective action
This has been retyped from the original document.

program that may be instituted as a result of a 3008(h)
order or a post-closure permit.
cc: Bruce Weddle Mark Greenwood
John Lebran Barbara Pace
Lloyd Guerci Dov Weitman
Peter Guerrero Lori Weise
Ken Shuster Chris Rhyne
Bob Tonetti Lee Otte
Terry Grogan Kent Anderson
Dave Fagan Bill Hanson
This has been retyped from the original document.

Attachment A
DIagram 2
Diagram I
Was tewa tar
Was tewa tar

SUBJECT: Pacts Relevant to Decisions on the Regulatory
Jurisdiction of Lnpoundrrents Associated with
NPDES Permits
FP ARED BY: Solid Paste and Erergency Response Division
Office of General Counsel
This document presents a discussion of the multiple
considerations which are relevant in a decision on the
regulatory status of wastes discharged 1) into waters of the
United States and 2) into inpounduents fran an NPDES di scharge
po i ‘it.
Whether a particular unit can be controlled under RCRJA
depends, arong other things, on whether the waste discharged,
into it is a RCRA hazardais waste or is covered ‘ the industrial
wastewater exclusion contained in 40 C.P.R. §26l.4(a)’(2).
That determination, in turn, depends on whether the unit is in
waters of the United States, and whether a NPDES point
upgradient of the unit is a discharge point or just a monitoring
point .1/
The wasteaater exclusion covers wastwater discharges
subject to regulation under Section 402 of the Clean tter Act,
33 U.S.C. 41342. This section regulates point source discharges ,
which include any addition of any pollutant to waters of the
United States fr a u any discernible, confined, and discrete
conveyance (except discharges of dredged and fill naterial
requlated under Section 404). See CWA 5502(7)(12),(l4).
1 / A discharg, point reeans the place at which the discharge
of a pollutant occurs. See 40 C.P.R. 4122.2. This should
be distinguished fran a monitoring point, which is the place
either upgradient or downgradient of the discharge point or at
the point of discharge at which information abait the discharge
is gethered. See 40 C.P.R. 4 l22.44(i), 122.48. A discharge
point mIOUld also be distinguished fra n points at which NPDES
controls are placed upstream of the point of discharge since
EPA has authority under §402 to Impose controls not only at the
point of discharge bet further up the waterstrewn or internally
so long as there is a rational connection betieen the control
imposed and the attainuent of applicable effliant lirttations.
See Opinion of the General Counsel No. 43, Friendswood Devel uient
Co. and 40 C.F.R. 4 122.45 (h).

The purpose of the ste ter exclusion is to avoid
potentially dupliC&t .Ve rec7ulation of point source discharges
uru er RCRA and the Clean Water Act. See generally 45 PR 33098,
May 19, 1980. Once waste iater flows fran an NPDES discharge
point into ters of the United States, that ste ater is
exempt fran RCRA regulation (but not necessarily materials
settling out of that wastewater). This is true even if the
discharge caald be regulated under §402. but is not. A point
source discharge without an NPDES permit would not be subject
to PCRA. Such a discharge would be a violation of the CWA .
and should be subject to an enforcettent action under that Act.
Even if the waste water contains hazarda.is constituents other
than the 126 iority pollutants c rently addressed by the
NPDES program. these constituents cannot be regulated under
RCRA. since they could be regulated under §402.
The purpose of preventing dual coverage also i nplies that
the exençtion applies only to the actual point source discharge
and riot to the waste .zater, or sludges generated fran the
wastewater, before discharge. These nftterials are not directly
regulated under the CWA. See CWA H402. 502(12). (14). They
also do not fit the language of the statutory exemption. which
is limited to “industrial discharges which are point sources.’
RCP.A §1004(2?); see also CWA 4502(12),(14). The wastewater,
and sludges generatedi fra’i this waste .iater, before discharge
can be regulated under RCRA. See 45 PR 33098. May 19, 1980;
Ccii ent foLlowing 40 C.F.R. §261.4(a)T ).
One could argue that the tenn “subject to regulation” in
the reaulatory exclusion, §261.4(a)(2), includes all r ateria1s
examined under authority of the CWA rather than just the actual
‘ !ischarge. This uld include at least all naterial fran the
NPDES noni tori rig point furthest upstream to that noni tori ng or
discharge point furthest downstre n. As the canr ent follaring
§261.4(a)(2) and the CWA definitions maJ a clear, however, only
the wast ater discharge itself is excluded. it is thus critical
to find the NP S discharge point. which depend. on where the
wastestren enters the waters of the United States.
.t. trsatnnt systems. such as laqoons or settling ponds,
generally are subject to regulation under RCRA. Certainly.
w*stewatsr. and sludge. generated from such wastewater. above
the P S discharge point are subject to regulation under RCRA.
The definition of waters of the U.S. is ainbiguc*is on whether
certain trea uent eyete s are included in waters of the U.S.
The anewar will determin, whether the tJPDES discharge point is
at the aitflow fran or inflow into those treatnent systens.

EPA’S regulatory definition of waters of the U.S. 2/
ir 1 cludes a provision indicating that waste trea ent syt ns
designed to ireet the requirerr nts of the CWA are not waters of
the United States. 40 C.F.R. 4122.2.
2/ Waters of the United States or waters of the U.S. means;
(a) All waters which are currently used, ware used in the
past, or r ay be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
comt urce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and
flow of the tide:
(b) All interstate waters, including interstate “wetlands,”
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers,
stre s (including intermittent atremns) , mudflats, aandflats
“wetlands,: slou s, airie potbules, wet ITeadows, playa lakes,
or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which•
would affect or could affect interstate or foreign cannerce
including any such waters:
(1) Which are or cQlld be used by interstate or foreign
travelers for recreational or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shell fish are or co .ild be taken
and sold in interstate or foreign ccmnerce; or
(3) Which are used or co.21d be used for industrial purposes
by industries in interstate ocruierce;
(d) All iiitpoundmente of waters otherwise defined as
waters of the United States under this definition;
Ce) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)
through Cd) of this definition;
CE) The t.rritorial sea; and
(g) W.tland.N ad jacent to water. (other than waters that
are th ssl%es wetland.) identified in paragraphs (a) throigh
CE) of this definition.
Waste trea nent cystens, including treabnent ponds or
lagoons designed to itset the requirenents of CWA (other than
cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423. 11(m) ith also neet
the criteria of this definition) are not water. of the United

Exactly what constitutes a waste treatment system “designed
to ueet the requirenents of the CWA” is unclear. An exclusion
for waste treatment systems was first added to the regulatorj
definition of “waters of the United States” on June 7, 1979
(44 FR 32354, 32901). The exclusion simply provided that “waste
treatvent systems ... are not waters of the U.S.” The term
“waste treatment system” was not defined. On ay 19, 1980,
EPA revised the definition of waters of the United States to
exclude only waste treatment systems “designed to neet the
reguirenerits of the CWA” and created an “exclusion from the
exclusion” which limited the scc e of the waste treatment system
exclusion to “n nmade bodies of water rthith ware neither created
in waters of the U.S....nor resulted frau the impoundnent of
waters of the U.s.” 45 FR at 33424. The preamble to this
regulation explained that the CWA was “not intended to license
dischargers to freely use waters of the u.s. as waste treatnent
systems and that the revised definition “u&ces clear that
treatnent systems created in those waters or from their impound-
ment r ain waters of the U.S.” 45 FR at 3298. This “exclusibn
from the exclusion,” was however, subsequently suspended in
response to industry’s objections that it would require them
to obtain permits for discharges into existing waste treatnsnt
systems which had been in existence for ny years and for
which EPA had issued NPDES permits for discharges from , not
into these systems. EPA agreed that the regulation might be
overbroad and suspended its effectiveness pending further
rulemaking. 45 FR at 48620. Such rulemaking has not yet
One ca.ild argue that the suspension of the “exclusion from
the exclusion” is an affirative atatesent by EPA that any
“waste treatment system” which is “designed to neet the
requirenmnts of the CWA” is excluded from the definition of
“waters of the U.S.,” notwithstanding its creation in or by
impounding such waters. Such interpretation, however, is
inconsistent with EPA’S intent. The “exclusion from the
exclusion” was included in the May 19. 1980 rule as a clari-
fication to the existing regulations. The clarification,
however, was ovsrbroad in that it would have required NPXS
permits for discharges into existing waste treatment systems
which had been in existence for ny year.. EPA suspended
the applicability of the “exclusion from the exclusion.”
45 FR 48620 (July 21, 1980) thereby restoring the ambiguity
of the earlier regulations, so that each case must be
decided on its own facts. In this respect, th. preamble
to the May 19, 1.980 regulation suggests that prior CWA
regulations, like the CWA itself, were “not intended to
license discharger. to freely use waters of the U.S. as
waste treatnent systems” (that is, even prior to the “ex-
clusion fran the exclusion” such use was not intended) and
that the new definition “ makes clear that treatnent systems

created in those waters or from their impoundment re sin
“waters of the U.S.” (emphasis added) 45 FR at 33298. In
light of the regulatory history and the intent of the
suspension not to require NPDES permits for treatment
systew which have been in existence for mny years, EPA
retains the discretion to determine what constitutes a
“waste treatment system. ” In applying this interiretat ion
to specific cases EPP applies a standard which treats
newly created impoundments of waters of the U.S. as “waters
of the U.S.,” not as “waste treatment syst s designed to
meet the requirements of the CWA, whereas impoundments of
“waters of the U.S.” that have existed for nany years and
had been issued NPDES permits for discharges from such
impoundments are “wasteraater treatment systens designed to
meet the requirements of the CWA” and therefore are not
“waters of the U.S. ” The Region should consult with the
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Permits Division,
if there is arty question abo t whether a particular impound-
ment or treatment ixtit is a water of the U.S. U waste—
water is discharged into a treatment systøa which is not
waters of the United States, the treatment facility is not
exempt fr t RCPA regulation. See the cosment foll ving 40
C.F.R. §261.4(a)(2).
Once the waste iater has been discharged under the CWA.
it is usually exempt from regulation under RCRA. By the
definitions of discharge and navigabLe waters, the waste-
water nust be going into waters of the United States,
which aenerally consist of a large volume of natural,
flowinq water, such as a stream. The wastewater would
lose its separate character and simply merge into a stream.
The mixture of the NPDES discharge, which is not a solid
waste, and the stream, which I i not a waste, is not a solid
or hazardaiu waste. (See RCPA 41004(27)). The sediment
downstream of the NP ES discharge point, however. may be
sub3ect to regulation under RCRA. This sediment is not
specifically covered ‘ the statutory or regulatory exclusion,
which apply only to point source discharges. (RCRA 41004(27),
40 C.F.R. §261.4(a)(2), C §502(14). Where the sediment can
be related to the discharge, such as an accumulation directly
underneath the pipe discharging the wastalater, the sediment
could be solid wait. under the theory that it i i discarded
material resulting from industrial activities. (RCRA §1004(27)).
The interposition of th. wastawater exclusion does not mean
that these sediments (or the wasterfater) do not result from
industrial activities, but only that the wastewater discharge
itself is not si±ject to regulation mder RCRA.

en an upatze n discharge point was installed is
irrelevant to the RCRA status of any d rinstre n trea nent
impounl Ttt. The “ stewater exclusion applies, whenever the
discharge began.
There has been a suggestion that the exclusion is limited
to final discharc e points (e.g., at the property boundary)
beyoric which the a ner does no further treatnent, and that
owners of iinpoundiients could avoid regulation under RCRA by
rewritina their NPDES permits to include an NPDES point up-
gradient of their impoundnent. The applicability of RCRA
regulation depends on whether the iinpounditent is upstream or
downstre n of the NPDES discharge point, and whether the dam
treat nent systen constitues an industrial wastewater treatment
plant, not where the property boundary is located. An impound-
ment a ner cannot simply rewrite an NPDES permit to include an
NPDES discharge point upgradient of the TSDF. A discharge
point must be a discharge into waters of the United States;
that a TSDF is downstremn of a iTonitoring point does not exclude
an u poundn nt fran RCRA regulation.
To sunw rize . RCRA staff should consult with the Office
of Water Enforc ient and Permits 1 Permits Division, if there
is any question about whether a particular impoundrTent is a
water of the US. If wastewater is discharged into a treatnent
system which is not waters of the United States, the treat-
rnent facility is not, exempt fran RCRA regulation. See the
comment following 40 CFR 26l.4(a)(2)
If the surface impoundment is found to contain hazardous
waste and is subject to RCRA. all, applicable RCRA regulations
apply to that pond (which are applicable is detennined by
whether the surface impoundment is a treatment, storage. or
disposal unit), including corrective action and other H ’7A
If the surface Impoundment contains solid, but not hazardous,
waste, it is a solid waste ntnagesent unit, and is subject to
corrective action require tents under RCRA if any emit at the
facility is subject to a RCRA permit.
Sediments or sludges beyond the discharge point, are
releases from solid waste menagement mits and are subject to
RCRA corrective action r& uirsnents so long as any unit at the
facility ii seeking a RCRA permit.
Questions about this discussion should be directed to
Steve Hirsch at 382—7706.

$PR g
P’r. il1iar Blaei’.hurn
Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
eerfield, Illinois 60015
Dear Pr. Blackburns
This is in reanonac to your letter of August 8, 1985, to
John Skinner, then Director ot the Office of Solid ;aste,
reçjarainç whether or not oround—water monitoring is a required
condition for closure of your firri’s interim status equalization/
neutralization lagoon at Cleveland, Mississippi.
e are providing you with this ree onse even thouoh the
issue of beneficial reuse’ of your deionization waste (raised
in your letter of liovember 8, 1985) is not yet resolved. On
that issue, we are awaiting further information from you. we
recocinize that resolution of the beneficial reuse’ issue may
imoact the need for implementation of the options discussed
in this response.
From the information that you have provided us, it
aopears that you inteni at closure of this hazardous waste
surface tii poundment merely to stop manaoincp ‘hazardous waste’
(this may include removal of liquids in the impoundment at
the tir e of closure). Apparently, your basis for the
aporcmriateneas of this closure action is found in Section
265.228(b) of our interim status regulations, as well as in
an e uiva1ent requirement of the tUssiasippi Department of
Natural Resources (NDNR).
Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Ai’ endrents of 1984 (JISPiA), surface impoundments could close
under interim status and be exempt from all future Part 265
qround-uater monitoring obligations by demonstrating under
5265.228(b) that any staridino licuids, waste and waste
residues, lin.r., aad contaminated soils left in place at
closur, were not ‘hasardous wastes.’ R ’sever, Section 3005(i)
of HSITA imposes additional requirements on c•rtain int•riri
status land treatment, storage, and disoosal units (includina
surface iTnpoundrtents) that received hazardous waste after
July 26, 1982. Section 3005(1) requires ‘any’ surface

jr.poundmerit- that receives hazarooue vast. after July 26.
l9a2 , to meet the Part 2a4 Subpart F requirements that are
applicaDle to new permitted units. EPA believes that Congress
intended all surface im oundrients that received hazardous
waste after that date to ,‘eet the applicable Part 264 Subpart P
recuire ents, regardless of whether interim status closure
reouirer efltS are satisfied. Sinc, the •qualization/neutralj-.
zation ii ’poun ment at Cleveland, Ilissisaippi, has received
hazardous waste since July 26, 1982, the reguir.m.nts of
Section 3005(i) apoly.
section 3 O5(i) does not prohibit you from closing your
unit under the existing interim status closure standards;
rather, it means that you ray be required, depending on the
extent of contanination that remains after Part 265 closure,
to undertake additional activities at a later date to come
into cor pliance with applicable Part 264 ground—water monitoring
and corrective action standards. The final test of whether
additional activities will be required Ii whether the closed
unit would have had additional Part 264 ground—water monitoring
and corrective action obligations had it closed pursuant to
a perrrlt (recall that 53005(1) imposes th. same Subpart F
requirerients on interim status units that they would have had
if they had been permitted).
Since under Part 264 the type of closure determines whether
a permitted unit has outstandina Subnert V r.quirer’ents, the
relevant question for deterrining which interim status closures
ay have additional obligations vis —a—vis S3005(i) is whetter
the unit hae met the Part 264 closure by reroval or decontamination
.tanaar a (ç264.228(a)). (‘) .here the applicant can der onstrate
that he has already met the Part 264 removal or decontamination’
stanoard, no outstanding Part 264 Subpart F requirements
would be deemed apnlicable under S3005(i), and, thus, the Aoency
woulo not compel additional activities through a post—closure permit.
1 There is a substantial difference in the removal or
d.contamination r.auirement of Section 264.228(a) from closure
under Section 265.228(b). A material that is demonstrated to
no lonrTer meet the regulatory definition of ‘hazardous waste’
uncer Section 265.228(b) may be left in plac. even if the
riaterial is contaminated. Under Section 264.228(a), removal
or decontamination in such a situation must proceed further.
The presence of contamination would be evaluated by analyzing
the presence and levels of Appendix VIII constituents. Interim
status surface impoundments that cannot meet the Section 264.228(a)
removal or decontmntriation standard would be required by the
Agency to comply with Subpart F of Part 264.

To close under Section 264.22e(a), all waste resi u.e (If
these contain hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of
Part 261), contaminated containment system components (liners,
etc.), and structures and egui ,p’ ent contaminated with vast, and
leachate must be renoved or decontaminated. In addition,
unsaturated subsoils underlying the iv poun m.nt and saturated
ubsoils (ground water) should be sampled and analyzed for the
presence of Apnendix VIII constituents that an, expected to have
entsred the impoundment.
Therefore, although your company has several option. for
closure of the egualization/n.utralization lagoon, all of the-
options at some time will require monitoring for constituents
in ground water. The issue Is on. of timing. Tour company map
either (I) close the lagoon under Section 265.228(b) without
installing wells but remain subject to future recuiremerits
including nround—water r’onttoring and corrective action as necessary
through d post—closure permit; (2) close the lagoon under
Section 265.22R(c) and install wells once your post—closure permit
is called (neutralization inpoundv .nts are not •xømpted from
Part 264 ground—water monitoring and, therefore, would hays to
generate the ground—water monitoring data needed to decide
which Part 264 Subpart P program——detection monitoring, compliance
onieonIna, or corrective action——should be incorporated in
your permit); or (3) close the lagoon under Section 265.228(b)
and voluntarily install welts and keep records of the levels
of round v ter and soil contamination found and removed at
the impoundment- to substantiate your position that you have
pet the Part 264 closure by removal standard and, therefore,
should not be required to obtain a post—closure permit.
I hop. that this has arisw•red your questions regarding
th. need for ground—water monitoring at closure of your ineeniri
status equalization/n.utralisation lagoon at Cleveland,
Piarcia WtUi s
Office of Solid WaSte
cci Tom Devine, Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division,
EPA R.gion IV
James H. Scarbrough, Chief, Residuals Manag.m.nt Branch,
EPA Region IV
David es, Mississippi Department of Natural Resources
occi Solid and Hazardous ;aate flivision Directors,
EPA Rsgtons I—lIZ end V—X
Solid and hazardous Waste Branch Chids

9484. L986(04)
*R2 1986
SUBJECT: Effect of RCRA Am.ndments on Neutralization
Surface Impoundm.nts
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director Original sIg e by
Off ic. of Solid Waste I II WWIams
TO: Merrill S. Hobtian, Director
Waste Management Division
EPA Region I
This is in response to your February 8, 1985, recuest for
interpretation of Sections 213 and 215 of the 1984 RCRA a ndnents,
as it relates to neutralization surface impoundment.. I rearet
the delay in this response.
Regarding the interim status surface impoundment r.trofitttna
variances, you asked s.versl questions on the 53OOS( )(4) variance.
Section 3005(j)(4) allows Interim status surface i,tpoundments to
receive a modification from th. minimum technology standards if
the impoundment is designed, located, and operated in such a way
as to assure that there will be no migration of any hazardous
constituents to surface vater or ground water at any future
time. Tti. exemption request could be made, similar to qualifyin i
for a S265.90(s) ground-water exemption, by a showing that the
wast, is nsutraliz•d and there will be no migration of any hazardous
constituents at any future time.
In order to mak. this showing, on. must know what hazardous
conatitu*nta sri in the wast•. This can be don• by a chemical
analysts of the influertt wastewater. th. contents of th. surface
impoundment, and/or the ground wat•r. On. way to do thu would
be through a full or modified Appendix VIII analysis. Given th.
analytical probl.ni. with Appendix VII !, I suggest using the Appendix
VIII guidance we recently sent you. I should note that if there are
any Appendix VIII constituents in th. waste that are not very
efficiently destroyed by neutralisation. this exemption will be
quite difficult to get.

You-also mentioned the g3005(j)(2) retrofittina • emption
althouç h you *sksd no particular questions concerning the exemption.
You are correct, however, in assuainc that this exemption ai ht a1 o
be available to neutralization impoundments.
I have attached a copy of the latest drift guidance document
that we are preparing on the surface iapoundrniiit retrofit
variances. It contains a few .vLsLons from the draft sent to
you in early January. This document viii soon be cent to 0KB for
review prior to noticing it to the public.
Regarding your questions concerning certification of ground-
water monitoring r.quiter’ents (53002(e)(2)(B)) for neutraitsatiort
surface inpoundments, your proposed approach is ressoneblet
certification that the U65.90(e) exernption riahtfully applies
and a monitoring schedule in the permit application for developing
the Part 264 Subpart F around—water monitoring system. The
r.quire .nts of Section 270 .14(c), especially paraQrsphs (2), (3),
and (5), must be met, however, in order to determine that the
permit application is complete.
If you have any questions pleas. f.sl free to contact Paul
Casaidy, at rrs 38 1—46$2.
cc i J. L 4 ehman
X. Shuiter

‘r. i:..;. rurwr
‘! Vr..)n LflC.
..u. .. O)( 7
li veL irid, 4 i,Q2
)uar tr. .ir ner:
r i letter is in reference to your lettar Jated April ‘3,
L db, re ar inq tne stotus of your Lime siud e liMpounument
sluucj (
z . ny ‘. rtn r i sttons re; ruir q tt es
I. Se UfltctCt L fl t Uti V’ Z .ij tatr it (2U2) 7 -o i.
:ir j F. jjj1,3La
i r ct r
‘1 31t •i Ce
cc: Ji1 t i CS, i eçtOfl V

9484.19 86(07)
2. Interim Status Corrective Action
facility consists of an interim status surface iTTvound1 ent and a
9u title I) solid waste landfill. The owner/operator (o/o) complied
with the loss of interim status provision by submittinq his Part R
application and certification on r vember 8, 1985, but his Part
has not been acted uppn. The 0/0 decides to clean close the surface
irn x)ur&ent. Me accovnpl ishes clean closure in February 1986 • In
July 1986, tie EPA finds that hazardous constituents are beirx
released fran the qubtitle D solid ste landfill. May EPA recuire
corrective action for this release under Section 3008(h) of RA?
Corrective action under Section 3008(h) acolies to releases
from solid raste man e ent units at interim status facilities.
The facility in question remains in interim status. Interim
status terminates only:
1 • u ,n final edministrative dis sition of a permit application;
2. as provided in 40 CFR 270.l0(e)(5) (failure to furnish a
requested Part R on ti , or to furnish in full the
information required);
3. under Section 3005(e)(2) of RA (the loss of interim status
provision); or
4. if re,oked pursuant to a Section 3005(h) edministrative order.
Althou h the impound ’ent rav rot be further subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR 265 (see 5265.228(b)) after certifying
clean closure of the impour nt, certification does rot terminate
interim status. Since this facility is still in interim status,
EPA may use authority under Section 3008(h) of RA to require
corrective action for releases of hazardous constituents from
any solid ste maneqe ent unit at the facility.
Source: Tina Kaneen (202) 382—7706
1 search: Ingrid sencrantz

Honorable Arch A. Moore, Jr.
Governor of West Virginia
Charleston, West Virqirtia 25303
Dear Governor Moore:
This is in response to your letter of August 15, 1986,
reqarding the regulation of hazardous waste management
facilities. You expressed concern that the IIolz Pond
surface impoundment will be affected by the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) May 2, 1986, regulation.
EPA has received a number of comments since the regulation
was promulgated. The matter is currently in litigation.
Please be assured that we will consider your concerns in our
analysis of this issue. However, EPA disacrees with the
legal view contained in your letter that Congress specifically
provided that hazardous waste surface impoundments could
remain open indefinitely, without retrofitting, to receive
non—hazardous wastes. In fact, the 1984 amendments to RCRA
do not address this question. A single colloquy between
Senators Chafe. and Randolph constitutes the sole reference
to this issue in the legislative history. We read this
colloquy to state that the 1984 amendments do not in themselves
establish a requirement that mandates closure of such ir noundr ents,
provided that the im oundm.nts ar. operated in a manner that
is protective of human health and the environment. Nor,
however, do those amendments mandate the continued oDeration
of such facilities. EPA has thus been left to decide whether
a facility should be allowed to remain open after it ceases
to receive hazardous vastest the May 2, 1986, rule contains
EPA’S decision and the preamble to the rule sets forth EPA’s
environmental rationale.
For your information, an administrative record (prepared
for the court) containing pre-promulqation comments and
background information on the requlation’s development, will
be available in the Office of Solid Waste’s public docket as
of September 9, 1986.

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
‘ 5f . Winston Porter
/ /Assistant Administrator

WASHPNG7ON. D.C. 20150
SUBJECT: Request for Guidance on RCRA Peculation of Impoundments
in Various Relationshir s to NPDES Peri ltted t)ischaroes
FPOM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
James Scarbrouah, Chief
Residuals Management Branch, Region IV
This memorandum is intended to provide further
cuidance regarding issues which have been raised by Region
IV on the regulatory status of surface lmçoundments as they are
related to NPDES permitted discharoe points. This guidance
follows up on Bruce Weddle’s memo to you of Nay 2, 1986.
The scenarios you present are complex, and recuire the
application of multiple regulatory definitions and standards
from both RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Office of
General Counsel some time ago developed an analysis of
the apnlicable princiolee, definition., and legal interpreta-
tions which are relevant to the issues you have raised. This
analysis is attached for background purposes. The followino
discussion responds more directly to the scenarios you pre-
sented as we understand them.
In your memorandum of March 20, 1986, you state (‘item
one’) that you plan to regulate water bodies into which
wastes are discharged as RCRA TSDFs if they are wholly within
the property boundary and are upgradient of a tJPDES permitted
discharge point. Diagram 1 illustrates our understanding of the
situation. In this scenario we assume the MPDES discharoe
point to be at location A in the diagram. We further assume
that the unit in Question is a ‘surface impoundment’ in which
hazardous wastes were managed, and that the unit was not created
by impounding water from a ‘water of the U.S. ’ In this case,
the unit would be subject to all applicable RCRA Subtitle C
4owever, if the impoundment was actually created by
impounding the larger body of water (see Diagram 2), the
regulatory status of the Impoundment is less straightforward.
Whether such an impoundment is subject to RCRA depends largely
on whether it I . determined to be a ‘water of the U.S.’ As

— 2-
explained in the attached backaround oaner , the determination
of whether such an impoundment is or is not a water of the U.S.
is essentially a case by case decision which is made by the
Regional Water Division. If the impoundment Is found to be
a water of the U.S., it is not subject to reaulation under
PCRA. If the impoundment is not a water of the U.S., it
would be subject to reaulatlon under RCRA Subtitle C.
I Item Two of your memorandum, you describe several
scenarios in which the upondu in cuestion (which we interpret
to he an Impoundment) is located tiownaradient of one or more
NPDES permitted discharge points. Under the CWA, a diseharce
is defined as any addition of a pollutant or combination of
pollutants to the waters of the U.S. (see 40 CFR 5122.2).
Therefore, any pond located downaradient of a NPDES permitted
discharge point is, by definition, a water of the U.S.
The exact location of the noint of d1schara is obviously a
key factor in any determination of the regulatory status of such
surface impoundments.
Your memorandum also suacested that the exclusion from
RCRA for discharges subject to NPDES permits applies only
to the discharce point closest to the facility boundary. This
is not the case. Nor is it true, as implied In the memo, that
an owner/operator would be able to direct a chance in a
NPDES permit to position a discharge point uparadient of a TSDF
and thereby avoid regulation of the TSDF’ under RCRA. Permit
conditions are established by the relevant EPA program office.
Where complexities reardina r rogram jurisdiction arise,
EPA will resolve the issues internally. A judeement by an
owner/operator regarding which programmatic jurisdiction
offers more favorable regulatory status for the facility should
not influence which regulations and/or standards, in fact, apply.
The case by case decisions which are necessary to determine
the status of impoundments closely related to waters of the U.S.
must be made in close cooperation with the Water Division and
the Office of the Regional Counsel. The Office of G nera1 Counsel’s
discussion provides a useful overview of the issues involved.
If- you have any cuestiona concerning this memorandum,
please call P’ichele Andere, FTS 382.4534.

March 11, 1987
SUBJECT: Clarification of What Constitutes a Replacement Unit -
Final Response
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Karl E. Bremer, Acting Chief
Solid Waste Branch
Region V
I am responding to Dave Stringhain’s October 23, 1986,
memorandum requesting clarification of what constitutes a
replacement unit. You inquired as to whether or not the
consolidation of waste from several impoundments into one
impoundment at closure makes the receiving impoundment a
“replacement unit” and thereby requires the implementation of the
minimum technological requirements of HSWA. As noted in my
November 14, 1986, interim response, Chris Rhyne of the Land
Disposal Permit Assistance Team has been working with our legal
counsel and your staff to resolve the issues raised in your
memorandum concerning the Ross Incineration Services facility.
A “replacement” surface impoundment or landfill unit is a
unit that is taken out of service and emptied by removing all or
substantially all waste from it. The unit must be brought into
compliance with the minimum technological requirements before it
can be reused (see 50 28706, July 15, 1985). These criteria
must be applied to your factual situation.
Discussions with Ken Chin of your staff as well as with Torn
Roberts of PEI (Consultant to Ross Incineration Services)
indicated that the impoundment in question (designated number 7
by Ross Incineration) is bisected by a normally—submerged earthen
mound. This mound will become a dike when the northern section
is totally dewatered. The facility intends to leave a
substantial amount of liquid in the southern section. Normal
waste receipt to the northern section will be halted while waste
will continue to be received at the southern section. The
northern section will be reused to dispose of wastes from several
other closing on—site impoundments and a waste pile.
This has been retyped from the original document.

Ross proposes to convert the northern end of the surface
impoundment to a landfill. If this change is allowed, then there
will be two units. The northern “unit” qualifies as a
replacement unit because it satisfies the replacement criteria
set forth above. The southern unit is an existing surface
impoundment that will become subject to the minimum technological
requirements under the retrofitting requirements of HSWA, if it
continues operation after November 7, 1988. The southern unit
would also be subject to the minimum technological requirements
if it were to meet the replacement unit criteria (i.e., taken out
of service, substantially emptied, and reused) prior to November
7, 1988.
You expressed concern with our position that an interim
status surface impoundment can become a landfill as an allowable
change during interim status (S270.72). It is clear from the
language of §270.72(c) that such a change in process is allowable
if the criteria specified in §270.72(c) and (e) are met.
However, even if the northern unit of the surface impoundment
changed process to become a landfill, the landfill would be a
“replacement” unit and thus subject to the HSWA minimum
technological requirements.
cc: Susan Broinm
Lloyd Guerci
Bill Hanson
Ken Shuster
Suzanne Rudzinski
David Bussard
Mark Greenwood
Ken Jennings
Matt Hale
Bob Tonetti
Terry Grogan
Les Otte
Susan Schmedes
Carrie Wehling
Chris Rhyne
Frank McAlister
Charles DeSaillon
Bob Brooks, DOJ
This has been retyped from the original document.

April 15, 1987
SUBJECT: Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Requirements
FROM: Bruce Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
TO: Lloyd Guerci, Director
RCRA Enforcement Division
In your memorandum of February 19, 1987, you raised several
points related to the enforcement of the surface impoundment
retrofit requirement. I agree with you that enforcement of this
requirement will require careful preparation, and that we should
provide guidance to the Regions on the relation of the retrofit
requirement to permitting and closure regulations. Staff in the
Permits Branch recently met with your staff to discuss the issues
you raised in your memorandum and agreed that Permits and State
Programs Division would take the lead in developing a directive
to the Regions on these issues.
In your memorandum, you asked to be advised of regulations
and guidances on permit requirements for surface impoundments
that do not meet minimum technology requirements. OSW issued
guidance to the Regions on this question in November 1985; I have
attached the guidance for your information. Specifically, the
guidance stated that permits issued to existing surface
impoundments must include a condition that ensures that the
impoundments will be retrofitted to meet requirements for double
liners and leachate collection systems within four years of the
effective date of HSWA, unless a retrofit waiver is granted (page
3 of the attachment to the memorandum). The directive that PSPD
is developing will reemphasize this requirement and will further
state, as you suggest, that permits should require closure of the
impoundment if it does not retrofit or receive a waiver.
You also raised the issue of surface impoundments operating
under interim status after November 8, 1988 that failed to
retrofit, and you suggested that we consider developing a rule
that would terminate the interim status of these units. In view
of the heavy workload facing the Division, I would be reluctant
to prepare such a rule unless the enforceability of the statutory
language is in doubt. I don’t think that is the case. The
statutory language is clear that surface impoundments that fail
to retrofit or that do not receive a retrofit waiver will be
This has been retyped from the original document.

required to cease receiving hazardous waste after November 8,
1988. Under current regulations, the unit would then be required
to close. (Section 265.113 requires units to close after final
receipt of hazardous waste.) I believe that these requirements
are sufficient to force closure of impoundments that do not
retrofit. If you disagree, please let me know.
Finally, you asked about the applicability of closure
requirements to surface impoundments that do not retrofit. As I
stated above, the closure regulations require these units to
close after final receipt of hazardous waste. This requirement
applies both to permitted and interim status facilities.
Permitted facilities, under §264.113 would be required to close
according to their approved closure plans in their permits (or
according to a plan modified according to §270.41 or §270.42).
Furthermore, under §264.112(d), these facilities would be
required to notify EPA 60 days before they expected to begin
closure, which would ordinarily be no later than 30 days after
final receipt of hazardous waste. In other words, permitted
facilities that fail to retrofit will be required to notify EPA
30 days before the retrofitting deadline that they were intending
to close.
In the case of interim status facilities that failed to
retrofit, the owner/operator would be required under §265.113 to
close within 180 days of final receipt of hazardous waste (unless
the closure period is extended by EPA or an authorized state).
In addition, §265.112(d) would require these facilities to submit
their closure plans to EPA 180 days before they expected to begin
closure. This would require these facilities to submit their
closure plans to EPA 150 days before the retrofitting deadline.
The closure regulations were published in the Federal
Register in May 1986 and became effective in October. Under the
cluster rule for state authorization, authorized states will need
to modify their programs to reflect the Nay 1986 rule by July 1,
1987 or by July 1, 1988, if statutory changes are needed.
We intend to address these and other issues in our directive
to the Regions on surface impoundment retrofitting, and we will
work closely with your staff developing the directive. Please
let me know if you have any questions on this response to the
issues you raised, or wish to discuss any points further.
This has been retyped from the original document.

April 30, 1987
SUBJECT: Performance of FML Top Liners and Secondary Leachate
Collection and Removal Systems
FROM: Walter DeRieux, Environmental Engineer
Disposal Technology Section
TO: Les Otte, Chief
Disposal Technology Section
This memo summarizes actual field information on the design
and performance of 1) top liners consisting of a flexible
membrane liner (FML) and 2) leachate collection and removal
systems between the liners.
The first facility is in the eastern central portion of the
country. The facility has two surface impoundment units which
utilize a minimum technology double liner system with a granular
leachate collection and removal system between the liners. The
top liner consist of a 60 mi]. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
FML underlain by a granular media leachate collection and removal
system which is in turn underlain by a composite bottom liner.
Both surface impoundment units were constructed about 2 years
ago, are 1/2 acre in size each and the liquid depth is
approximately 20 feet.
During the first 6-8 months of operation approximately 15-30
gallons of liquid were removed each week. During the 6—8 month
period the volume of liquid removed diminished and clarity of the
removed liquid improved. Liquid removed from between the liners
was analyzed for chemical constituents. The TOC concentration of
the liquid ranged from 10-4 0 ppm. Pond influent during this
period of time averaged about 400 ppm of TOC. After this 6—8
month period to the present no liquid was detected between the
The second facility is located in the southwest and consist
of 32 surface impoundments units. These units were constructed
during the mid 80’s. The impoundments consist of a minimum
technology double liner system with the top liner being 100—mi].
HDPE and the bottom liner is of a composite design which is
constructed with a 100-mil HDPE immediately adjacent to a low
permeability soil liner. Leachate between the liners is
This has been retyped from the original document.

collected in a 4.0-mu geo-net connected to drainage pipes. It
was reported that no top liner leakage was detected in the leak
detection system after the units went on—line. The leak
detection system is located between the liners.
This has been retyped from the original document.

9484.1987 (04)
5. Closure of Interim tatus Surface tI çourt t nts
Final reguiatins for closure of interim status surface toundz ents
appeared in th 4arch 19, 1987 Federal Register (52 FR 8704) which
an nded section 265.228. The regulat [ ons still provide for the
option of “clean closure” or closure as a Landf Lii. with subsequent
Post-closure care, t*it they are n consistent with the Part 264
standards for closure of permitted surface inipoundmartts. 4 at are
the jor differences between the new and old §265.228 requirenents?
ntzst waste fran a closed interun status surface uiçounthent be
The ma)or difference between the old and new §265.228 standards
lies in the extent of reroval. required to “clean close” the
impoundmant. The standards currently in effect al] .ari the
iner/cperator to ren ve materials fran the Th pcundnent until
he can deftcnstrate, through 40 CFR 261.3(c) and (d), that
hazardous waste no longer remains in the i çoundzrent
(40 CFR 265.228(b)). For exançle, if an in xx ri nt held only
unlisted characteristic wastes (e.g., corrosive, EP toxicL , the
owner/cperator could stcç removing materials once he deron—
strated that the renaming residues exhibited no hazardous
characteristics. Under the new S265.228 standards, halever,
which will be effective September 15, 1987, the ,trer/cçerator
will, have to continue rencwal and decontamination activities
until the residues in the inçoundrnant maet health—based
standards. The owner/operator rm.zst test for Appendix VIII
constituents. Exançles of health-based levels, which are
dis ssed in ncre detail in the prean 1e to the March 19 rule,
are water quality criteria end standards and limits based on
verified reference doses and carcinogenicity (52 FR 8706 and
i707). If no EPA health-based standard exists for a particular
constituent, the owner/operator im st s btit adequate data for
EPA to determine environmantal and health effects of the
constituent or follow the requirenents for closure and post-closure
care of landfills (52 FR 8706).
The waste fran clasure of the inçour**nant ntast be managed as a
hazardous waste unless it no Longer neets the definition of
hazardous waste under 5261.3(d), per S265.228(a)(l). Therefore,
if the inçowiinent held a waste that is Listed under Part 261,
Subpart D, the waste fran closure nust be managed as a listed
hazardous waste unless it is delisted under S260.20 and 260.22.
tf the üiçour tent held only characteristic hazardous waste,
the waste fran closure m ld have to be managed as hazardous
waste as long as it exhibits a characteristic under Part 261,
Subpart C.
Source: Ossi Meyn (202) 382—4654
Research: Jennifer Brock

JJ4 - 8 !987
SUBJECT i Union Carb.tde Ponce. Puerto Rico, Surface Iripoundinent
Retrofitting Waiver Request
David Eb.rly, Enviroi snta1 Enginser
Land Disposal Permit Assistance Team (PAT)
TO John Gorman
Caribbean Facflitiea Section (2 M-MqF)
You have requested an interpretation of the July, 1986
Interim Statue Surface Impoundments Retrofitting Variance. Guidance
Document for two issue, that are pertinent to the waiver requ.st
submitted by Union Carbide in Pence, Puerto Rico. As we under-
stand, Union Carbide i. applying for a waiver under ç3005(j)(3).
th. waste water treat3nent extaption. The impoundment in qu 8tion
has not racieved or treated the waste for wbich the original
PDE permit was issued since 1984. Since 1979. the impoundment
ha. been operating under an extension of th. original pcriuit.
without any changes to account for d ange. in the waste flow.
Also, when the impoundment begins to receive hazardou. waste
again, the waite will not be the same as that for which the
original permit was issued, and a new WPDES permit will be requir d.
The aci1ity has been in compliance with the original NPDtS permit.
and has Donitored for all the parameters specified in the permit.
Your question arises from the instructions in the quidance
that the previous years compliance history be reviewed to determine
if the unit has been adLieving a significant degradation of the
hazardous eonstitussts and fro. the possible interpretation that
a full * ps z VIII analysis is necessary to deDonstrat. that such
d.gradatia baI occur.d.
U sia Carbide ii able to supply relevant data for the
previous opsgsting year for the surface apoundm.nt because it
has not bess .rating as designed sines IM. ?hersfore, they
i a be required to sai mit data for their .t recent year
of normal cperation as a dtiwnstration that they are in complianc.
with th. effluent limitations of their permit. In particular.
Union Carbide would use the data from 1984 to show that significant
degradation of hazardous constituents was being achieved. Because
£P* Ps , . 1320.1 (12-70 ) OPPICIAL PILE COPf

Union (.arbi.de we not required to monitor for hazardous Constituents
in th ir .ru.lu ..rt and t ffluent howev r, the necesearj data is
not availabic. Additionally, such data would not necessarily b€
evidence either or or against a claim that the waite trtjne
process will, be effective in achieving significant degradation of
the nazarc.l ue constituents that will, be recieved in the future.
Therefore, we recosut end that the limited data available
fr Union Carbide for the 1984 cçerating year be considered
sufficient to determins corpliance. Bhould Union Carbide fail
to maintain c iplianc. with the n P1ZS permit, they would be
subject to th. change of condition provision of 43005(j)(6)(B).
As we understand. Union Carbidt ha. not performed a full
Appendix VIII analysi, of their ground water, although they have
analyzec foL a nu*er of the hazadou. constituents on thr list.
The Gu. dance does rot require a Cull Appendix analysis. The
ap licant must only identify ‘those topic pollutants and har.ardou3
constituents that, based on the hazardou. wastes in the waste
streams, are kn in to be or that thcre is reason to believe
are, in the th untreated Waite atrcam”. Thu., if you are aatLs-
Lied th.it Union Cacbid has not c itted any constituents that
are likely to have beer. in the waste stream, and that the available
data support a cLim ot .i nificant dc -gradation, then they would
be consia red to bt in compliance with 3OO5(j)(3)(C)(ii).
should you have any further quistiona, pleas do not
hesitate to call on (YZ ) 3 —469i.
CC: 14&rcia 4i1Uams
bruce 1 eddle
Suzanne Rudzins i
terry (irogan
Paul Caceic
Conrad Limon. Region II
F ,ch Walka, Regicn XI
Barry Torniak. Fcgion II

JJ 261987
SUBJECT: Proposed Closure Plan rot the North Lagoon
and Contiguous Waste Plies at cibe-Qeigy’s
Main Plant, elena Falls, New York
FROM; Robert N. ICay.er, cting C tet
Land Die aal PAT Section (wB-5C3)
TO. Andrt.’w Beilina, Chief
New York Faciiities Section (2Mn’—HWE)
The Land Disposal PAT Section has reviewed your aemoranduu
regarding the closure plan Lot the Ciba—Geigy Glen Falls, New
York tacility, dated June 11, 1987. Eased on the intor ation
provided in the m.sorandua and related telephone conversationb
with your .tatt, placeent of the ad)acent waste soil pilas intQ
the regulate surface .mmpoundaent (Nortn Lagoon) as a part of
closure would be persiasible.
You indicated, however, that the newly created aggregate would
extend beyond tne lined area of the ispoundsent. If, in tact, this
eztena ion is beyond the existing boundary of the regulated unit 1
and there is placenent of hazardous waste beyond the boun iary,
thea . this would conatituteTIIt.rai expansion. Consequently,
this expansion would have to aeet the atninus technological
r.quireaent. in accordance with f3 O4(o)(l)(A).
If yon Mv any further questions regarding our review
of your pr osal pl eas. contact Chris Rhyn. at Ft’S 382-4695.
ccs Chria yni
Lee Ott.
Susanne Indsineki
Bruce Weddle
Chris ftocop. Region 2
PA P... 1320-1 fl2-70)’ — OPPICIAL FILE COPY

July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Interim Status Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Waiver
Request; Occidental Chemical Corporation, Delaware
City, Delaware
FROM: Robert Kayser, Acting Chief
Land Disposal Permit Assistance Section (WH—563)
TO: John J. Huinphries III, Acting Chief
DELMARVA/DC/WV Section (3}1W32)
As you requested, we have reviewed the material relevant to
the surface impoundment retrofitting waiver request submitted by
Occidental under §3005(j)(2). These materials are the:
1. Aquifer Connection Study, Diamond Chemicals Company,
Delaware City, Delaware; February, 1985
2. Request for Existing Surface Impoundment Retrofitting
Variance for Cell No. 2 Occidental Electrochemicals
Corporation; November 6, 1986
3. Letter, Stephen Wassersug to Mr. I.F. Polask,
Occidental Electrochemicals Corporation; February 19,
1987 (with enclosures)
4. Retrofit Waiver Request, Response to EPA Document Dated
2/19/87; April 8, 1986 L .i ]
Specifically, you requested our evaluation of the relevant
information pertaining to the requirement of §3005(j) (2) (B),
which requires that the surface impoundment be located at least
one-quarter mile from an underground source of drinking water
(USDW). The impoundment that is the subject of the waiver
request, the mercury brine sludge cell No. 2, is underlain by two
aquifers, both within one-quarter mile of the impoundment. In
their request for the exemption under §3005(j) (2), Occidental
claims that the upper aquifer, in the Columbia Formation, is
unusable as a USDW and that the lower aquifer, in the Potomac
Formation, cannot be reached by migration of contaminants. Our
comments below address both claims.
This has been retyped from the original document.

1. The Columbia Aquifer
The Columbia Aquifer is a regional aquifer used as a water
supply source in Northern Delaware, primarily for private
household wells. It is not used as such, however, in the
vicinity of the Occidental site. Occidental attributes this to
the poor water quality, specifically high chlorides. Occidental
also states that future use is not anticipated.
The Columbia Aquifer is immediately under the site, which
would make the impoundment ineligible for a waiver under
§3005(j) (2) unless the aquifer is not a USDW. As noted in the
1986 Interim Status Surface Impoundments Retrofitting Variance
Guidance Document (p. 2—8), “any portion of a nonexempted USDW
within a 1/4-mile radius disqualifies an impoundment from the
first exemption”. Further, on page 2—9, the Guidance provides an
elaboration on the term “aquifer” by explaining that the term
“ref ers to an entire hydrogeologic unit, not only the points at
which water is or could be withdrawn (emphasis added).
Thus, regardless of the condition of the aquifer in the
inunediate vicinity of the surface impoundment at Occidental, the
fact that the impoundment is within one-quarter-mile of the
Columbia Aquifer, which is a regional aquifer used for public
water systems, would disqualify Occidental from receiving a
waiver under §3005(j) (2).
In section 3.2 of the original application of November 6,
1986, Occidental admits that the Columbia Aquifer meets the
criteria of a USDW, but then precedes to confuse the requirements
of §3005 (j) (2) with those of §3004(0) (2). Design, operating
practices, and location have no relevance to a §3005(j) (2) waiver
2. Potomac Aquifer
The Potomac Aquifer is extensively used as a water supply
source by municipal and industrial users in Northern Delaware.
The Upper Hydrogeologic Zone (UHZ) of the Potomac Aquifer is
separated from the Overlying Columbia Aquifer by a la,er of clays
and silts having an average permeability of 1.9 x 10. cm/sec.
The claim by Occidental is that the layer acts as “a significant
aquitard between the two aquifers” (p. 5 of April 8, 1987
Response). While extenuating circumstances may exist that could
preclude hazardous constituents from reaching the Potomac Aquifer
for, as Occidental claims, 20,000 years, neither §3005(j) (2) nor
the Guidance provide for such circumstances to be considered.
Therefore, the waiver request does not satisfy the criteria in
§3005(j) (2) because the Potomac Aquifer is a USDW that is within
one-quarter mile of the impoundment.
This has been retyped from the original document.

If you or your staff wish to discuss any aspect of this
review, please call Dave Eberly at FTS 382—4691.
cc: Marcia Williams
Bruce Weddle
Suzanne Rudzinski
Dave Eberly
Paul Cassidy
Bob Greaves, Region III
Stephen Wassersug, Region III
Diane Schott, Region III
This has been retyped from the original document.

July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL) Policy for HSWA
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Robert E. Greaves, Acting Chief
Waste Management Branch (3HW30)
Region III
This is in response to your June 19, 1987, memorandum
concerning the applicability of alternate concentration limits
(ACLS) to the surface impoundment retrofitting provision under
S3005(j) (3). The facility in question is located in West
Virginia, which has a ground-water nondegradation policy under a
delegated RCRA program (pre-HSWA).
The retrofitting exemption in §3005(j) (3) for aggressive
biological treatment surface impoundments requires that the
interim status impoundment be in compliance with ground-water
monitoring requirements that are generally applicable to
permitted facilities. For facilities that have not been issued a
final Part B permit, we have interpreted this requirement, in the
July 1986 guidance entitled “Interim Status Surface Impoundments
Retrofitting Variances,” to mean compliance with 40 CFR Parts 264
and 270.
Facility permits must include either a detection,
compliance, or corrective action monitoring program. Facilities
that have detected leakage of contaminants to the ground water
must propose concentration limits, which could include ACLs, for
each hazardous constituent detected in the ground water. The
ACLs, like the other concentration limits, are used to determine
which ground—water monitoring program (i.e., compliance or
corrective action) should be included in the facility permit.
Therefore, ACLs should be considered part of the ground—water
monitoring requirements that are generally applicable to
permitted facilities.
Section 3005(j) (7) (C) states that if a qualified wastewater
treatment impoundment is found to be leaking, the impoundment
must retrofit unless EPA determines retrofitting in not necessary
This has been retyped from the original document.

to protect human health and the environment. One way for an
owner/operator of a leaking surface impoundment to demonstrate
protection of human health and the environment is to obtain an
ACL. Generally, ACLs are applicable and should be reviewed to
determine compliance with §3005(j) (7) (C).
For a facility in a State authorized for RCRA, the
applicability of ACLs in EPA’S evaluation of an exemption request
under §S3005(j) (3) and (j) (7) (C) is governed by State law and
regulations. As previously stated, the statutory language under
§3005(j) (3) states that to qualify for this exemption the
facility must be “in compliance with generally applicable ground-
water monitoring requirements for facilities with permits . . .“
The retrofitting exemption should be reviewed based on West
Virginia’s ground—water monitoring permit requirements, which
include a nondegradation standard (i.e., they do not provide for
the setting of ACLS). As a result, ACL5 would not be applicable
under the § 3005(j)(3) and (j)(7)(C) provisions for this specific
Should you have any questions on this matter please contact
either Paul Cassidy of the Land Disposal Branch at 8-382-4682 or
Mark Salee of the Technical Assistance Branch at 8-382-4755.
cc: Joseph Carra
Bruce Weddle
Bob Tonetti
Suzanne Rudzinski
Art Day
Mark Salee
Paul Cassidy
This has been retyped from the original document.

9484.1987 (09)
3. Retrofitting for Pe nitted S.irface
: or 3005( j) of the Reso.jrce Ccx se!v3tion and Recovery Act (RCRA)
?eq es ne /operatoes of .nteiixn status s..irface utpo.in nents to
cet of it the u o. n& ents to meet the rninunan technological eç.zivements
of R A Section 3004(0)(l)(A) by Novembev 8, 1988. Minu i. n technological
req. avements incl.ide installation of double liners and a Leachate collection
system between the line s. The altetnative to ‘etrofitting, aside frau
receiving a variance .rndev RCRA Sections 3005(j)(5) or )(13) , is to stop
receiving, storing, or treating hazardo .is waste in the u çcur ent by
NovelTtbe? 8, 1988.
Once the facility receives a permit, it becomes sub]ect to the sr.andar s
under 40 CFR Part 264. 40 R 264.221(a) reqw.res r.itted surface
joundments to have single Liners that are designed to prevent migraticn
of was ec rxj r ‘ ‘e i ’,nr ent ‘ o adjar.ent sL’bsurf ce soil r gro’ z
or surface water at any tine during the active Life of the inchuent.
The mirwtun tedir logical requir nts for permitted facilities apply to
n un its 1 lateral e cpansions and replaceuent.s of existing units, but not
existir units (see 40 ‘R 264.221(c)).
If a surface uT ou ch lent that was previously subject to RQA Section 3005 ( j)
receives a permit before Nov rber 8, 1988, does it escape the < uble
liner! lead tate collection syst u retrofitting r ui r nents?
b, the surface iz çour bnent is still ub ect to the retrofitthtg
requir nts of M Section 3005 C j). Receiving a permit by Novenber 8
1988 is r t the factor that determines the inçourdnent ‘S eligibility
under Section 3005 ( ). The surface izv ounchnent is subject to the
reofitti.ng requirei nt because it was under interim status on the date
of enac’rn t of the Hazardous aid Solid V ste Mner uents (H A) ( ove er 8.
1984). In edditiort, WPA Section 3005(c) (2) (A) (i) r uires EPA to
issue or deny permits by bverber 8, 1988 for all land disposal units
that ware under interim status on ,bve ber 8, 1984. In order to be
effective, RA Section 3005(j) u1d have to apply to i1Tpotu nts that
receive permits by veirter 8, 1988 an way, since EPA trust grant or deny
permits by bve ber 8, 1988 for all surface isrpouràrients that ware under
interim status an the date of enactztient of H .
Source: vid erLy (202) 382—4691
Researdi: Jennifer 8. Planert

MZ -7 BT
Subject: Ther’rex Energy/Radian’s request for guidance on
the co 1iance dates for submitting a Part B permit
a p1ication, issuing or denying a RCRA permit, and
complying with the minimum technological
requirements for surface impoundments.
To: Michael 3. Sandereon. Chief
RCRA Branch
EPA Region V I!
Suzanne Rudsineki, Chief
Assistance Branch
EPA Headquarters
On July 2, 1987 and July 10, 1987 Theriitex Energy/Radian
requested cuidance on the regulatory statue ( i.e. , permitting
rec uiremertts) of Thermex’s martufacturina and laboratory
facilities located in Ia11owe11, Kansas from both the Kansas
Department of health and Environment end EPA, respectively.
Specifically, Tharisex/Radian has asked us to identify (1) the
minimum technology requirements (MTR) compliance date for
the three surface impoundments at the Hallowell manufacturing
facility; (2) the date Thermex must submit a Part B application
f or the three surface tmpounde’tente and tank at the laboratory
in order to prevent the loss of interim status; (3) the date
that the Kansas Department of Resith arid Environment must issue
a find permit or final Dermit denial; and, (4) the date closure
of the thre surfac. impoundments must begin if a closure plan
in submitted by November 8, 1987.
In response to their first question. Section 3005(j)(1) of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires that
all surface impoundments either meet the liinimw!l technological
requirements C’4TR) of Section 3004(o)(1)Ca) of RCRA by
Jovem er 8, 1988 or stop receiving hazardous wastes.
Section 3005(j)(6) of RCRA, however, specifies that any
surface impoundment brought into the hazardous waste n anagement
v.3. . •

systan, as a. result of the pr ulqeticn of additional
haLerdousvalte listings or characteristics, shall have
four years fr a the date_ofjro iu1gation of a new hatardous
waste Listing or characteristic to either meet the PI’TR or
stop receiving hazardous wastes. The revocation of Thermex’i
ter porary •xcluaion was pr nIa1qatsd on July 17, 1966 (s. c
51 FR 25887). As a result of the revocation of Thermex’s
teriporary exclusion, Thermex’s waste wa. brought back into
the haLardous waste management system. We agree with
Thermex/Radian’s interpretation of Section 3005(j)(6) that
r.vocation of a tesiporary exclusion ha. the Sam. impact as
bringing a waste into the system by a new listing As a
result, Thermex should have four years fros the prcmiulgetion
date of the revocation of its temporary exclusion and
final denial of its d.li.ting p.tition to either comply
with the HTR or to stop receiving haxardous wastes. The
date by which Thermex must either comply with the NTR or
stop receiving hazardous waitsi, therefore, is July 17,
The seond question raised in Thermex/Padiart’s letter asks
by what date must Th.rmex su it a Part 8 p.rmit application
for the ir poundments (at the manufacturing facility) and the
tank (at the laboratory facility) to prevent the loss of
interin status. RCPA Section 3005(e)(3J does not apply to
facilities having temporary exclusions. As long as Thermex
had originaLly filed Part 1 applications for their three surface
impoundments and for their tank arid did riot modify their Part
A applications tO delete the units handling the temporarily
excluded wastes the facilit.. have not lost interim status
and no futher action is required by the facilities. W note
that Part S permit applications for th. three surface
impoundments and th. tank are not required until the State or
Region calls in the permit applications, however the facilities
are subject to interim status standards until the permit is
Their third question asks by what dat. must the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment (1(DHZ) issue a final
permit or final permit dsnial if Thermex subeita a permit
application far the Kallowsil surfac. impoundments by
!4ovemb*r 8, 1987. A. indicated abov• ?berm.x is not
required to submit a Part B permit application unless a
Part B p.mtt application is called in by the Stat. or
Region. £ eiz14 ?hermix, however. submit an application on
t4oveaber 8, 1987. 1 ! is not required to procs.s the Part
B permit application for the Ballow*1l surface impoundmsnt s
by November 8. 1988.

Thermex/Radian’s fourth question asks us to identify the
date implementation of closure of the three surface impoundments
must begin after subetittal of a closure plan on November 8, 1987.
Again, as stated in response number two, Thermex does not have to
SU it a closure plan or implement closure. If Thermex voluntarily
submitted a closure plan or stopped receiving hazardous waste,
they would, under federal regulations, be required to initiate
Part 265 closure within either 90 days after the surface
impoundments stop receiving wastes or the closure plan is approved
by the State Director or Regional Administrator, which ever is
later. Closure would then have to be ccinpleted within 180 days
(see 40 CFR Part 265.113). We note that the State Director or
Regional Administrator may extend the time period in which closure
must be implemented or completed if Thermex were to demonstrate
the requirements of 40 CFR Part 265.113(a) or (b), respectively.
We are not planning on responding directly to Thermex on their
substantive issues, rather we are directing them back to the Kansas
DHE. I trust you will be conveying our guidance on this issue to
the Kansas Bureau of Waste Management so that they can respond to
The rmex.

- 9484.1987(12)
2 5 1981
SUBJECT: Regulatory Options Available to Wood Preservers
for the Continued Use of ‘Treatment Impoufldnent.u
Bruce R. Weddl•, Dir.ctor
Permits and State Prograas I ivision (WH .563
Marcia Williars, Director
Office of Solid Waste (VU ’562)
You ask.d PSPD to investigate regulatory options available
to the Wood Preservatjv. industry for th. continued use of
“treatment surface impoundltsnts.N These regulatory option.
Included the use of RD&D permits for the ., unite.
In general, the iood Preservative industry has utilized
biolo 6 ical treatcient as a rorul of disposal for highly organic
hazardous wastes. Through the us. of ‘treatment surface
thçoundrients”, microbial interaction degrades and biologically
transforms these wastes into less toxic degradation products.
Like land treatment, this specific utilization of biological
treatment is feeling a high impact from HSWA. Compliance with
PCRA requtreNents for the continued use of utreatnent surface
iwpoundmerltsw by this industry are both expensive and time
cor,s umi b.
The issuance of RD4D permits is not a viable option for the
“treatment surface iripoundments’ employed by the Wood Preservative
Industry. aeed on specific criteria described in MSWA legislative
history, these units do not qualify as experimental unite, nor
can the biological treatment taking place within tnese units
pass for a hazardous wast• management experiment. Specifically,
the legislative history states, ‘If a unit or process is used at
any time to store or treat waet• for any reason other than the
conduct of a hazardou. waste ezp.rtment, th. unit must be permitted
in acoerdane• with O CPR Part 26k.’ In addition, the legislative
hi.tor describes a h.sardou. wasts experiment, ‘... D mean the
treatment of huardous wasto in a unit or devise mads primarily
from nouesrtben matirialsi that is oth.r than a surf.*. impoundment
or land treatment.’ By failing theso criteria, 0th.; viable
regulatory options must b. implemented.
EPA P... 1320.1 (12.70) OPPICIAL PILE COPY
I9S6-t .JL

At this tlrIe, three viable regulatory options exist for
the Wood Preservative industry. These options are:
1. Meet HSWA f4lnimuin Tech. Requirements for Surface
Impoundments and Permit These Units - These units can
continue to be called “treatment impoundments”, thus
the wood preservative wastes going into these units
do net have to meet BDAT. However, “treatment inpoundrients”
do have to dredge once a yea? and the residuals must
meet’ DAT prior to land disposal.
2. Close Surface Impoundments - Move the wastes into
permitted tanks. Wastes leaving tanks must meet BDAT
prior to land disposal. It RD&D permits are the
mechanism of choice by the Wood Preservers for the
continued biological treatment of their wastes, perhaps
the use of tanks can achieve this goal.
3. Land Treat Wastes — Apply for a land treatment
demonstration under S270.63 and shift from “treatment
surface impoundments” to land treatment. However,
the land treatment unit must meet the “no migration”
Corrective action provisions, called for under HSWA, apply for
all the above options, in addition to the existing “treatment
surface impoundments” currently in use by the Wood Preservers.

9484.1988 (03)
,p E%
JJ 20 1988
General Roy Goodwin
Director, Engineering Services
Langley AFB, Virginia 23665—5001
Dear General Goodwin:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the Agency’s
decision regarding the outstanding sampling issues concerning
the draft delisting petition for Holloman Air Force Base (No.
D0660) to exclude from regulation as hazardous, the wastes
contained in seven on—site surface impoundments, a drainage
ditch, and two lakes. This letter also addresses ground-water
monitoring data and other delisting information requirements.
As discussed in our October 14, 1987 letter, we have
evaluated the Air Force’s request to reduce the number of
samples to be collected for analysis. We agree that the large
size and volume of the impoundments, drainage ditch, and lakes
in question warrant a departure from standard delisting sampling
procedures. The sampling plans for the impoundments and lakes
should have several components. We will require an in-depth
characterization of the impoundments (labeled A through G)
because the history of waste discharge to the impoundments is
unclear and not completely documented. For the ditch that
drains impoundment wastes to Lake Hollontan, you should
demonstrate that the soils in and around the ditch do not
contain contaminated residues or soils that pose a threat to the
environment. For Lakes Holloman and Stinky, we are concerned
with understanding the compositional nature of the hazardous
constituent—bearing sludges and liquids and the deposition
pattern of these residues. The sampling plan, therefore, should
focus on characterizing soils and liquids at key locations
likely to represent the greatest concentrations of contamination
that might exist in the soils, sludges, and liquids associated
with the units. The sampling required for each area is
discussed below.
Surface Impoundments
Holloman submitted analytical data that demonstrate that
the first two impoundments are known to contain concentrations
o some toxic constituents which exceed levels of concern used
in delisting decision making. As a result, we cannot delist
these impoundments unless you demonstrate that the

concentrations of these constituents have been reduced to
acceptable levels. Please note that any dredging, clean—up, or
closure activities should be discussed with, and must be
approved by, state and regional authorities. In addition, prior
to any clean—up, you must sample and characterize the two inlet
impoundments (A&B), as discussed below, in order for us to
determine the potential effect of these impounded wastes on
subsequent impoundments.
We believe that a sampling plan for the first two impound-
inents that uses an off-set fixed grid sampling array (see Figure
1) would provide a statistically valid characterization.
Specifically, this plan requires that you collect 15 grab
samples for each acre of impoundment area. You should then
composite every five off—set samples for analysis (as
illustrated in Figure 1). For example, for impoundment A (area
equals 10.1 acres) you should collect 150 grab samples using a
fixed-grid scheme, form 30 composites, and analyze these
composites for those compounds of concern for delisting purposes
which can be accurately quantitated using appropriate SW-846
methods. We consider those hazardous constituents listed in 40
CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII and the substances listed on
Attachment A as the delisting hazardous constituent universe.
Furthermore, this office believes that the 40 CFR Part 264,
Appendix IX list is an analytically feasible subset of the
delisting constituents of concern. However, if you desire to
conduct analyses using a different subset of the hazardous
constituent universe, please contact our office prior to
conducting analyses.
For the remaining impoundments (C through G), you s1 ould
characterize the composition of the sludges in these
impoundments and demonstrate that there are no localized areas
of sludge that contain concentrations of hazardous constituents.
We believe that the wastes are mixed as they traverse the
impoundment train; consequently, characterization of the
remaining impoundments can be achieved through a tiered sampling
approach. The goal of the first tier of sampling is to identify
the subset of hazardous constituents present in each impoundment
for subsequent analytical testing, if necessary. This process
may reduce your test list from the delisting hazardous
constituent universe to a significantly smaller test list and
also decrease the area that will require in-depth sampling and
Specifically, the first phase will require that you take
four grab samples per acre of impoundment in an off—set fixed
grid sampling array (see Figure 2). The four samples should
thep be composited for analysis. For example, for impoundment C
(atea equals 12.5 acres ) you should collect 52 grab samples and
form 13 composites for analysis. These samples must.be analyzed
for those compounds of concern for delistirig purposes. When you
have completed the first tier sampling and analysis for

impoundments C through G, we will review the data and identify
those acres which do not show hazardous constituents at levels
of concern. These acres will not have to be tested further.
Those acres which do show hazardous constituents at levels of
concern will have to be tested using the protocol outlined
previously for impoundments A and B (that is, 15 grabs per acre,
from an off—set fixed grid sampling array, with every five
samples coinposited into one sample).
Drainage Ditch
For the ditch that links the impoundment network to Lake
Holloman, we will require that you characterize the soils and
residues associated with this trench. However, we cannot detail
the minimum required sampling until you send us the following
o Dimensions of the ditch (length, width, and depth);
o Flow rate of material through the ditch;
o Likelihood or documented cases of overflow; and
o Likelihood or documented cases of the ditch drying out.
Lakes Holloinan and Stinky
For Lakes Hol].oman and Stinky, as discussed previously, the
sampling plan will be dependent on the size and nature of the
lakes. Because we do not have sufficient information describing
the dimensions of the lakes, we are unable to suggest a sampling
plan that will adequately characterize the waste in the lakes.
Therefore, please send us descriptions and diagrams of the lakes
so that we can suggest an appropriate sampling plan, inqiuding:
o Approximate length of the perimeter of the lakes.
o The distance from the influent point to points across
the lakes, including all effluent points.
o Positions of any past or present access roads that lead
to Lakes Holloinan and/or Stinky.
o Positions of both the influent area to Lake Holloinan
and outfall to Lake Stinky.
o The distance from Lake Stinky to the nearest well used
as a water supply (for human or livestock consumption).
o The location of any outfalls from Lake Stinky to any
other surface waters or publicly-owned treatment works

o The depth of the lakes, including specific depths near
the influent area, effluent area, and along the dam
separating Lake Holloman from Lake Stinky.
o Characterization of the flow (into and out) of Lakes
Holloman and Stinky, including flow rates and average
velocity, and how these vary throughout the year.
At thIs time, we anticipate that the sampling plan for
either lake will have two components. The first component will
emphasize the sampling of areas where hazardous constituents are
most likely to concentrate. The sampling will focus in the area
near the influent points to the lakes, effluent points from the
lakes, and the dam separating Lake Holloman from Lake Stinky.
In addition, you will need to sample sludges and liquids at
various points around the perimeter of both lakes, such as
inlets and other potential sites where sludge may accumulate
(see Figure 3). The second component of the sampling plan will
include sampling along five to seven radial lines emanating from
the influent areas which traverse the lakes. The samples should
be taken from random points along the length of each traverse.
The sampling-points should not be at set radial distances from
the influent-point. The actual number of samples taken will
depend ..on the length of the transect and the dimensions of the
lake. We will identify the number of samples required for the
lakes when you supply us with maps or diagrams that describe the
lakes and provide the information requested above.
Ground—water Monitoring Data
During the evaluation of a delisting petition, the Agency
must determine that the waste will not pose a significant threat
to human health and the environment. We believe that assessing
the potential for constituents to migrate from the waste into
the environment is necessary to our determination. While we
typically use models in this assessment, we also view ground-
water monitoring data from an adequate system (i.e., in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 264 or 265) as important additional
information to demonstrate that the waste will not adversely
impact the ground water. As mentioned previously in our October
14, 1987 letter, you must submit the following information to
have a complete petition:
(1) at least four quarters of ground-water monitoring test
results, and
(2) monitoring information, including a description of the
site, well descriptions, and sampling and analytical
procedures followed.

This information will provide useful additional information
about the past and present impact that your petitioned wastes
have had on the underlying aquifer. Your petition will not be
considered complete without this information. Further, evidence
that the units have contaminated the underlying ground—water
aquifers at concentrations which exceed levels of concern used
in delisting decision making can be used as a basis for denial
if a formal petition is submitted to the Agency.
Other Information Reauirements
The information that you submitted on November 11, 1986
does not contain all of the information needed for a complete
petition. EPA has developed a guidance document, “Petitions to
Delist Hazardous Wastes -- A Guidance Manual” (NTIS#
PB85-194488), that explains the information that is needed for a
complete petition. This manual can be ordered through NTIS at
5285 Port Royal Road, Sprigfield, VA 22161, (703) 487—4650.
I hope that this letter has clarified the sampling needed
to satisfy our petition requirements. If you have any questions
about these or any of the other information requirements, please
call Kevin Palmer of Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC), (703) 821-4630, our consultant assisting in
the review of your petition, or Terry Grist of my staff at (202)
TerryGrogan, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Terry Boone, HAFB
Lt. Col. Warren Hull, DOD Liaison to EPA
Kevin Palmer, SAIC
Jim Kent, EPA
Terry Grist, EPA
Lee Haze, Region VI
Sam Becker, Region VI
Robert Regis, Region VI
Court Fessmeyer, Region VI
Richard Mitzelfelt, NMHED
Richard Sariderson, Office of Federal Activities

Attachment A
Constituents listed by common name
Acetone Benzyl Alcohol
Isophorone Vinyl Acetate
2-Nitroanhline 3—Nitroaniline
2-Methylnaphthalene 4 -Metyl-2 -pentatnone
Ethyl benzene Styrene
Dibenzofuran 2—Hexanone
2-Nitrophenol 4—Chiorophenyl ethyl ether
Xylene (total)

o oj
0 0
o olN
0 oJ
Figure 1.
Example of Sampling and Compositing
For impoundments A and B
[ C
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0]

0 0
Impoundment Area Equals 4 Acres
Figure 2.
Example of First Phase Sampling for Impoundments
C—C (four grabs per acre)

Figure 3. General Representation of Sampling
Plan for Lake Holloman

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

M R 8 1991
SUBJECT: Regulation of Surface Impoundments that Exhibit the
Toxicity Characteristics (TC)
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office Of Solid Waste
TO: Kristine A. M. Leopold
Assistant Regional Counsel (6C—WT)
In your November 7, 1990 memorandum to our office, you
conveyed the concerns of Ms. Paula Floeck of ENSR Consulting and
Engineering, Houston, Texas, regarding the regulation of sludges
within surface impoundments that may have the potential to become
newly regulated units as a result of the Toxicity Characteristics
(TC) rule. This memorandum responds to Ms. Floeck’s and your
In Scenario one (1) of Ms. Floeck letter (see Attachment)
she asked, if it were “true that the sludge becomes regulatory
concern (sic) at the point it is intended to be discarded, that
is, when the impoundment is cleaned or closed?” Before answering
that question I would first like to address some specifics in her
Stormwater Impoundment Scenario (#1). For example, Ms. Floeck
stated that in determining whether the sludge (in the
impoundment) would render the impoundment a hazardous waste
management unit, we must first determine whether the sludge at
this point is classified as a waste. According to 40 CFR 261.2,
she states, a solid waste is defined as any discarded material
that is:
o abandoned;
o recycled; or
a considered inherently waste-like
She concludes that the sediment (sludge) within the impoundment
does not meet any of these criteria and therefore should not be
defined as a solid waste.

The Agency disagrees with her interpretation of the above
prescribed federal regulation with respect to sludge within an
impoundment. The Agency interprets the federal definition of
solid waste to apply to the sludge generated within an
impoundment (unit), and believes that the unit would become
regulated for these following reasons:
1. The RCRA regulation define a solid waste as any discarded
material. This includes materials that are abandoned by
being “ accumulated, stored , or treated (but not recycled)
before or in lieu of being abandoned by being disposed of,
burned, or incinerated.” (Emphasis added; see §261.2
(b) (3))
2. Our past interpretations include sludge as a solid waste.
“Any pollution abatement technique such as the land
treatment, disposal, or storage of a wastewater will
invariably generate a sludge. The mechanisms for sludge
formation involve either precipitation, adsorption, or
accumulation of bioniass. These units would be subject to
regulation ...if the sludges exhibit a characteristic...”
(See enclosed July 17,1985 memo from Skinner to Scarbrough).
3. The Agency has always maintained that sludges are
generated at the moment of their deposition at the bottom of
the unit (“point of-generation”). Note that deposition is
defined as a condition where there has been at least a
temporary cessation of lateral particle movement (See 55
46380, November 2, 1990).
Therefore, in response to Ms. F]oeck’s question, the sludge does
become of regulatory concern at the point it is intended to be
discarded . However, “discarded” does not mean only when the
impoundment is cleaned or closed. If sludge in an impoundment,
which is considered to be a solid waste under 261.2, exhibits the
TC, then the sludge and unit would become subject to Subtitle C
requirements. Under the federal regulations accumulation and
storage of TC-hazardous waste in a unit subjects that unit to the
hazardous waste program. Note, however, that the solid waste
determination in an authorized State is a State call. If State
law is more stringent or broader in scope than federal RCRA
regulations, then compliance with those regulations would also be
In addition, on September 27, 1990 (55 39409) an Agency
clarification notice was published regarding a variety of TC-
related issues, including the regulatory status of surface
impoundments managing newly regulated TC waste. The third
surface impoundment scenario discussed in the notice is clearly
applicable to both of Ms. Floeck’s situations (Scenarios #1 and
#2). That is, a TC waste is generated from non—hazardous

wastewater on or after the TC effective date. This could occur
where hazardous constituents in wastewater become concentrated,
or if a new TC sludge is formed by settling. Once the TC waste
is generated and stored or disposed in the unit, the unit is
subject to Subtitle C regulations. This clarification also
confirms your stated reasoning as to why the sludge in the
surface impoundment would be covered by the TC.
I hope this response clarifies the issues you raised. As
noted previously, I encourage you to contact the appropriate
State and local regulatory agencies for additional assistance or
clarification. If you or Ils. Floeck have further questions
regarding the TC rule, please contact Daryl Moore at FTS 475-8551
or (202) 475—8551.

9484.1992( 01)
1. LIners and Leak Detection Systems
for Hazardous Waste Landfills,
Surface Impoundments, and Waste
The Hazardous and Solid Waste.
Aniend,nen:s (HSWA) of 1984 created new
requirements for both permuted and interim
status hazardous waste land disposal units.
Initially, to satisfy the requirements ouflined in
13004(o). EPA promulgated ,nininium
technological requirements (i.e., double-liners)
on July 15, 1985 (50 E 28702). EPA
subs equenily proposed two rules on liners and
leak detection. On March 28, 1986 (5! E&
10706), and April17, 1987 (52 f 12566),
EPA proposed amendments w the double liner
and leachate collection system standards for
landfilLs and surface impoundments. On May
29,1987(52 20218), EPA proposed leak
detection system requirements for landfills 1
surface impoundments, waste piles, and land
treamzent units. This notice also proposed to
exi iand the double liner requirement to include
waste piles. On January29, 1992 (57E,
3462), EPA issued a final rule on liners and
leak detection systems encompassing all the
above proposed rules. How did the
January29, 1992, final rule affect the
minimum technological requirements of RCRA
The January 29, 1992. Federal Register
fmalizes EPA’s proposed actions of March 28,
1986; April 17, 1987; and May 29, 1987; and
completes the codification of the minimum
technological requirements imposed by RCRA
fi3004(o)(4) and 3004(o)(5)(A). It al
modifies previous liner and leachate collection
and removal system regulations for permitted
and interim status landfills, surface
impoundments, and waste piles. In addition,
the final nile requires owi crs and operators of
these three types of units to install a leak
detection system, establish an action leakage
rate, develop a response action plan, and
implement a consmicdon quality asswance
The following landfills, suiface impound-
ments, and waste piles are affected by this
final rule: (1) new units for which construction
commences after Januaiy 29, 199Z
(2) replacement units reused after July 29,
1992; and (3) lateral expansions of units for
which construction commences after July 29,
1992. The rule applies to these units
regardless of their permit status, and the
Agency maintains that the permit does not act
as a shield with respect to the leak detection
requirements (57 EE 1 3464). The regulations at
40 CFR §270.4 have, therefore, been amended
to require that an owner or operator apply for a
permit modification to meet these
According to the statute, minimum
technological requirements for landfills and
surface impoundments include a double-liner
and Leachate collection system, and a leak
detection system. Minimum technological
requirements for waste piles include a leak
detection system. The final rule expanded the
double-liner requirements to waste piles (57

The Agency has determined that a
leachate collection and removal system meet-
ing the standards in thefinal rule fulfills the
statutory requirement for a leak detection
system. Therefore, a unit’s leachate collection
and removal system between the top and
bottom liners is also its leak detection system.
The leak detection system must be designed to
detect, collect, and remove leaks at the earliest
practicable time. It must be constructed of
materials that are compatible with the waste
and are strong enough to resist pressure gradi-
ents, designed and operated to minimize
clogging, and constructed with a minimum
bottom slope of one percent. The drainage
layer may be granular or synthetic. A granular
drainage layer must be a least 12 inches thick,
and have a minimum hydraulic conductivity of
1x10 2 cm/sec for waste pile and landfill units,
or 1x10 1 cm/sec for surface impoundment
units. Synthetic drainage layers must have a
hydraulic transmissivity of 3x10 5 m 2 /sec for
waste pile and landfill units, or 3x10 4 m 2 /sec
for surface impoundment units. The system
requires a sump of sufficient size to collect and
remove liquids efficiently and to prevent
liquids from backing up into the drainage
layer. Variances for alternative system design
are available. Landfill and waste pile units
also require a leachate collection and removal
system immediately above the top liner which
ensures that the leachate depth on the top liner
does not exceed one foot.
The double-liner system comprises a top
and bottom liner. The top liner is the liner
directly above the leak detection system. Ii
must be designed to prevent migration of
hazardous constituents into the liner during the
active life of the unit and during the post-
closure period (e.g., a geomembrane liner).
The bottom liner must be a composite liner
consisting of an upper component (e.g.,
geomembrane) designed to prevent the
migration of hazardous constituents into the
liner, underlain by at least 3 feet of compacted
soil material with a hydraulic conductivity of
no more than 1x10’ cm/sec.
Each unit requires a site-specific action
leakage rate and a site-specific response action
plan. The action leakage rate is based on the
maximum leakage rate that the leak detection
system can remove without the fluid head on
the bottom liner exceeding one foot. When
the action leakage rate is exceeded, the
response action plan must specify actions to
be taken to ensure that the leakage does not
migrate out of the unit.
To ensure that the constructed unit meets
or exceeds all design criteria and
specifications, a construction quality
assurance (CQA) program must be
implemented. A CQA program must include
a test fill for compacted soil liner components,
unless waived. It also requires a certification
by a registered professional engineer that the
CQA plan has been successfully carried out
and the liner system meets the design and
construction requirements.
The leak detection system must be
monitored at least weekly during the active
life of the unit, and either monthly, semi-
annually, or annually during the post-closure
period for disposal units, depending on the
amount of liquids detected in the sumps.
JULY 1992

• eO
‘( aqO #
9484. 1994(01)
APR - 6 ‘ ;
occ,ce o
Mr. Scott M. DuBoff
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005—3502
Dear Mr. DuBoff:
In your letter of February 9, 1994, you request
clarification of the Agency’s interpretation of “active
management” in the closing of waste management facilities
(surface impoundments) that contain waste sludges meeting the
description of waste types that became subject to Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (R RA) after the
impoundments had been permanently removed from service.
Specifically, this request seeks verification of a site-specific
case described in the letter.
In the specific case of an impoundment which stopped
receiving or generating any hazardous wastes prior to the
effective date of the newly identified characteristic or newly
identified listing, and the impoundment is the final disposal
site for the wastes, the unit is not subject to regulation under
40 CFR parts 264 or 265 (See 55 FR 39410, September 27, 1990 and
55 FR 46383, November 2, 1990). However, it should be noted that
inactive units that are located at facilities otherwise subject
to Subtitle C interim status or permitting requirements are solid
waste management units subject to corrective action requirements
under sections 3008(h) and 3004(u) of RCRA. Any treatment,
storage, or disposal of wastes (i.e., active management) in the
unit after the effective date of the new listing or
characteristic could subject the unit and wastes to Subtitle C
Section 3005 of RCRA prohibits the operation of hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities without a
permit. EPA interprets the term “disposal” for purposes of RCRA
Subtitle C regulation to have the same meaning as the term “land
disposal” as defined under section RCRA 3004(k). Therefore,
conducting any of the activities that constitute “land disposal”
of hazardous waste will subject the unit to Subtitle C permitting
and land disposal restrictions. “Land disposal” occurs when
hazardous wastes are placed into a unit, including when hazardous
Pnnted on Recvc ea i: ’

wastes from different units are consolidated into one unit, or
removed and treated outside a unit and redeposited, or treated
within the unit in an incinerator, impoundment, or tank and then
redeposited. “Land disposal” does not occur, for example, when
hazardous wastes are moved or consolidated within a unit, treated
in situ, or capped in place, or when non-hazardous solid waste is
added to the unit. As noted in the final rule which identified
wastewater treatment sludges from petroleum refining as hazardous
wastes (55 FR 46383, November 2, 1990), EPA does not view the one
time removal of wastes during closure as changing the status of
the unit with respect to permitting, as long as there has not
been ongoing management of the waste in the impoundment. One-.
time removals do “generate” waste, and this waste must comply
with treatment standards prior to final land disposal.
It also should be noted that although the movement of waste
within a unit would not constitute land disposal under RCRA 3005
or 3004(k) (as described above), this activity would generally be
defined as “disposal” under R RA section 1004(3) and thus be
subject to R RA section 7003 authorities.
During closure-in-place, the sludges are often mixed with a
stabilizing material designed to stabilize the sludge either
chemically or physically to provide sufficient bearing capacity
for the placement of an impervious cap and to prevent migration
of any contaminants to groundwater from a unit. Conducting
activities that constitute hazardous vasta “treatment” (including
in situ treatment) would subject the unit to permit requirements
as a hazardous waste treatment facility.
Because “treatment” may be occurring during activities
designed to stabilize the wastes prior to capping, Subtitle C
permitting may be triggered. However, whether or not the
addition of material to improve the load—bearing ability of final
cover actually involves the physical or chemical stabilization
(i.e., treatment) of RCRA hazardous waste is a site-specific
determination. Therefore, we will forward your letter to Region
V and help the appropriate Regional staff obtain any additional
national guidance they may require.
Sincerely, /
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
cc: David Pagan, OSW/PSPD, 5303W
Richard Witt, OGC, 2355
Hike Ribody, Region V

2. Delay of Closure for Non-retrofitted
Hazardous Waste Surface
Impoundments Continuing to
Receive Non-hazardous Waste
RCRA requires owners and/or operators
of surface impoundments that become subject
to regulation due to the promulgation of a new
hazardaus waste listing or characteristic to
retrofit the impoundment to meet minimum
technological requirements — a double liner,
a teachate collection and removal system, and
a leak detection system — or close within four
years of the promulgation date of the listing or
characteristic (3005(/)(6)). If the owner and”
or operator of a newly-subject surface
impoundment ceases receipt of hazardous
waste before thefour years have elapsed and
wants to receive only non-hazardous waste,
must she first pezform closure under 40 CFR
Part 265, Subpart G?
No, the owner and/or operator may
continue to receive non-hazardous waste
indefinitely in the impoundment provided she
complies with §265.113(d) and removes all
hazardous waste from the unit ( 265. 113 (e)).
She would not have to perform formal closure
activities until 90 days after final receipt of
non-hazardous waste ( 26i1 13(a)).
However, if the owner and/or operator does not
remove all hazardous waste from the
impoundment, she must begin closure within
90 days of expiration of the four-year
retrofitting peziod. The Regional
Administrator may extend this deadline if
removal of the hazardous waste will of
necessity take longer than 90 days and such an
extension will not pose a threat to human
health and the environment ( 265.113(e)).
For example, a surface impoundment stores
a waste which becomes subject to regulation as
a result of the promulgation of the toxicity
characteristic waste codes on March 29, 1990
(55 EE, 11798). The owner and/or operator
must retrofit or close the unit by March 29,
1994. If in 1992, the owner and/or operator
decides to cease receipt of the hazardous
waste, but wants to continue receiving non-
hazardous waste, she must remove all of the
hazardous waste. Once she has removed all of
the hazardous waste, she may receive non-
hazardous waste indefinitely. When the owner
and/or operator later ceases receipt of non-
hazardous waste, for example on January 1,
1996, she must then begin closure operations
within 90 days, or by March 31,1996. If the
owner and/or operator chooses not to remove
the hazardous waste, and does not receive an
extension from the Regional Administrator,
she must then begin closure within 90 days of
the expiration of the four-year retrofitting
period, in this example 90 days from
March 24, 1994, or June 24, 1994.
June 1996

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Waste Piles (Subpart L)

Part 264 Subpart L
A1XIJ1 104/82 kp

Waste Storage in a Waste Pile
1. At land treatment units, operators often dump the waste to
be treated on the ground, and within a few hours or a day,
spread it on the land treatment area. Does this dumping of
waste constitute storage in a waste pile subject to
This process is typical at many land treatment units.
It may not be viewed as storage in a waste pile if the
waste is dumped on the actual treatment area, and only
remains for a limited period of time prior to
spreading. If the waste is dumped in an area other
than the treatment area, then it should be regulated as
a waste pile or landfill. In general, though, EPA does
not recommend such dumping and spreading of waste as an
adequate land application procedure since the waste is
not applied evenly. EPA would specify another method
of application in the permit for the land treatment
Source: Mike Flynn (382—4489)
Research: Denise Wright
This has been retyped from the original document.

MARCH 1985
Waste Pile Liner
2. An interim status facility stores its hazardous waste In a waste pile. The
waste pile has been In use since 1980. The owner/operator is considering
expanding the waste pile in 1985. How do the mini,mim technological require-
ments contained in Sections 3004(o) end 3015 of the RCRA amendments apply to
this facility?
The Section 3004(o) double liner and leachate collection system(s
requirements do not apply to waste piles; tJ ey apply only to landfills
and surface in oun ents. The new RCRA Section 3015(a) which applies to
waste piles invoses the existing Part 264 lIner and leachate collection
requirements ( 264.251) on new interim status waste pile units, lateral
expansions, and replacements of existing waste pile units. In deciding
whether this expansion must be lined, it mist be determined whether the
expansion goes beyond the boundaries of the existing ste pile unit.
That decision depends on what objective evidence (e.g., excavation,
constructed base, permit specifications, facility plans) indicates is
the outer bound of the existing unit. Placing waste beyond that boundary
would require lining of that expansion, waste placed within the
boundaries of the ‘existing unit’ might also require lining if tne area
was not ‘operational’ (constructed in conformance with state or local
requirements) by November 8, 1984 (date of enactment of HSWA).
Source: Bob Tonetti (202) 382—4654

Land Treatment (Subpart M)

9486 - LAND
Parts 264 & 265 Subpart M
ATK1/1104(44 kp

June 18, 1981
Mr. Cary Perket
Environmental Engineering & Management, Ltd.
Suite 400
7400 Metro Blvd.,
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Dear Mr. Perket:
I am writing in response to your March 9, 1981 letter to
Mr. Jack Lehman asking for clarification of the hazardous waste
regulations with respect to gray iron foundry waste.
Your first question, is it acceptable to test the combined
sands and cupola drop as a single waste stream presents us with a
problem. In the example cited, you indicate that the hazardous
waste cupola material never really appears outside of a closed
system except in admixture with the sand. Thus, one might think
that the sand—cupola drop combination should be tested as one
waste. However, in reality things may not be so easy. First, I
am not sure that the sand and cupola residue actually become
intimately mixed during the dropping operation. If I correctly
understand the process you described, the sand just forms a base,
similar to a charcoal grill firebase, for the cupola residue.
Thus, the cupola residue actually does not become mixed with the
sand unless and until it is mixed in the disposal site. If my
understanding is correct, then the cupola residue should be
evaluated separate from the waste sand if one is trying to
determine if either is hazardous. Also, the six different
sources of waste sand would also have to be evaluated separately.
If the cupola dust is found to be a hazardous waste, but the
mixed waste entering the disposal site is not, then the plant
would only require a treatment permit since once the wastes are
mixed together they cease to be hazardous waste. In order to
obtain a treatment facility permit, the facility would have to
meet the applicable Part 264 standards.
If a waste does not, at present, exhibit any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste and that waste is
subsequently listed as a hazardous waste, then in order to have
the waste delisted the generator would have to demonstrate that
it does not possess the property for which it was listed. This
delisting would require the filing of a formal delisting petition
(see §S260.20 and 260.22).
This has been retyped from the original document.

If a foundry applies for and receives a treatment facility
permit for a waste, because the waste exhibits one or more
characteristics, then that permit remains valid even if the waste
subsequently becomes a listed hazardous waste.
I hope these answers serve to adequately clarify the
regulations. If you need any additional information, please feel
free to give me a call at 202-755-9187.
David Friedman
Manager, Waste Analysis Program
Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
This has been retyped from the original document.

‘4OOl eTrc B ’vc Suite —c:
Mrnneaoo is MN 55435 • Teieor one 6:2-e31 . 8:
1arch 9, 1981
\!r. John Lehman
Env rorimental Protection genc WH565
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Lebmau
I am seeking clarification re;ard.ing the appropriate approach to
testing wastes from one of our clients.
The cli .ent is a gray iron fou:dry which uti3izes a cupola for melting
its iron. The “cupola drop” after ea.cb charge has been designed
to fall to the floor onto a bed of material comprised mostly of
sands no longer useable for their ori;inal purpose in the foundry.
These sands come from six different locations in the foundry.
The cupola drop temperatures are b.igh enough to have an effect on
the composition of the sands onto which they’ fall. For example, ‘they
could partly or completely ox .dize phenolic substances in ‘the sands.
Visually, changes can be observed in the sand’s colors after the
cupola residue is dropped on them.
Our questions areas follows:
1. It can be documented that the procedure of d.ropping the cupola
residue oa the sands has been a long standing practice at this
foundry. Is i t acceptable to the Environmental Protection
agency to ‘test’the combined sands and cupola drop as a single
waste stream? If not, what should be tested (i.e. all six
2. If the cupola dusts from this foundry are shown to be hazardous
as a result of testing by the EP procedure, but a test of the
compos te of all waste is not, is this an adequate basis for
proposing that tbe plant seek a permit as a treatment faci1it ?
If not, what additional tests are required?
3. If ‘the cupola dusts iro!n this foundry are not found hazardous
by the EP procedure (assume single test), will it be necessar
to formally go through a delisting process if later this year
the EPA lists foundry wastes from cupolas?

Mr. John Lehman
March 9, 1981
page 2
4. If the foundry obtains a license as a treatment facility
before any action is taken on dusts relative to its listing,
and subsequently cupola dusts are listed, what actions are
needed to prese ve the treatment permit?
Your prompt review of this matter is necessary to assist us in
helping our client reach compliance within the earliest possible
time frame. If we can be of assistance to you, please call e at
612—831—2480. we are requesting that a vrittec response be sent to
us for documentation. Thank you.
ket, P.E.
cc: Mr. Alan Carson
Mr. David Frei an

MAR 27 1985
Pr. Pichard C. P’ortuna
! xeauti.. 1r.ctor -
Issardrwa Waste !reatrent Council
1 1 Pennsylvania avenue. I.L
Suite 3t C
Vaahisçtoa, s.C. )SDO$.
ar lick,
Thank you for your letter of February 15, 1 *S. We wsleome
this opportunity to clarify several asrece. of OSW’i land dis ,casl
restriction. proçrsn for you.
There • ai to be some confusion cooc.rnin the diff.rsnoe
between (1) the use of the .neric land disposal restriction.
modal, arid ( ) th• deterrination of treathent standards. 7I is
particular .od.l is d.sian.d to diter in• for vPicb hasardous
wastes land disposal is proI.ctI e . Th.se findin . will be
expressed a. h..lth-b.s.d thr..holde. We acree with you that
the relative risk of alternative treatwent tchnolocl•s should
n ’t be a factor in deteriinftrn these tPresholds.
If available treetv nt tschmoloçies can achi..e thee.
threshold., the tr•at ent standard will be set .t the threstolds.
yhert technolocy cannot achieve the thresholds, treet ’.nt standsrt s
viii be based on the heat available treatrent t.chnolewv that
substantially r.’duce toxicity of the waste or 1’ r.tion of
hazardous waste conetftuent . ( SW will d.?ine th. heat tech
nolo v as tPst which rininires threat, to hur’an hecith an. the
e v5ronr’ent froi the land eiipo.al of a waste.
In both your February letter ante ynur letter of Piareb S.
3 $5 to T’ick $oro.ns tern, you stated that you did not f..3 that
there was a place f the land disposal restriction. PrO9TaF to
consider any increased risks of alternative tr•at, •nt technolooles.
Pow•v.r 0 5W feel, that the aç.ncy cannot justify a proçr.s that
allows the us. of alternatives that actually wor..n the health
and environwental risks r.sultinç fran th. sanagenont of basardous
waste. There?ore, 0 5W is curr.mtly plannine to evaluate the
overall risks of •ach alternative treatwent as a st•p in .ttinq
‘the treatnent standards. When the results of our analysis reveal
that an alternative technoloçiy si nLficantIy increases the overall

risk to huRan h.slth and the •nwiranu.nt, that t.chnoloçy will
not b. considered s.sLlabl, for the purposes of s.ttinç treat—
aent standards. In no way viii this deternination aft.et our
h.althba d thr.shold l!.t,r,Dl.tjcns. ere •,i’roiiriete, we
will then dev.lop standards to rdueo vn.eeoptable risks posed by
any such t.clmoloqy so that oven that t.ehnoloc,y could ultis ately
b. used.
I bops that this •zpisn.tton ed. uate2y addresses your
concerns about the s. of relativ, risk assessment in OFW’e land
disposal restrictions proaran. As always, I v•lcose any co nts
or auestion that you have cone.rnlnc n v pro9rara, and 7 would
be barr y to reet with you at any tire to discuss these and other
issues. Pl.aqp feel fre. to contact ne in this ropard.
John W. Sk inn•r
Off ice of Solid east. (W1-5 2)

July 15, 1986
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation of Depth to Water Table
Requirement for Land Treatment Units/Second Inquiry
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste, WH-562
TO: David A. Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste Branch, 5HS-].3
Region V
Thank you for your July 1, 1986, memorandum regarding
clarification of the regulations that specify that the treatment
zone in a land treatment unit be more than 1 meter above the
seasonally high water table (40 CFR 264.271(c) (2)). I have
attached a copy of my response to your January 29, 1986,
memorandum requesting clarification of the same subject. Perhaps
this earlier response did not reach you.
Because this issue continues to be in litigation, and
because the current regulations do not provide for a waiver of
this requirement, my initial response to your inquiry remains
valid. EPA has stated in litigation documents that there is no
waiver opportunity. We will inform the Regions of any changes
that result from EPA’S settlement negotiations in the litigation
The rationale for the 1-meter separation standard is
outlined in the preamble to the July 26, 1982, rules (see page
32326, Vol. 47, No. 143 of the Federal Register) . Further
discussion is available in the attached report.
If you have any further questions concerning this matter,
please contact Jon Perry at 8—382-4654.
cc: John Lehman
Bruce Weddle
Mark Greenwood
This has been retyped from the original document.

..• *
6. L.ath Trea’ nt
The land treatment regulations at 40 CFR 264.271. Cc) state that the
treatment zone nay not extend ncre than five feet into the soil and that the
seasonal high water table r ust be at least three feet fran the bottcin of the
treatment zone. In pezmittir land treatn nt units, it is assuned that the
treatment zone extends five feet d vn. Can any variance be granted fran the
three foot requirenent between the seasonal high water table and the bottan of
the treatment zone?
o. ever, if the facility can prove that the treatn nt zone
eictends less than five feet into the soil • the difference between the
actual bottan of the treatii nt zone and five feet nay be considered
as space between the botta of the trea’xi nt zone and the seasonal
high water table. The total distance between the top of the soil and
the water table can be less than eight feet.
Source: 4estor Avilea (202) 382—2218
Research: Rendall Eid,er

9486. 1988 (01)
January 2, 1988
SUBJECT: Headquarters’s Clarification of the Regulatory Status
of Drainage Water Beneath Land Treatment Units and
Integration of the Region’s Permitting Activities with
the “No Migration” Petition Program
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Charles E. Findlay, Director
Hazardous Waste Division-Region 10
This memorandum responds to your December 4, 1987,
memorandum in which you raised several issues on permitting of
land treatment units at oil refineries in Region 10.
Your first question was whether ground water which is
seasonally drained from beneath land treatment units constitutes
a hazardous waste. You concluded that the situation is roughly
analogous to situations described in the 1985 policy memorandum
clarifying application of the derived from and mixture rules to
petroleum refinery wastewater treatment systems. Based on that
1985 policy, you concluded that the drainage water is not a
hazardous waste by definition.
While we agree that ground water pumped from beneath a land
treatment unit is not necessarily hazardous, we do not agree that
ground water contaminated with hazardous waste leachate from a
land treatment unit can be categorically deemed non-hazardous.
The 1985 policy on wastewater treatment systems does not address
releases to ground water. The regulatory status of contaminated
ground water is addressed more directly in Marcia Williams’
memorandum of November 13, 1986, which states that ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate much be managed as if
it were a hazardous waste. This applies equally to land
treatment units and other RCRA units.
You also questioned whether the drainage water, which is
returned to an NPDES treatment system, must be addressed in a “no
migration” petition. Under the “no migration” standard, there
can be no migration from the unit . If the drainage water is to
be excluded from the “no migration” petition, the petitioner must
demonstrate that the drainage water is not being contaminated by
hazardous constituents migrating from the land treatment unit.
This has been retyped from the original document.

However, f or a leachate collection system that is considered part
of the unit (e.g., it is above a liner), and where leachate is
pumped directly to a wastewater treatment plant, the leachate
would not be considered to be migrating from the unit. However,
any ditches or pipes used to conduct leachate from a leachate
collection system, or runoff from the unit must meet the “no
migration” standard, since these conduits could be extensions of
the unit.
With respect to your suggestion that a Part B land treatment
demonstration can be used in lieu of a “no migration” petition
covering subsurface transport, we do not believe that an approved
Part B land treatment demonstration can replace a “no migration”
petition. Although it is true that the subsurface transport
demonstrations for the permit and the petition are very similar,
the statutory standard that must be met for a “no migration”
demonstration is more stringent. For example, “no migration”
must be demonstrated for “as long as the waste remains
hazardous,” and not just for the permitted life of the facility.
Thus, a “no migration” demonstration may have to meet a standard
for a much longer time than the land treatment demonstration. In
addition, “no migration” must be demonstrated for all media,
including soil, surface water and air. We realize that much of
the information contained in a Part B application is relevant to
“no migration” demonstrations. Thus, we have been encouraging
potential petitioners to attach a summary of all relevant Part B
data and/or specific sections of the Part B application. We are
planning to work very closely with both the Regions and the
States when reviewing “no migration” petitions, since the permit
writers can offer invaluable technical and historical information
on the site.
In response to your suggestion that determination made under
a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) can replace an evaluation of
air emissions addressed in a “no migration” petition, we do not
believe that such a determination can automatically substitute
for a “no migration” demonstration. The standard that must be
met for no migration from the unit will likely be more stringent
than the demonstration required under the RFI. We are continuing
to evaluate the best way to handle the air pathway f or “no
migration” demonstrations, and propose to use health or
environmentally—based exposure levels at the edge of the unit.
For the air pathway we have not yet defined what this will be;
but one option is that the edge of the unit be defined as the
surface of the waste. In defining the “no migration” standard
the Agency must determine how this standard relates to the
section 3004(n) standards which will control air emissions from
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as “may be necessary
to protect human health and the environment.” Finally, RFI
information may not be available at the time a “no migration”
petition is submitted. When it is available, it will be
This has been retyped from the original document.

considered. We are encouraging the use of all relevant site data
in the “no migration” petition, including information collected
for permitting or corrective action purposes.
In your memorandum you requested that authority to grant “no
migration” petitions be delegated to the Regional Administrators.
We are planning to propose an interpretation of the “no
migration” language in the Federal Register for public comment.
Because of the controversy surrounding the interpretation of the
“no migration” statutory language, and the potential for changes
in policy, we believe that Headquarters should evaluate the
initial set of “no migration” petitions received. We will
consider delegation to the regions after the program is developed
and initial petitions have been evaluated to assess issues and
establish precedent. Therefore, you should advise facilities to
submit petitions to the Administrator. It would also be
advisable to send a copy of the petitions to the Assistance
Branch of the Permits and State Programs Division, which will
have the lead on reviewing the petitions. We will coordinate
individual petition reviews on a case-by-case basis. The Agency
expects to receive relatively few viable petitions. The petition
approval process should not affect the November 1988 permitting
deadline, since petition approval is not a prerequisite for Part
B permit approval.
In addition, you asked Headquarters to have a staff person
devoted primarily to covering land treatment issues for the
Permit Assistance Team (PAT). We understand your concern
regarding the need for technical expertise in this subject area.
Unfortunately, we do not have the resources to assign an
individual to land treatment on a full-time basis. We will
continue to use the technical staff available, and supplement
with contractual support when necessary. If you need assistance
or wish to discuss this, please contact Elizabeth Cotsworth on
(FTS) 382—4206.
For further clarification on these issues, please contact
Stephen Weil at (FTS) 382—4770.
This has been retyped from the original document.

9486 .1988(02)
Mr. Minor Brooks Hibbs, Chief
Permits Section
Hazardous an.d 1 Solid Waste Division
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711—3087
Dear Mr. Hibbs:
This is in response to your March 17, 1988, Letter
requesting a clarification of the tern “initial soil surface” as
used in the 40 CFR 264.271(c)(l) land treatment regulations
promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The Agency interprets the initial soil surface to mean the
topographic level that was in existence when waste was first
applied to the unit. Any other interpretation would be contrary
to the intent of the regulations. The intent of the rule is
that the treatment zone be no more than five feet below the
bottom of the initial waste placement, not that the treatment
zone must be five feet thick. The purpose of this five foot
limit was to specify an appropriate thickness for unsaturated
zone monitoring and to minimize the practice of burying waste at
depths not conducive to degradation.
As you have pointed out, in some cases, the rise in land
surface elevation that may result from the accumulation of
nondegradable waste solids can be significant. The Agency
considered this situation during rule development and decided
that continually redefining the lower treatment zone boundary
was not practical. Therefore, the Agency defines the lower
boundary as a static value based on the original land surface
You should not b. concerned with the permit applicant who
has raised the topographic level of an interim status land
treatment unit two feet if the permit applicant adequately
defines the initial soil surface in accordance with the Agency’s
definition and the treatment zone is being monitored properly.
However, on. concern the Agency has in the situation that you
describe is whether the applicant has overloaded the system by
placing more waste than is recommended. It is very important
that during the site reconnaissance, the permit writer observes
whether the built—up material is inert or is waste that has not

degraded. If the latter is the case, waste application should
be severely limited for an extended period of time until “old”
waste is degr ed. Also, where waste application is excessive,
it is questionable whether the site is being operated properly
and whether it should be permitted as a land treatment unit.
If you have any further questions, please contact Jon Perry
of iy staff at 202—382—4663. Thank you for your interest in
this matter.
Sincerely Yours,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Joseph Carra, OSW
Art Day, OSW
Allyn M. Davis, HWMD, Region VI

Mr. PlarW aaara 30
The Austr44an Gas Light Company
Tennyson d Mortlake
P.O. Box 35 Concord NSW 2137
Dear Mr. McNamara:
You recently wrote the Agency requesting information on the
Agency’s certification process on biotechnological methods for
remediation of industrial facilities.
The Agency does not certify remedial technologies associated
with cleanup of industrial waste facilities. Instead, the Agency
issues regulations that contain performance standards that the
remedial technologies must meet. Agency regulatory programs
governing remediation of industrial waste facilities base
decisions on site-specific or waste—specific conditions, such as
types and amounts of wastes present, site environmental
conditions and hydrogeology, risks posed by residual wastes, best
demonstrated available technologies for treating the wastes, and
engineering feasibility. Since no two industrial waste proble4
are alike, the applicability of remedial treatment technologie
varies from site—to—site.
The Agency’s Office of Research and Development provides
technical support in the area of remedial technologies. The
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada,
Oklahoma, is involved with examining biotreatment technologies
for remediation of soil and ground—water contamination. Although
the Laboratory does not certify biotreatment technologies, they
can be of assistance in determining applicability of biotreatment
technologies to various industrial waste problems.
Biotreatment is recognized as an emerging remedial technology
by the Agency’s hazardous waste and underground storage tank
programs. Many hydrocarbon spills are treated with in situ use
of naturally occurring organisms. The Agency’s remedial
programs do not preclude in situ use of biotreatment methods, if
the methods are shown to be appropriate for the site conditions.
If, site remediation, off-site treatment of hazardous
wastes arm sdsd, standards under the Agency’s Land Disposal
Restrictilllt; Program are triggered. In general, this program
requires that vast. be treated according to Best Demonstrated
Available Treatment (UDAT) technologies. BDAT is a performance
standard generally based on reductions achievable by using

some form of incineration, chemical stabilization, or waste water
treatment. Biological organisms are generally used in the
treatment of dilute liquid waste streams. Typical BDAT standards
can be found in the enclosed Federal Registe r on page 40642.
Separate BDAT standards are being developed for contaminated
We have forwarded your letter to Clinton W. Hall, Director,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 1198,
Ada, Oklahoma, 74820, for follow-up.
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Clinton W. Hall, ORD
David Bussard, WMD

APR 211990
Ralph Colleli, Esq.
American Petroleum Thstitute
1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Co1le1 .:
This letter is in response to your request for an Agency
interpretation of 40 C.F.R. 264.272(a). That section requires
that the owner/operator of a hazardous waste land treatment
facility show that each hazardous constituent in the waste wi].1
be “completely degraded, transformed or immobilized in the
treatment zone” as part of the treatment demonstration necessary
to obtain a land treatrent permit under P CRA. Specifically, you
have asked whether the Agency interprets the language in 40
C.F.R. 264 .272 (a) quoted above to have the meaning which appeared
n the 1986 Pernit Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment Demonstrations. That document states that an
owner/operator must show that there will be no statistically
significant release to the environment from the treatment zone.
The Manual accurately reflects EPA’s current interpretation
of 40 C.F.R. 264.272(a). Thus,, EPA interprets the requirement of
complete degradation, transformation or immobilization in the
treatment zone to mean that the owner/operator of the facility
must show, as part of the treatment demonstration, that there.
will be no statistically significant release to the environaent
from the treatment zone. (It should be noted, however, that the
standard for a treatment demonstration under 40 C.F.R. 264.272(a)
is not necessarily the same as the “no migration” standard for
purposes of the land disposal restrictions program. The land
treatment demonstration standard was established without the
benefit of the Agency’s experience in the RCRA and UIC programs
using health-based numbers to evaluate variance petitions under
the more recent statutory “no migration” standard.)

If you have further questions concerning land treatment
dexrtonstrations or this interpretation, please contact Vernon
Myers of r y staff. e r .ay be reached at 382—4685.
Office of Solid Waste (OS—300)

Landfills (Subpart N)

Parts 264 & 265 Subpart N
ATKIfl1O4/45 kp

• L MO
APR21 g
SUBJECT: Use of Liquids for Wind Dispersal C’ontrol at
Hazardous Waste Landfills
I .A, . A(A
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director ‘
Office of Solid Waste (Wli—562)
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
EPA Region VIZ!
Waste Management Division (8—HWN)
This is in response to your request received in November
1985 for guidance concerning the question of under what
conditions, if any, it is acceptable to use water or other
liquid chemical stabilizers to control wind dispersal of waste
in a landfill cell. We believe that the use of nonhazardous
liquids for wind dispersal control at hazardous waste landfills
should not be subject to the restrictions under Section 3004(c)(3)
of RSWA. This use must, of course, be limited to amounts necessary
to comply with wind dispersal control requirements. Such amounts
should be determined by regulatory authorities on a case—by—case
As stated in your memorand 1 um, Sections 264.301(f) and
265.302(d) require the owner or operator of a landfill
containing hazardous waste that is subject to wind dispersal
to cover or otherwise manage the landfill to control such
dispersal. Sinc, the liquids that are used to control wind
dispersal ar. usually nonhazardous (e.g., water), a response
to your question is contained in a guidance we have drafted
concerning Section 3004(c)(3) (which addresses the placement
of nonhazardous liquids in hazardous waste landfills) of the
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA.
This draft guidance will be sent to the regional offices in
the near future.

OSWER Policy Directive 1194 87.OO—2A
EPA/530—sW—86—O 16
9487. OO—2A
June 11, 1986

OSWER Policy Directive 9487.OO—2A
List of Exhibits ii
Executive Sununary. . . . . iii
Section 1. — Introduction . . . . . . 1—1
section2—StatutoryRequ iremefltS.......... 2—1
Bulk Liquid Hazardous Wastes Prohibited..... .. . . . . . 2—1
Use of Absorbents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—3
Locati .onofMix3 .ngFaCility ........... 2—6
Section 3 — Guidance 3— ].
General Guidance 3—1
Absorbents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3
Treatment Technologies . . . •.... I..... . 3—6
Liquid—Solid Separation Processer..... . . ........... 3—6
B iologi.cal Treatment 3—7
Thermal. Treatment . 3—8
ChemicalTreatment 3—8
Test Hethods....... 3—11
Time Factor. . . . . . . 3—19
i inpiementat ion. . . . . a a a a a a a a . a a . a a . . • • • . • 3—20
References . . . . . 321

OSWER Policy Directive U9487.OO—2A
Exhibit 1 — Bulk Liquids Testing Procedures.................,. 3 12
Exhibit 2—Compress iveStrengthData......................... 3—16
Exhibit 3 — Unconfined Compressive Strenqth of Stabilized ... 3—18

OSWER Policy Directive 1 i9 487 .OO—2A
Section 3004 (c)(l) was added to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act by the Hazardous And Solid Waste Amendments of
1984. This provision states that:
Effective 6 months after the date of enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, 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 is prohibited.
This provision became effective on May 8, 1985. The Agency
is issuing this guidance to ensure that owners and operators
of hazardous waste landfills regulated under RCRA understand
the legal requirements of this provision and to provide
technical guidance that will aid owners and operators in
con lying with the provision.
Section 2 discusses statutory requirements of the provision.
The direct placement of bulk liquid hazardous wastes in a landfill
is prohibited, regardless of the presence of liners and
leachate collection systems. The use of materials that function
solely as sorbents are not to be used in the treatment of
bulk liquid hazardous wastes that are to be placed in a landfill.
Spills cleaned—up by the use of a sorbent material can not
be placed directly in a landfill; however, the bulk liquid
ban was not intended to encompass soils contaminated by
accidental spills into the ground.
Section 3 presents technical guidance to assist the owner
or operator in complying with the provision. The following
treatment technologies are alternatives for the treatment of
bulk liquids;
1 1

OSWER policy Directive #9487.OO—2p.
o liquid—solid separation processes
• biological treatment
0 chemical treatment
o Portland Cement processes
• pozzolanic processes
o thermal treatment
The use of absorbents and adsorbents is discussed in
Section 3. Neither absorption, nor adsorption, is a process
that involves a chemical transformation or encapsulation of
the sorbed liquid because both are reversible. The Agency
interprets the ban on “absorbents” to include materials
that sorb wastes through either absorption or adsorption.
Chemical stabilization is an acceptable form of treatment.
However, it may be difficult to determine on a case-by-case
basis whether a process involves stabilization, or is merely
a treatment process involving sorbents. EPA recommends the
use of an unconfined compressive strength test to identify
true stabilization reactions when it is not obvious that
chemical stabilization has taken place. tinconfined compressive
strengths above 50 pounds per square inch are characteristic
of chemically stabilized wastes; test procedures are discussed
in Section 3.

OSWER Policy Directive # 94 87.0O—2A
On November 8, 1984, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 were signed into law. Section 3004 (c)(1) addresses
bulk liquid hazardous waste in landfills. This provision
states that:
Effective 6 months after the date of enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the
placement of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous
waste or free liquids contained in hazardous waste
(whether or not absorbents have been added) in any
landfill is prohibited.
The bulk liquid hazardous waste provision became effective
on May 8, 1985. The Agency is issuing this guidance to
ensure that owners and operators of hazardous waste landfills
regulated under the Resource Conservation Lnd Recovery Act
understand the legal requirements of this provision (presented
in Section 2 of this guidance) and to provide technical
guidance that will aid owners or operators in complying with
the provision (presented in Section 3 of this guidance).

OSWER Policy Directive # 94 87.O0—2A
Section 3004 (c)(l) calls for an absolute ban after May 8, 1985,
on the placement of bulk or non—containerized liquid hazardous
waste or free liquids contained in hazardous waste in any
landfill that is subject to regulation under Subpart N of 40
CFR Parts 264 and 265. The intent of the provision is to
prohibit the direct placement of bulk liquid hazardous wastes into
landfills, regardless of the presence of liners or leachate
collection and removal systems. The statute tnakes it clear
that the ban encompasses bulk hazardous waste containing
free liquids even if absorbents have been added.
The Agency interprets the ban on “placement” of bulk liquid
hazardous wastes to include, but not be limited to: 1) placing
bulk liquid hazardous wastes into any part of the active
landfill unit where the liquids are solidified and then
transferred to another part of the active landfill unit,
and 2) placing treated bulk liquid hazardous wastes still in
liquid form into a landfill cell prior to solidification.
The legislative history of a related statutory provision,
section 3004(b) (banning the placement of liquid hazardous
waste in salt domes, underground mines, or caves) supports the
view that Congress intended the ban on “placement” to be
construed broadly to prohibit storage of material while-
awaiting further treatment or disoosal, and to preclude use
of such locations as treatment chambers (129 Cong. Rec.
H8141 (daily ed. Oct. 6, 1983)). Thus, the ban is effective

regardless of the purpose of placing the liquids into a
In order to comply with this provision, the owner or operator
must determine whether a bulk hazardous waste (i.e., non—contain-
erized waste) is a liquid or contains free liquids. EPA
regulations define “free liquids” as “liquids which readily
separate from the solid portion of a waste under ambient
temperature and pressure” (40 CFR Part 260.10). Congress
anticipated that EPA would specify an appropriate test for
free liquids (see Senate Report No. 284, 98th Cong., 1st
Sess. 22 (1983)). PA believes that the Paint Filter Liquids
Test is the appropriate test method to be used to determine
the absence or presence of free liquids in both bulk and
containerized wastes. On April 30, 1985, £PA promulgated
a final rule requiring the use of the Paint Filter Liquids Test
(Method 9095). (See 50 FR 18370.) This final rule requires
the owner or operator of a hazardous waste landfill to
use the Paint Filter Liquids Test to determine whether a
bulk hazardous waste is a liquid or contains free liquids,
if it is not obviously clear to the owner or operator that
the waste does or does not contain free liquids. “Liquids”
and “free liquids” subject to this provision include liquids
that separate out during transportation to the landfill.
If a sample passes the Paint Filter Liquids Test (i.e., no
liquid is detected), the bulk hazardous waste is not subject
to the ban in Section 3004 (c)(1) and can be landfi] led
(assuming no absorbent has been added, as discussed below).

If the samole fails the test, the bulk hazardous liquid
waste should be treated prior to landfilling using a treatment
technology that does not solely involve the use of a material that
functions primarily as an absorbent. These treatment technologies,
include, chemical stabilization processes, and are discussed
under Treatment Technologies. If, after reviewing a particular
stabilization process, it is not obvious that chemical stabilization
has taken place (i.e., if there are any concerns that “Stabilization”
is occurring primarily due to the addition of sorbents),
then a representative sample of the treated waste should
pass the indirect chemical stabilization test (unconfined
compressive strength) as described under Test Method. The
purpose of using a chemical stabilization test is to help
assure that the treatment of bulk liquids has been accomplished
in a manner that does not solely involve the use of a material
that functions primarily as an absorbent.
Once it has been demonstrated, where necessary, that a
particular stabilization process used for a particular waste
will result in a treated product that passes the stabilization
test, then samples of each batch would only be required to
pass the Paint Filter Liquids Test prior to placement in the
landfill. If there are any changes in the treatment process
and/or composition of the waste to be treated, stabilization
testing should be repeated.
A major issue raised by the language of Section 3004 (c)(1)
is the scope of the prohibition on absorbents. The Agency

is convinced that Congress did not want materials that function
solely as absorbents to be used in the treatment of bulk
liquid hazardous wastes that are to be placed in a landfill.
If Congress had intended to allow any or a certain subset of
“acceptable” absorbents to be used in the treat’nerit of b .ilk
.liquid hazardous wastes, Congress would have specified this,
as it did in the provision concerning the landfilling of
containerized hazardous wastes (see Section 3004(c)(2)).
The Agency believes, however, that the term “absorbent” does
not include reagents used in: 1) any treatment technology
that involves no absorption and produces a bulk solid, or 2)
a treatment technology that chemically stabilizes, encapsulates,
r solidifies a bulk liquid hazardous waste. EP believes that
Congress was particularly concerned about the use of materials
that function solely as absorbents as a treatment method for
bulk liquid hazardous wastes in order to force the use of
other treatment methods (see Treatment Technologies for
preferred treatment methods) and because an absorbent may
release the absorbed liquid back to the environment. (See 129 Cong.
Rec. #8141 (daily ed. Oct. 6, 1983)). The legislative history
to this provision suggests that processes, such as chemical
stabilization, which, unlike absorption, render Liquids
permanently unavailable to the environment, should be deemed
appropriate forms of pretreatment of liquid hazardous wastes
(129 Cong. Rec. H8141 (daily ed. Oct. 6, 1983)). See also
130 Cong. Rec. S9177 (daily ed. July 25, 1984). Consequently,
t.,e Agency interprets the statute to permit the landfilling

of bulk liquid hazardous wastes that have been chemically
treated and stabilized so as to contain no free liquids.
If an absorbent material is used to clean up a spill of
hazardous waste, this mixture cannot be placed directly in a
landfill. The reason, as stated before, is that the language
of the statute makes it clear that any liquid hazardous
waste, when contained and treated solely by the use of an
absorbent, is prohibited from being placed in a landfill in
a bulk or non—containerized form. Congress did not specifically
exclude spills from the statutory prohibition. If a spill
is treated solely by the use of absorbents, the absorbed
material ‘hay be containerized and placed in a landfill (subject
to any EPA regulation relating to absorbents in containers
under Section 3004(c)(2)), placed in a surface impoundment,
or treated in a manner consistent with this guidance.
Although spills treated with absorbents are subject to
the ban on landfillirig of bulk liquid hazardous wastes to
which absorbents have been added, EPA believes that this ban
was not intended to encompass soils contaminated by accidental
spills into the ground. The Agency believes, based on the
legislative history relating to absorbents, that Congress
was primarily concerned about controlling the use of absorbents
as a waste management method. See 130 Cong. Rec. 59177
(daily ed. July 25, 1984). There is no evidence that Congress
concern extended to banning the placement in a landfill of
soils accidentally contaminated by spills of liquid hazardous
waste. tn consequence, contaminated soils will be subject

to the same requirements as other hazardous Wastes. tf the
contaminated soil passes the Paint Filter Liquids Test, it
will he allowed to be landfilled. If, however, the contaminated
soil fails the Paint Filter Liquids Test, then the Contaminated
soil must be subject to additional treatment as outlined
this guidance.
The Agency also believes that in banning the placement of
bulk liquid hazardous wastes “whether or not absorbents have
been added,N Congress intended to ban the placement in a
landfill of bulk liquid hazardous wastes that are treated
with materials that function solely as absorbents, whether
or not the treatment or mixing took place inside or outside
the landfill unit. Congress was concerned with the consequences
of placing the absorbed liquid wastes into the landfill unit
as well s with placing free liquids in the landfill.
In some cases, the generator may have added an absorbent
to a bulk liquid hazardous waste. As noted above, the statute
bans the placement in a landfill of bulk liquid hazardous wastes
if an absorbent was added to the waste regardless of where
the absorbent was added. Therefore, EPA believes that an owner
or operator has the obligation to determine whether a generator
has added a material that functions solely as an absorbent to
a waste in order to eliminate free liquids. Owners or operators
are not in compliance with the bulk liquids provisionif they
place bulk liquid mixtures with absorbents in landfills.
The Agency believes that responsibility for compliance

with this provision rests solely with the landfill o ner or
operator. In developing this approach, the Agency also
considered whether responsibility for ensuring compliance
with the bulk liquids provision should be shared jointly by the
generator and the owner or operator. For instance, if the
generators had treatr ent performed on the bulk liquids, the
generators would certify to landfill owners or operators that
no absorbents were used. If no treatment was performed, they
would certify that no absorbent was added to the waste. The
Agency rejected this approach because it was overly burdensome
to the generators. As is currently practiced, the off—site
landfill owner or operator may enter into a private contractual
aqreement with generators regarding the use of absorbents in
wastes to be landfilled. A contractual agreement, however,
will not relieve the landfill owners or operators from their
responsibilities to ensure that absorbents were not used
in the treatment of the bulk liquids.

OSWER Policy Directive # 94 87.OO_2A
The goal of banning the placement of bulk liquid hazardous
wastes in landfills is to reduce the migration of liquid
-wastes and hazardous constituents. To this end, the preferred
methods for managing bulk liquid hazardous wastes are: 1)
reduction in liquid waste generation by process design changes
(e.g., using less liquid or recirculating rinse water) and
by not mixing hazardous wastes with liquids, 2) recycling
and recovery (e.g., solvent extraction), 3) treatment by
destruction (e.g., incineration), 4) treatment to render the
waste or liquid fraction nonhazardous, 5) treatment by removing
liquids (e.g., decanting, centrifuge, vacuum drum or conveyor,
filter press, distillation, reverse osmosis), and 6) treatment
by mixing with agents (e.g., chemical reagents that remove
free liquids or chemically transform them into solids). [ See
130 Cong. Rec. S9l77 (daily ed. July 25, l984).
The owner or operator must use the Paint Filter Liquids Test
to determine if the bulk hazardous waste is subject to this
provision (i.e., the waste is a liquid or contains free
liquids). If a hazardous waste fails the Paint Filter Liquids
Test, it must be treated before ]andfilling using a treatment
technology that does not involve the use of a material that
functions solely as an absorbent. If such treatment is considered
chemical stabilization, it may be necessary for a representa-
tive sample of the treated waste to pass the chemical

stabilization test if it’s not clear that stabilization
has occurred before the waste may be landfilled. A bulk
liquid that has been treated with an absorbent may also’ be
landfilled in a container if it does not contain free—standing
liquids (40 CFR Parts 264.314 and 265.314), subject to any
future EPA regulations relating to the use of absorbents in
The Agency believes that the phrase “whether or not absorbents
have been added requires that bulk liquid hazardous wastes
intended for disposal in a landfill should first be chemically,
thermally, physically, or biologically treated without the
use of absorbents. Examples of these treatment technologies
were summarized above and are discussed further below.
Depending on the treatment technology selected, some bulk
liquid hazardous wastes will no longer be placed in landfills
while others will be converted to bulk solids that will then
be placed into the landfill. The treatment methods listed below
are not meant to be all inclusive. Some methods are listed because
they are alternatives to the placement of bulk liquid hazardous
wastes in landfills (i.e., not all the treatment methods are
directed toward the removal of liquids so that the bulk
hazardous liquid waste can be landfilled). Of course, the
selection of the treatment method should comply with the
guidance of this provision.
As stated above, the Agency will exclude from the definition of
“absorbent” reagents used in: 1) any treatment technology that
involves no absorption and produces a bulk solid, or 2) a

treatment technology that chemically stabilizes, encapsulates,
or solidifies a bulk hazardous liquid. The definitions of
absorbent and chemical stabilization are presented in the
following sections.
It is also important to remember that if the treatnent of bulk
liquid hazardous wastes occurs in a tank, the treatment unit
may be subject to a RCRA permit. If incineration is used,
this treatment is regulated under Part 264 or 265, Subpart
0. It is also important to remember that the selected treatment
method (e.g., mixing) must not occur within the landfill
The Agency classifies an absorbent as a material that is
capable of holding a liquid throughout the_body of the absorbing
material. In an absorbent, the liquid penetrates into the
inner structure of the absorbing material. In many absorbents,
the volume of the absorbing material increases (i.e. swells)
as liquid is absorbed into the body of the absorbent. The
use of a material that functions primarily as an absorbent
is prohibited as a means of treatment for bulk liquid hazardous
wastes if the absorbed mixture is to be placed in a landfill.
The literature is confusing on the use of the terms absorbent
and adsorbent. While absorption relies on liquid penetration
into the inner structure (i.e., within the void spaces between
solid particles) of the material, adsorption is a process
where the liquid or gas adheres to the surface of the adsorbing
material. Adsorption is the result of intermolecular attractive

forces between the adsorbent and the adsorbed gas or liquid.
The liquid is thus distributed over the surface of the adsorbing
material in a layer that is onl i ne atom or molecule thick.
A material must have a high ratio of surface area to mass to
be an effective adsorbent. The intermolecular forces of
attraction are normally weak, and the phenomenon is therefore
readily reversible. In rare instances, however, a chemical
interaction between the adsorbent and the adsorbed substance
may occur. In this process, known as chemisorption, a
chemical reaction occurs resulting bo.th in a molecular change
in the adsorbed material, and much stronger intermolecular
forces than are found with simple adsorption. This process
is addressed later in this guidance.
While the differences between absorption and adsorption
are easily defined on paper, it is much more dfficult to
determine whether a particular material acts as an absorbent
or adsorbent. Standard test methods exist for determining
the holding power of materials, but these methods do not identify
the holding mechanism (i.e. absorption or adsorption). In
reality, most materials are capable, to various extents of
holding materials by both rnechanisi’ s.
In keeping with the intent of Congress, however, it is
not important to identify if absorption, adsorption, or both
are occurring, since neither process involves a chemical
transformation or encapsulation of the sorbed liquied (with
the exception of chemisorption). Congress is concerned
about banning landfill disposal of liquid wastes that have

not been treated in such a manner that they are permanently
unavailable to the environment. Both absorption and adsorption
are reversible, and can release the sorbed material back
into the landfill. The Agency therefore interprets the ban
on “absorbents to include materials that sorb wastes through
either absorption or adsorption. Because of this interpretation
the Agency will simply consider adsorption and absorption
as physical processes and will thus refer to both as sortion
or sorbents. Examples of banned sorbents include vermiculite,
Fuller’s earth, bentonite, fine—grained sands, shredded
paper, and sawdust. A sorbent material may, however, be
used as one of the ingredients in a chemical stabilization
process if the final product passes the unconfined compression
strength test discussed under the Test Method section, if it is
necessary ‘p use such a test.
The use of a sorbent material will be considered an acceptable
treatment method for bulk hazardous liquid wastes under
appropriate conditions. The owner or operator must first
demonstrate that the individual material irreversibly binds
a particular liquid waste through a chemical reaction (i.e.
chemisorption) rather than through the weak forces of absorption
or adsorption. Chemisorption reactions are specific to the
chemical structure of both the sorbent and waste materials.
The owner or operator must therefore demonstrate that an-
.rreversible binding reaction has occurred for each particular
sorbe nt/waste combination.

Liquid—Solid Separation Processes
Various liquid—solid separation processes are available to
separate the liquid and solid fractions of a bulk liquid
hazardous waste. These include such operations as sedimentation
or decanting, flotation, filtration (including vacuum filtration),
centrifugation, evaporation, and distillation. Sedimentation
or decanting is the removal of solid particles suspended in a
liquid by gravity settling. Flotation involves the separation
of solids from liquids by the attachment of tiny air bubbles
to the solid particles. The solid particles with the attached
air bubbles then rise to the surface of the liquid, agglomerate
there, and are skimmed off. Filtration is the passage of
liquids through a fine mesh material that g.revents the solid
material from passing. Filtration can be enhanced by stirring
and by using vacuum or pressure rather than just gravity to
cause-liquid flow. Vacuum conveyors and drums can be used.
Centrifugation separates the solid and liquid components of
a waste stream by rapidly rotating the mixture in a vessel.
Evaporation is a physical separation process involving vaporization
of a liquid from a solution or a slurry. Distillation is
evaporation of the more volatile component(s) within a mixture
with subsequent condensation to recover the evaporated liquid.
Bulk liquid hazardous wastes can be subjected to such
liquid—solid separation processes, or a series of such processes
because some processes alone do not completely remove free
liquids. The solid residuals can be isolated and then tested

for the presence of free liquids using the Paint Filter
Liquids Test. If the solids pass the test, they may be
placed into the landfill. If they fail, additional liquid—solid
separation processes (or another form of treatment) would be
required to remove or eliminate the free liquids. If the
.liquid fraction isolated from the liquid—solid separation
process is a hazardous waste, it is subject to Section 3004(c)(l)
and should not be landfilled, unless one of the treatment
methods described below is employed. Regardless of whether
the waste component is solid or liqui.d, it is still a hazardous
waste unless it is delisted, if it is a listed waste, or no
longer ‘fleets a characteristic of a hazardous waste. The
haracteristics of a hazardous waste are given in 40 CFR
Parts 261.21 — 261.24.
Biological Treatment
Owners and operators may wish to consider other alternatives to
the treatment methods described above. One alternative
could be biological treatment. Biological treatment is a
generic term applied to processes that use living microorganisms
to decompose or detoxify organic wastes into either water,
carbon dioxide, non—toxic organics, non—toxic irtorganics, or
acids and bases. The principal types of conventional biological
treatment that might be useful for the treatment of bulk
liquid hazardous wastes are:
o activated sludge systems
o trickling filters
o aerated laqoons
o waste stabilization ponds
These treatment methods typically occur in tanks or surface

impoundments. These hazardous waste units are subject to
regulation under Subparts J and K, respectively, of 40 CFR
Parts 264 and 265.
Thermal Treatment
Another alternative is thernal treatment. The treatt ent of
many non—aqueous bulk hazardous liquids (e.g., solvents and
other organics) can be achieved with high temperature destruction.
The goal of thermal destruction processes is the oxidation
of hazardous waste to water, carbon dioxide, aldehydes,
acids, etc. Various thermal destruction methods can be
considered, such as:
o liquid injection incineration
o rotary kiln incinerators
o multiple hearth incinerators
Units used for such treatment are subject t.o regulation under
Subpart 0 of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265.
Chemical Treatment
Chemical stabilization is a method that may be used to treat
bulk hazardous liquids prior to landfilling. The majority
of the chemical stabilization techniques in use today: 1)
chemically react with the waste to transform free liquids
into solid or gel—like materials, 2) result in the production
of either a soil—like or clayey material, a thick sludge, a
monolithic block with high structural integrity, or a gel—like
material with high plasticity, and 3) have the additional
benefit of limiting one or more of the following: mobility,
solubility, and toxicity. Stabilization usually involves
the addition of materials that ensures that the liquid portion

of the waste is chemically transformed into a solid and that
the hazardous constituents are maintained in their least
soluble -and/or least toxic form. In general, higher quantities
of stabilization additives result in a more solid product
having higher strength and greater stability.
Sorption of a liquid is not the same as chemical stabilization.
Sorption is a physical process that may often be reversed,
whereas stabilization involves a physical and chemical reaction
between the liquids and waste constituents and the stabilizing
Examples of the most commonly used stabilization technologies
are Portland cement—based and pozzolanic processes. The
cement—based process is especially effective for wastes with
high levels of toxic metals, because at t pH of the cement
mixture, most multivalent cations are precipitated as hydroxide
or carbonate minerals of-very low solubility. The Portland
cement—based process is also effective in removing liquids
because the reaction of the anhydrous cement powder and
water (liquids) incorporates the water into the solid mineral
species. The reaction first produces a colloidal calcium—silicate—
hydrate gel of indefinite composition and structure. Hardening
of the cement is brought about by the interlacing of thin,
densely—packed, silicate fibrils growing from the individual
cement particles.
Waste stabilization techniques based on lime products (as
opposed to Portland cement) usually depend on the reaction
of lime with a fine—grained siliceous (pozzolanic) material

and water to produce a solid that is sometimes referred to
as pozzolanic cement. The most common pozzolanic materials
used in waste treatment are fly ash, ground blast—furnace
slag, and cement kiln dust.
The stabilized waste product from both cement-based and
pozzolanic processes can vary in consistency from a weak
soil—like or clay—like material to a hard, concrete—like mass.
The consistency depends on a variety of factors including
waste type, moisture content, organic content, and the type
and amount of stabilization additives used.
These chemical stabilization techniques require a thorough
knowledge of the chemistry of the wastes and treatment reagents.
In many cases, special proprietary reagents (usually polymers)
are added. This is often required to control the adverse
effects of organic compounds on the cementation process.
Cement and pozzolanic stabilization may be ineffective in
treating many organic compounds. The treatment must be
conducted in a well—controlled procedure that employs sophisticated
quality control/quality assurance methods. This treatment
typically occurs within specially designed vessels, using
special apparatus to control the addition and blending of
reagents. The units in which these processes occur are
typically classified as tanks: these would generally be
subject to regulation under Subpart J of 40 CFR Parts 264
and 265. These tanks could be situated in the landfill
provided that both the tank and the landfill are regulated
in accordance with applicable standards.

Because it is often difficult to determine whether a particular
process.involves stabilization, or is merely absorption, EPA
expects owners and operators using a chemical stabilization
process to demonstrate that the chemical transformations
.described above occur. Laboratory data showing that an appropriate
“recipe” has been developed and used, plus a demonstration
that stabilization has occurred may be necessary in cases where
there is a question of whether a particular process actually
involves stabilization rather than sorption. Descriptions
of the treatment apparatus and quality control methods should
also be available, and provided with permit applications.
To aid owners or operators in demonstrating that chemical
stabilization has occurred, the Agency is ecornrnending a
testing scheme as shown in Exhibit 1. Under this method, any
bulk hazardous waste (i.e., no sorbents added) that may contain
free liquids is subject to the Paint Filter Liquids Test.
If the waste passes the test, it is not subject to the ban
(i.e. it can be disposed in a landfill). If the waste fails
the test, it may then be treated by a chemical stabilization
process prior to landfill disposal. (NOTE: It may be determined
that one of the other waste treatment methods described in
Treatment Technologies is preferred.) If the waste is treated
using a chemical stabilization process, and if it is not
obvious that true chemical stabilization has occurred (i.e.,
if it is suspected that a material that functions solely
as a sorbent has been used), then a representative sample of

Paint Filter
Liquids Test
Pass (no free Liquidsd
I (ProvLded no sorbents
I have been added) I
Fail (Contains Free Liquids)
______I Chemical Stabilization
Confirmation of
Chemical Stabiliza-
tion by State or
Req ions based on data
Unconfined_Compress ive
Strength Test
50 psi Minimum
Landfill I
Disposal I
Bulk Liquid Testing Procedures

the waste should then pass the chemical stabilization test
before it can be disposed in a landfill.
Once it has been demonstrated that a particular process used
for a particular waste will result in a treated product that
passes the stabilization test, then samples of each batch
would only be required to pass the Paint Filter Liquids Test
prior to placement in the landfill. If there are any changes
in the treatment process and/or composition of the waste to
be treated, stabilization testing should be repeated.
A wide range of tests were considered for determining if chemical
stabilization has occurred. Tests exist that determine
whether or not a chemical reaction has taken place. However,
these tests are specific to the reacting materials. The
wide range of wastes and treatment processes results in an
essentially unmanagable number of these confirmatory tests
for chemical reactions.
Rather than proposing a series of chemical analyses tests,
it is desired to have a single test method that can be used
for all types of wastes. The unconfined compressive strength
test is proposed as an indirect method for determining the
stability of treated waste products. If the owner or operator
wishes to use a different method to show that chemical stabilization
rather than sorption has occurred, this information should
be provided with the facility’s Waste Management Plan (for
Interim Status Units) or the hazardous waste permit application.
As previously discussed, chemical treatment methods that
solidify liquid wastes typically result in either cemented

masses comparable to concrete or discrete particles and low
strength mixtures such as sand, soil, weak clay, or sawdust.
The most common of these processes are cement—based and
pozzolanic processes. It is known that these reactions
produce a product having greater strength than the original
materials. Compressive strength can therefore be used as
an indirect measure of the extent of chemical stabilization
when these methods are used to treat liquid wastes.
It is highly desirable to have a single compression test
that could be used for most of these stabilized wastes,
regardless of the specific waste type or stabilization process
used. It is also desired that the test be performed with
unconfined samples. Unconfined tests can be performed only
on cohesive materials. Since the addition....of sorbents generally
results in a non—cohesive product, the use of the uriconfined
test will help assure that wastes treated solely by sorbents
are not placed in the landfill.
The unconfined compressive strength test should be modeled on
ASTM D2166—85, Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive
Soil. The selection of the unconfined compressive strength
test, based on soil testing methodology, is aimed at the
cemented or pozzolanic class, but is very applicable to the
stiffer, less ductile plastics. A minimum allowable strength
is selected as the measure of adequate bonding. The minimu n
strength recommended is 50 psi. The rationale for selecting
this value is an effort to require a bonding level in excess
of that achieved with sorbents. The electrostatic and surface

tension bonding that is present in rrLOSt of these materials
is most strongly present in very stiff clays. For comparative
purposes, the compressive strengths of a variety of materials
are shown in Exhibit 2. As shown in Exhibit 2, very stiff
clays typically have unconfined compressive strengths of 28
to 57 psi. It is felt that a compressive strength limit
nearer the high end of this range will assure that chemical
bonding, and not just absorption or adsortion, is present.
The 50 psi minimum compressive strength limit should also
assure that the treated waste has at least as much strength
as the soil surrounding the disposal site.
The second common class of products resulting from stabilization
irocesses are the low strength soil—like and clay—like materials,..
including cohesionless sandy products. If_it is not apparent that
the process is indeed “stabilization” then it would be necessary
to use the unconfined compressive strength test. However,
further treatment may be necessary to achieve the 50 psi limit,
however, the amount of treatment is expected to be minimal.
In an attempt to predict how easily various types of soils or
soil—like wastes could be treated to increase their unconfined
compressive strengths, the results of a series of soil—stabilization
studies are presented (8J. These studies were performed
using nine different soil types. Prior to the addition of
stabilization compounds, test specimens were molded according
o ASTM D1632—63: Standard Method of Making and Curing Soil-Cement
Compression and Flexure Test Speciments in the Laboratory.
After seven days of controlled storage, the unconfined compressive

Materiel Comoressiv. Strength Reference-
Grade SW 3.000 1.
Grade MW 2,500 1
Grade NW 1,500
Aluina Ceramics 350,000 2
Carbon. Coat based 1.700-2,400 3
Carbon, Petroleum based 0,300-9,000 3
Industrial Graphite 1,9008 ,500 3
PotycrystelL ins GLass 50.000 3
Porcelain 60,000-90,000 4
Stonewar. 40,000-80,000 1.
Tungsten Carbide 600,000 2
Very Soft Lees than 3.6 5
Soft 3.6 to 7.1 5
Medium 7.1 tO 14 5
Stiff 14 to 28 5
Very Stiff 28 to 57 S
lAtremoly Stiff Over 57 5
Low Strength 2,000 2
Medium Strength 3,000-4,000 2
High Strength 5.000 2
Cast iron, grey 120,000 6
Acrylics, cast 12.00018,000 7
CeLlulose Acetate, molded 20.000 2
€po*y, amine 4,000 4
Epoxy , general purpose 30,000 2
Epezy, potysmid. 6.000 4
Nylons 2,400-9,700 3
Phenolics, cast, type 1 14,000-18,000 7
Phenol Ics, molded, general purpose 30,000 2
Polyester, cast, rigid 12,000-37.000 3
PoLyester, cast. ltex,ble 1,000-17,000 3
PoLypropylene 5,500-6,500 3
Polystyrene, general purpose 14,000 2
Pelytetref(uoroettiytene (Teflon) 700-1,800 3
Silicone, cast, type 1 14,000•18,000 7
Granite 13 ,000-5500 0
Limestone 2.500-28,000 1
Marble 8,000-27,000 1
Sandstone s,ooo -zo .oao
Slate 9,000-10,000 I

strength of each soil type was measured according to ASTM
D1633—63: Test for Compressive Strength of Molded Soil—Cement
Cylinders. The results, shown in Exhibit 3, indicate trengths
ranging from 26 to 56 psi. All values in Exhibit 3 are the
average of three specimens.
Samples of each of the nine soil types were then mixed with
simüle stabilization compounds. Two different stabilization
additives, cement and lime, were used for each soil type.
The cement additive consisted of a blend of three brands.
The lime consisted of a blend of two brands. For each additive,
two different quantities, 3 percent and 5 percent, were
used, resulting in four different mixtures for each soil
Specimens were prepared in accordance.....with ASTM Dl632. Specimens
were molded either immediately after machine mixing of the
soil/additive blend (denoted as no compaction in Exhibit 3)
or after a 24—hour delay. During the delay, the material
was stored at 73 degrees F. Any moisture lost during the
delay was replaced. The materials were re’nixed prior to
The results of the urtconfined compressive strength tests for
both the no—delay and 24—hour delay specimens appear in
Exhibit 3. Final strength increase, as measured against the
strength of the untreated soils, ranges from 56 percent to
‘,800 percent. It is especially important to note that
small additions of either cement or lime yie cIe dramatic
increases in coTnpressivH ;trength of soils. Increases of

Jic Comp.,cvion
Soil 7-day 28-day
NunDer Additive Strength Strength
24Nr. Comoaction Delay
7 -diy
2 8day
Str.ngtr i
lIon. 56 •- - -
3% Cement 98 135 189 83 1 3
3% Lime 76 128 155 86 143
5% Cement 160 233 311 155
5% Lime 120 190 274 132 193
2 None 26
3% Cement 316 376 243
3% Lime 80 136 73 117
5% Cement 445 495 270 371
5% Lime 103 161 84 138
3 lIons 29
32 Cement 216 277 179 238
32 Lime 89 153 95 146
5% Cement 332 ‘26 256 320
5% Lime 115 174 121 192
4 None 28
3% Cement 210 269 141 185
3% Ii.. 64 117 58 103
5% Cement 323 414 234 302
5% Lime 111 171 93 184
S None 41
3% Cement 12’ 149 100 133
32 Lime 78 97 81 114
5% Cement 172 232 153 213
5% Lime 95 164 93 175
6 None 28 - .
3% Cement 234 276 154 267
3% Lime 116 184 88 166
5% Cement 405 52 217 346
5% Lime 137 204 101 193
7 None 37
32 Cement 158 202 135 192
3% Lime 169 18 174 221
5% Cement 243 310 219 283
52 LIme 172 260 198 292
8 NOne 54 •-
3% Cement 114 158 256 84 140
3% Lime 98 ISO 218 103 143
5% Cement 174 234 379 141 205
5% Lime lit 216 313 145 252
9 None 38
3% Cement 147 136 260 107 137
3% Lime 131 234 270 118 166
5% Cement 237 377 466 204 294
52 iime 173 292 369 202 322
Source: C31
All comoressive strengths are the average of three soecimens.

two—fold to fourteen—fold resulted from the addition of only
3 percent cement. The unconfined compressive strengths of
the soils treated with lime also appear in Exhibit 3. These
strengths range from 76 psi to 369 psi. The strength increase,
as measured against the strength of the untreated soils,
ranges from 36 percent to 870 percent. Again, it is important
to note that the addition of only 3 percent or 5 percent
lime results in a dramatic increase in the unconfirted compressive
These studies show that the recommended 50 psi unconfined
compressive strength limit is easily attainable for soil—like
products. The addition of minimal amounts of cement or lime
can be used. All of the soils treated with 3 percent cement
exceeded the 50 psi criteria within 7 days.. All of the
soils treated with 3 percent lime also reached the criteria
within the 7 days. The compressive strengths of all of
the tested soils were even greater after 28 days. Changes
in product strength as a function time are further discussed in
the following section.
The Agency knows that time is necessary for complete and
final chemical stabilization to occur. This time has been
stated to be from several hours to 7 days or more, depending
on the waste type and treatment process used. As noted
earlier, EPA interprets the statutory language as banning the
placement of treated bulk liquid hazardous wastes in a
landfill prior to the treated material passing the Paint

Filter Liquids Test. Unconfined Compressive strength testing,
when necessary, should be performed in advance for each
waste to be treated by a particular process. This preliminary
testing will identify the acceptable cure times required for
a stabilized waste to meet the 50 psi limit.
This quidance does not contain a list of acceptable
stabilization materials because a material may be both a
sorbent and an ingredient in a stabilization process.
General technical reference information on chemical stabilization
methods is available in the Guide to the Disposal of Chemically
Stabilized and Solidified Waste (EPA, 1982). This is available
from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20401 under stock number 055—000—00226—6, for $6.00.
Process changes at some facilities with hazardous waste
landfills 1 may be necessary in order to comply with this
statutory prohibition. These process changes may be in the
form of additional storage or treatment units. Section
270.72 allows changes in the processes for the treatment or
storage of hazardous waste at the facility or the addition
of other units if the owner or operator submits a revised
Part A permit application to EPA (or an authorized State)
prior to such a change along with justification explaining
the need for the change and the Regional Administrator (or
the Director of the State agency in an authorized State)
approves such a change. The Regional Administrator (or the
Director of the State agency in an authorized State) may

OSWER Policy Directive l 9487..OQ—2A
approve such changes because they will be necessary to comply
with this new statutory requirement.
1. Saumeister, T., E.A. £ vallone, and T. Baumeister III, Edit ,
Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers 1
Eighth Edition, McGraw—Hill Book Company, New
York, 1978, pp. 6—149 to 6—159.
2. Richards, C.W., Engineering Materials Science, Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Inc., Belmont, California, 1961, pp. 518-521.
3. Materials Selector 76, Materials Engineering MagaZine, 82(4),
Mid—September, 1976.
4. Perry, R.H. and D.W. green, Editors, Chemical Engineers’
Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw—Hill Book Company,
New York, 1984, pp. 23—58 to 23—62.
5. Terzaghi, K., and R.B., Peck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1948, p. 31.
6. Popov, E.P., Mechanics of Materials, Second Edition,
Prentice Hall, Inc., Eriglewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
1976, page 570.
7. Perry, R.H., and C.H. Chilton, Editors, Chemical Engineers’
Handbook, Fifth Edition, McGraw—Hill Book Company,
New York, 1973, pp. 23—62.
8. Christensen, A.P., Cer ent Modification of Clay Soils,
Portland Cement association, 1969.

AUG 3 987
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction over the management of solid wastes
with the exception of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material, which
are regulated b t the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coemission (NRC) under the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA). Low—Level Radioactive Wastes CLLW) contain source,
byproduct, or special nuclear materials, but they say also contain chemical
constituents which are hazardous under EPA regulations promulgated under
Subtitle C of RCRA. Such wastes are conuonly referred to as Mixed Low—Level
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (Mixed LLW).
Applicable NRC regulations control the byproduct, source, and special nuclear
material components of the Mixed LLW (10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 61, and 70); EPA
regulations control the hazardous component of the Mixed LLW (40 CFR Parts
260-266, 268 and 270). Thus, all of the Individual constituents of Mixed LLW
are subject to either NRC or EPA regulations. However, when the components are
combined to become Mixed LLW, neither agency has exclusive jurisdiction under
current Federal law. This has resulted in duel regulation of Mixed 11W where
NRC regulates the radioactive component and EPA regulates the hazardous
component of the same waste.
The attached guidance document provides a conceptual design approach for Mixed
11W disposal facilities. It has been developed jointly by the NRC and EPA to
assist comercial LLW disposal site operators and State and Regional Compact
regulatory agencies in designing disposal facilities that satisfy both EPA and
NRC regulations for Mixed LLW facilities. Although EPA is currently in the
process of promulgating regulations that further define the technical
parameters for the leak detection, leachate collection, and double liner
systems, affected parties may proceed to develop designs for disposal units
that will accept Mixed LI..W In accordance with existing regulatory requirements.
Owners and operators should, however, keep abreast of developing EPA
regulations In this area. The attached guidance Is based on NRC and EPA
regulations In effect on August 1, 1987.
The attached geldance presents a conceptual design approach that meets EPA’s
regulations covering minimum technology requirements for liners and leathate
collection systems, and NRC’S requirements for minimization of contact of waste
with water, while also assuring long-term stability and avoidance of long-term
maintenance which are required by both agencies. The concepts proposed in tPns
document are presented as general guidance; specific design detills are
xpected to be complementary to particular site conditions, so that a license
sppllcation wiLl have to address site characteristics and their relationship to
a proposed design as well as the details of any engineered portion of the
facility. The application of this guidance will not affect the requirements
for waste dispcsel facilities to comply with all applicable NRC and EPA

The attached guidance should permit licensees to develop safe and effective
designs for disposal of Mixed LLW that fully meet the regulatory requirements
of both agencies. Depending on the particular type of conceptual design
selected by a licensee, EPA may permit variances to the requirements for double
liners and leachate collection systems.

Thompson, r. 7ector
o eofNuclearMatr 1
Safety and Safeguar
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission
,9S.& /4r
Uwinston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
As stated

The Low—Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (L.LRWPM)
requires that the three operating low—level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal
facilities remain available through 1992. By that time, all states and compact
regions are required to assume complete responsibility for LLW disposal. Bath
existing and new disposal facilities may receive coninercial mixed low—level
radioactive and hazardous waste (Mixed LLW), which is regulated by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Coninission (NRC) under the Atomic Energy Act (AU), and by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCR.A}. Mixed LLW is defined as waste that satisfies the
definition of LLW in the LLRWPAA and contains hazardous waste that either (1)
Is listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 or (2) causes
the LLW to exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics identif led In
Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. To assist in applying this definition, NRC and
EPA issued joint guidance entitled Guidance on the Definition and
Identification of Conunercial Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste and Answers to
Anticipated Questionsu on January 8, 1987.
This jointly developed NRC-EPA guidance document presents a conceptual design
approach that meets the regulatory requirements of both agencies for the safe
disposal of Mixed LLW. Other designs, or variation of the proposed design
conceot may also be acceptable under the requirements of both agencies and will
be reiewed on a case-by-case basis as received.
EPA regulations In 40 CFR Part 264, Standards for Owners arid Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, identify the
design and operating requirements for owners and operators that dispose of
hazardous waste In landfills (264.300 to 264.317]. These regulations involve
requirements for the Installation of two or more liners and a leacPiate
collection and removal system (LCRS) above and between the liners to protect
human health and the environment. Exceptions to the double liner and leachate
collection syStem requirements are allowed, If alternative design and operating
practices, tosther with location characteristics, are demonstrated to EPA’s
Regional A thfstrator to be equally effective In preventing the migration of
any hazardous constituent Into the ground water or surface water.
NRC regulations In 10 CFR Part 61, LIcensing Requirements for Land Disposal of
Radioactive Waste, Indicate that long-term stability of the waste and the
disposal site require minimization of access of water to the waste t61.7(b)(2)
and that the disposal site must be designed to minimize, to the extent
practicable, the contact of water with waste during storage, the contact of
standing water with waste during disposal, and the contact of percolating or
standing water with wastes after disposal [ 61.51(a)(6)). The primary objective
of the above NRC regulations Is to preclude the possibility of the development
of a “bath.tub effect In which the waste could ecome iemersed In liquid

OS 1E DLRECTLVE 3 4 7.3O—3
(e.g.. from infiltration of surface water runoff) within a disposal unit below
grade with a low—permeability bottom surface.
The guidance on a conceptual design approach that is offered in the subsequent
paragraphs is intended to present basic design concepts that are acceptable in
addressing the regulations of both the NRC and EPA with respect to requirements
for liners, leachate collection systems and efforts to minimize the contact of
liquid with the waste. !t should be recognized that the guidance is being
provided at the conceptual level and that the design and details that are
complementary to specific site conditions need to be engineered by potential
waste facility ownersand operators. The application of the guidance in this
document will not affect the requirements for licensees of waste disposal
facilities to comply with all applicable NRC and EPA regulations.
Conceptual Design
Sketches and a brief discussion of the design considerations for an above grade
disposal unit are provided. This design concept has been developed primarily
to demonstrate the Integration of EPA’s regulatory requirements for two or move
liners and a teachate collection system above and between liners and the
regulations of the NRC that require the contact of water with the waste be
minimized. In addition, the design concept fulfills the need under both
agencies’ regulations to assure long-term stability and minimize active
maintenance after site closure.
In this approach, the Mixed LLW would be placed above the original ground
surface In a tumulus that would be blended into the disposal site topography.
Schematic details of some of the principal design features of an above grade
Mixed LLW disposal unit are provided in the sketches accompanying this guidance
document. Figure 1 depicts the three dimensional overall view of a conceptual
Mixed LLW disposal unit; Figure 2 provides details of the perimeter berm,
liners, and leachate collection system; Figure 3 presents a cross-sectional
view of the covered portion of the disposal unit; and Figure 4 descrIbes the
final cover system.
In the overall view of the Mixed LLW disposal facility, the double liners and
leachate collection and removal system are Installed before the emplacement of
the Mixed LUI; and tM cover system is added at closure. The leak detection
tank and leackat collection tank are encircled by a berm that controls surface
water runoff from precipitation that would fall directly on the waste facility
site. The drainage pipes in the upper primary collection system would collect
any leachate that could possibly develop above the top flexible meiMn’ane liner
and below the emplaced waste. Any leachate collected would drain through the
pipes to the primary leachate collection tank where the leachate wøuld be
tested and treated. If required. Any leachate collected by the lower leachate
collection and removal system would drain to the leak detection tank. The
development of significant amounts of leachate from the solidified waste after
closure Is not anticipated. This Is because the closure requirements provide
that the cover must be designed and constructed 1) to provide long-term
minimization of water Infiltration Into the closed disposal facility, 2) to
function with minimum maintenance, 3) to promote drainage and minimize erosion,

and 4) to have a permeability less than or equal t the permeability of any
bottom liner system. It is anticipated that the area shown on Figure 3 between
the slope of the final cover and the run—on control berm, where the tanks are
located, would be regraded and the tanks removed at the end of the post-closure
care period (normally 30 years) when leachate development and collection is no
longer a problem.
Figure 2 provIdes the general details required by EPA regulations for the
double liner and leachate collection and removal System. The perimeter berm
for leachate runoff control would assure that all leachate is collected below
the waste and safely contained and transported through the drainage layers and
pipes to the tanks located outside the final cover slope. NRC ’s regulations
requiring minimizing contact of the waste with water are fulfilled by requiring
the waste to be placed above the level of the highest water table fluctuation
and above the drainage 1 ayers where 1 eachate would collect. The bottom
elevation of the solidified Mixed LLW would be required In alt instances to be
at elevations above the top of the perimeter berm.
In Figures 3 and 4, the design concepts for the final cover over the sofldf fled
waste zone and the perimeter berm are presented. The actual zone for placement
of solidified Mixed LIW may consist of different options, depending on the
licensees selection. Options that would be acceptable Include use of stable
high Integrity waste containers (H!Cs) that have the spaces between containers
filled with a cohesionless, low compressible fill material or placement of the
waste In an engineered structure, such as a reinforced concrete vault. A cover
system over the waste that would be acceptable to the EPA and NRC Is shown in
Figure 4. The cover system would consist of CL) an outer rock or vegetative
layer to minimize erosion and provide for long—term stability, (2) a filter and
drainage layer that transmits infiltrating water off of the underlying low
permeability layers, (3) an Impervious flexible membrane liner overlying a
compacted low permeability clay layer, and (4) a filter and drainage layer
beneath the compacted clay layer. If the solidified waste zone does not
consist of an engineered vault structure with a top roof, an additional
compacted clay layer should be placed liemedlately above the emplaced waste to
direct any water Infiltration away from the waste zone. Mixed LLW that
contains Class C waste as designated by NRC’s regulations would need to provide
sufficient thickness of cover materials or an engineered intruder barrier to
ensure the required protection against inadvertent intrusion.
Variations on the above described design approach may include placement of the
Mixed LLW In an engineered reinforced concrete vault, a steel fiber
polymer-impregnated concrete vault, or double—lined high integrity containers
that are henretically sealed. If proposed by license applicants, these
variations would be reviewed by both the EPA and NRC on a case-by-case basis to
evaluate their acceptability and conformance with established Federal

For questions related to NRC regulations and design requirements, contact:
Or. Sher Bahadur, Project Manager
Division of Low—Level Waste Management
and Deconrtissioning
Mail Stop 623—55
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coninission
Washington, DC 20555
Facility specific questions, permitting requirements, variances and other
related concerns should be addressed to either the EPA Regional office or State
agency authorized to a inister the mixed waste program as appropriate. For
general questions related to EPA regulations and design requirements, contact:
Mr. Kenneth Skahn, Senior Engineer
Waste Management Division
Mall Stop WH-565E
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 14 Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

OSWt R flIRECTIVE Ø94137.O(J-8
• ‘• -. —
4 T -
tD4( DLfl.CTSOH TPth(

usWl K D1RFCT1V 9481.U08
• d j Iai er ‘sb *c
V %Vl W Ufll 3 Ih lhtuness o’id huve
a cL 1duc+itht %tsl iI q 4 1’ iO 1 cn/ tc.
HpT . Ft.OW I’410 LCRS
L U I (ct AI tL %A M ,RM UHER -Flr4L)
$D R MovM.. S(S4tM
tGUR ._t__DOU ___

USWt K D!RECT1V 194H1.OO—8
Cot4TRO%. tR$
nuP. . covr q
(Sue. F .4)
(ToePA Standards) /
¶7 / ¶7
( \IERTic ..t. Sc,s\t. EGGEc T )

‘-0s3G teRM STPBIU1 Y
floc. c iEc,€ 11Ji
Pwe . C.t) QFF A’ LcPE
Post - o3 )R Cp
5ugi, € DKAI,3M e. Cb%p,},aE
iN 4 LCI S
uw i t, rIcflt)t) Pi
•bodI LE L$i)t R I
P4C TE ct ow i.ito W
Sournc, o v A51
ou U FAc
Pe l$ME €ft ISEKW frg
ACflME C(4I% (j
(‘ wr c . gcp.t E .PGGE.RP TEb)


.l 3 t—
OS. tR )i:ec:i.:e N.j.
r’ 988
SUBJECT: Vertical Expansion at U.S. Ecology’s
Trench 10, Beatty, Nevada F-ic l(ty
;( jt /
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director ..4 , .
Office of Solid Waste (WH— 2
TO: Jeff Zelikson, Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
This is in response to your memorandum of December 30, 1987
requesting a written clarification as to whether the Mirumum
Technology Requirements would apply to a vertical expansion at
U.S. Ecology’s Trench 10 in Beatty, Nevada. Based on our
understanding of the facts contained in your memorandum, we
agree with Region IX and conclude that the Minimum Technological
Requirements do not apply to Trench 10. Our position is based
on the following:
1. The existing unit had obtained all necessary permits
and was operational as of November 8, 1984.
2. The Part A submitted by U.S. Ecology in 1.980 indicates
a landfill capacity of 800 acre—feet. Neither the
landfill nor the proposed vertical expansion will
exceed that capacity.
3. The T$CA perait In effect on Novembr 8, 1904 required
a three-feet—below—grade limit on placement of PCB
waste (this Limit was rescinded in August 1987). This
applied to P B wastes only and did not affect the RCRA
permit for this unit. Other permits that would affect
RCRA wastes placed in this unit placed no limitations
an th. elevation of RCRA waste.
4. The proposed vertical expansion will not allow
placement of waste beyond th. unit’s •xist2nq lateral

-- — •—. .... . .
5. Dikes constructed to provide for additional waste are
not addressed in any permit in effect on November 8,
1984, and State and local permits do not req .ure a
permit change to address construction of the dikes.
We are in agreement with your general conclusion that the
vertical expansion is permissible, however, we believe your
discussion of “vertical expansion” should emphasize the fact
that regardless of whether the expansion occurs within the unit
boundary or not, vertical expansions are limited by the Federal,
State and local permits in effect prior to the enactment of HSWA
including any requirements for pre—approval of a vertical
expansion of RCRA wastes. Thus, consistent with our May, 1985
guidance, where a permit concerning the placement of hazardous
waste includes an elevation limit, a vertical expansion beyond
that elevation limit after November 8, 1984 would constitute a
“new unit” sub)ect to Minimum Technological Requirements. This
is because the vertical expansion would not be “operational” due
to the legal impediment to its operation. (See also, 50 FR
28702 & 28707, July 15, 1985.) On the other hand where no
elevation or construction limits are required by applicable
permits and/or other State, local, or Federal requirements
concerning hazardous waste, as in this case, additional waste
can be placed on the area taking into consideration the slope of
the final cover at closure. Furthermore, the limitations
imposed on U.S. Ecology for disposal of PCB wastes are not
relevant in this case but would have been meaningful, as is
apparent from the preceding discussion, if RCRA hazardous wastes
had been included in the height limitation specified in the TSCA
t hope this clarifies Headquarters’ position that the
vertical expansion at Trench 10 of U.S. Ecology’s Beatty, Nevada
facility does not constitute a new unit or a lateral expansion.
To promote national consistency in determining the applicability
of the Minimum Technological Requirements to new units and
lateral expansions, all Regions will receive a copy of this
Should you have additional questions, please contact Chris
Rhyne, of my staff, on FTS 382—4695.
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
Permit Section Chiefs, Regions I—X
Bob ‘onetti
es Otte
Frank McAlister
Pam Savage

f,’I 9487.1981(01)
Response to Letter frorn C. re: Interi!1 Status of Propose
Landf ill Cells
Eruce 7eddle
Deputy Dir-ector
State PrOgraz s arid Resource Recovery Division
Michael aonchons y
Deputy Director, Erifcrcetnent Division
Region II
ttached is a lettsr we received frot •ir. Geor c u:h of
ECA Chen ical Services. Inc. requesting a decision on the 3tatus
of their ro osed sc r.tific landfill ceLls.
The issue raised in the letter concerns whether ;ro osed
lan il1 ce113 which were included in the design capacity
described in the Part A pe it application ay ualify for
jnterim status. I have reviewed the circumstances described
in the Application with CCC and the Cff ice of Enforcement and
det r ined that in cases where a proposed landfill cell is
included in the design capacity described in the original
Part A application, it tay qualify for interim status, assu —
ing of course, that the facility qualifies for interim status.
If a proposed landfill cell has not been included in the
original Part A application, it cannot qualify for interim
status unless a revised Part A ;er it application is submitted
and approved subject to the conditions of -5122.23(c). If you
have any e ueat ons or disagree with my analysis, please
contact either s. Deborah Wolpeer me at 755—9307.
It is appropriate for Region II to respond to the letter,
as the facility is located in ew York. I therefore have
referred r. Xuah to you if he has any further uestiens.
cc: effrey eliksen w/attachment
WH—563:Debbje Wolpe:af:Pn.2107:Ext.59107:3/ll/Sl

February 7, 1984
SUBJECT: Liner Design, Chemical Waste Management, Inc.,
Emelle, Alabama
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
TO: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region IV
I am writing in response to your January 17, 1984,
memorandum regarding the Headquarters position on Waste
Management, Inc. ‘S Emelle, Alabama liner design. Waste
Management Inc. has chosen not to apply for an exemption from the
liner requirements (S264.301(b)) since they could not prevent the
migration of any hazardous constituents into ground water or
surface water at any future time. Instead they have attempted to
show that the intragradient concept meets the requirements of
§264.301(a). The intragradient concept relies on waste placement
below the saturated zone and subsequent ground-water flow into
the landfill. The movement of ground water essentially becomes a
substitute for a synthetic liner.
Section 264.301(a) (1) states that the “liner must be
constructed of materials that prevent wastes from passing into
the liner...” and §264.301(a) (1) (1) states that a liner must be
“ constructed of materials that have appropriate chemical
properties and sufficient strength and thickness to prevent
failures...” (emphasis added). The regulatory intent is that
compliance with §264.301(a) (1) is to be achieved by construction
of a liner rather than reliance on hydrogeologic forces. (See
also terms such as “place” and “installed” in §S264.301(a) (1) (ii)
and 264.301(a) (1) (iii) respectively.)
I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the proposed
unlined design at Emelle is not permissible under the current
RCRA land disposal regulations. Our Office of General Counsel
concurred in this finding.
This has been retyped from the original document.

A further concern is Waste Management, Inc.’s request for a
waiver of the requirement to maintain a maximum one foot of head
in the leachate collection and removal system. The regulations
do not allow a waiver of this requirement. Waste Management
should, therefore, be required to install and operate a leachate
collection and removal system that will maintain a maximum one
foot head.
cc: John Lehman
Bruce Weddle
Ken Shuster
Peter Guerrero
Terry Grogan
Chris Rhyne
Mark Greenwood
This has been retyped from the original document.

1 MA” 9QA o scr OF
SUksJECT: Headquarters Comments on the Liner Exemption Request,
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM), Emelle, Alabama
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director I a
Office of Solid Waste A
TO: Thomas Devine, Director
Air and Waste Management ivision, Region IV
The Proposal : Jim Scarbrough’s memorandum of April 17, 1984,
requested Headquarters comments on an issue in CItJM’s permit
app.Lication for their Emelle, Alabama, facility. CWM has applied
for a variance from the Part 264 landfill liner and leachate
collection requirements. Section 264.301(b) allows such an
exemption if the Regional Administrator finds that the design
and operating practices together with location characteristics
‘will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents...into
the ground water or surface water at any future time.’ (Emphasis
The proposec landfill will be constructed in a saturated
chalk formation which apparently transmits ground water so
slowly that the unlined landfill cells can be constructed and
operated below the water table with minimal seepage through the
bottom and sides during the operating life. CWM claims that
after the cell is completely filled with wastes, ground water
will eventually migrate into and saturate the material. Once
saturation is complete, leachate contaminated ground water will
then migrate from the unlined cell to a deeper potable aquifer
and a nearby stream. However, CWM claims that migration is so
slow that the contaminants will not reach the aquifer for at
least 10.000 years. The basis of CWM’s argument is that they
have met the liner exemption conditions because the 10,000 year
period meets the ‘any future time’ requireinebt.
Discussion — CWM has confused the term ‘ground water’ with ‘aguifer.
both.. are detined in S260.l0: ‘Ground water’ means water below
the land surface in a zone of saturation’; ‘Aquifer’ means a

formation capable of yielding a significant amount of ground
water. ’ CWM has attenpted to demonstrate that leachate will not
affect the nearest potable AQuifer for at least 10,000 years;
however, jeachate wall enter the ground water (as defined above)
as soon as the buried materials become saturated. This clearly
does not meet the waiver requirement.
The preamble to the land disposal regulations of July 26, 1982,
(47 f 32315) provides that an example of a case in which the
liner exemption may be appropriate is one where: Cl) a large
unsaturated (emphasis aoded) zone below the unit is capable of
attenuattng any hazardous constituents in the leachate before it
reaches ground water or surface water; (2) the unit is located
in an arid area in which precipitation does not recharge ground
water; and (3) the unit handles only a small quantity of wastes.
None of these conditions exist at the Emelle site. The wording
of the regulation and the examples in the preamble clearly explain
that leachate must not enter ground water.
Recommendatipp — EPA should not grant the waiver because the
applicant does not demonstrate that hazardous constituents
will not enter the ground water, which is the requirement
for granting a waiver.
In their March 17 response to the Notice of Deficiency, CWM
also states that they have made a management decision to remove
the RCRA hazardous waste incinerator from the Part B application.’
Zn order to avoid any future question regarding whether this
incinerator at the Emelle site was built in violation of the
RCRA pre—construction ban, I suggest that you request that CWM
send a letter stating that they have no intention of ever using
this incinerator to incinerate RCRA hazardous wastes.
cc: Jim Scarbrough, Region IV
Bruce weddle
Jack Lehman
Mark Greenwood
Al Geswein
Nancy Hutzel (OGC)

SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
1. Question: Can a facility comply with the liner requirements
by placing waste below the saturated zone so that ground water
flows into the cell, thus preventing waste migration out of the
cell. 40 CFR 264.301(a).
Answer: No. The regulatory intent is that compliance with
264.301(a) is to be achieved by construction of a liner rather
than reliance on hydrogeologic forces.
2. Question: Can an applicant receive a variance from a
specific design or operating requirement when the regulations do
not contain a variance provision for that standard?
Answer: No. The regulations have no general provision for
waiving specific sections on a case by case basis. There are,
however, instances where the regulations provide alternative
means for complying with, or waiving, a specific section.
3. Question: Can a land disposal facility achieve compliance
with the double liner requirement by installing a synthetic
membrane over a clay liner or must both liners be synthetic? 40
CFR 264.301, 264.302.
Answer: Both liners must be synthetic. The land disposal
regulations provide an exemption from Subpart F requirements for
landfills if they meet certain requirements, one of which is that
the landfill must be underlain by 2 liners, both of which meet
the liner design and operating standards. Liners for landfills
must be constructed of materials that prevent wastes from passing
into the liners. Clay liners do not meet this standard.
This has been retyped from the original document.

4. EP Toxic leachate from a sanitary landfifl (non—hazardous) Is
coflecteø and puirped back into the ‘andfill. Is the landfill
a C A TSD facility?
Once the leachate Is collected, its subsequent
manjgement Is reçulated by the RCRA TSDF requirements.
Source: Mark Greenwood
esearch: Torn Gainer

9 487.1984(05)
NC’/ I 2 58
ubjecti St.abilization of !ulk L1’ uids in Landfill Cells
John E. Skinner, Director
Ortic. of Solid Waste ( i!f—552)
Toi Jares H. Scarbrough, Chiof
residuals Manaqe .nt Branch, Reçion IV
I sr i writing in response to your r.qu ,st for an interpret. tion
of 26S.3l4(a) regarding handling of bulk liquid waste. You rou t t
to e y attention the case of a disposal facility that has been
h ndljnq bulk liguids as follows: These liquids are a n4rently
placed in a pit in the bottom of an unlined (per S2 4.3Cl(a))
lan4lf ill coil. So eti?e after 1ac.nent tho liquid, are solidified
with an absorbent material. After th. liquids are solidified they
are rer.ovel and disposed of in another portion of the landfill cell.
This practice is not par itt.d under 5265.3 14 (a).
Disc use ton
526S.314(a) prohibits th4 placenent of bulk or non—contair.eri:ed
liquid waste or waste contsinini tree liquids in a landfill unlbss
one of the following conditions is net:
I. Th. landfill has a liner and leachate
collection and rer oval systern that .ets the
r.quive enta of S264.30 1(a); or
2. Before disDosal, the liquid waste or
waste containing tree lLquids is treated or
stabilized, chemically or physically, so
that ire. llq Atds ara no .ion;er present.

Since th. liner option is not availaolo in tr ia case, only
the s, c nd oi tton resains. sf hrsse in tnat option 2.3 efore
dtscosal. me re ulavory definition of dis;osal L lude3 the
... 1acin , of any solid aate or ’ hazardous vast, into or on any
land or water’ so that such solid Wast. or hazardous waste or any
constituent thereof ay enter the environment or t. omitted into-
the a r or discharced into any waters, includinç çround waters
(c2 .lO)’ (e haai ad od). 3y r i3ciru liquid wastes in a i it in
t e hotto of a unlined landf 211 cell the owner or operator is
LosLnq of bu1 1i uida. In this case, stabtiisatlon occurs
after dLa osaI, whereas $265.3l4(a)(2} requires tr.at ent or
Itabt1t!ation before 1isposal. The stabilitation process should
occur outdid. the landfill cell in a tart or surface inpound snt
cc 1ytru with applicable re u].ations.
Conc us ton
Facilities locat.J In your ‘egion that may be practicing
bulk liquids diaposal as you descrined should be notified
t! ae this practice is not allowed under 3265.314.
cu should also sake note that RCRA a end enis passed by both
the Uouse and the Senate ‘will ban the disposal of
oulk liquids Ivith or without ab9orD nts) in landfills
six months after the effective dat. of the amendments.
cc : Ra:ardous 2:aste Branch Chiefs, ReQiona I I1I, V Z
bcc: psul Cassidy
Tony Banoy CWlii.527)
Terry Grogan
Peter Guerroro
Bruce Weddla
Jack Lehman
Chris Rhyns

9487.19 85(02)
MAY1O 85
Ms. Kathleen A. Ream
American Chemical Society
1155 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Ms. Ream:
This is in response to your letter of March 22, 1985, in
which you reauested clarification of the potential effect of
Section 3004(c) of RCRA, the ‘liquids in landfills’ provision
added by Section 201(a) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments o
of 1984 (HSWA), on the continued landfill disposal of ‘lab packs.’
I am aware of the efforts of the American Chemical Society during
the evaluations of the HSWA and appreciate your position supporting u
environmentally—protective standards for the management of lab
Currently, 40 CFR 264.314(b) (4) and 265.314(b) (4) allow the ‘
disposal of lab packs in landfills. RCRA Section 3004(c)(2)
requires the Agency to promulgate regulations by Pebruary 8, 1986,
which, among other things, minimize the disposal of containerized
liquid hazardous waste in landfills. Th. legislative history
to this provision suggests that Congress, in enacting Section
3004(c) (2), intended to allow the continued landfillino of lab
packs in accordance with existing regulations. EPA plans to
develop regulations under Section 3004(c) (2) which are conBistent
with this legislative history.
If you have further questions, please call either Alan Corson
or Susan 5rc , of my staff (382—4770).
Sincerely yours,
John 0. Skinner
Di rector
Office of Solid Waste

V I i ,
Mr. Bernard L. Jonsi
Project Manager
GSX Service. of South Carolina, Inc.
Route 1. Box 255
Pinewood South Carolina 29125
Dear Mr. Jones:
I am responding to your concerns, outlined in your March 26,
1985 letter, about Section 3004(c) of the RCRA &asnd nt dealing
with the ban on disposal of liquids in landfills. I wish to
clarify a number of point, that you brought out in your l.tt.r.
In your Background section, you stat. that th. law specif-
ically prohibits the use of only biod.grada l. absorbents after
February 8 1996. Ths law (3004(c)(2)) also prohibits the
disposal of containerized liquid wastee when the liquids have
been abs orb.d in materials that releas, liquids when a r.ss.d
as might occur during routine landfill operations.
You also stat, that by your interpretation, fixation by
direct chemical reaction with any or all waste co onenta is
required for bulk liquid wastes Lu order to convert the liquid
to a solid. Chemical stabilization is on. option for dealing
with bulk liquid hazardous wastes but not the only option.
Enclosed i. . revised guidance randum (May 9, 1985) that
the Office of Solid Wast, has developed for the bulk hazardous
liquid provision. A copy of an .arli.r draft was sent to
Mr • Richard Moon, Director of Research and Technical Assistance,
GSX Serviess, on March 27, 1985.
PCassidy: h:W_565E:OSWsrn2lO2M$38246S8*O4/l 7 /851 k 4

‘ our s ecific recorn endatior.s pear to be generally consis—
nt with the policies described in the draft memorandum. I hope
the enclosed gui 3ance clarifies the Agency’s current approach
toward implementing the new statute. If you should have any
‘ uestions or comnente, please contact Paul Cassidy at 202—382.4682.
Sincerely yours,
John H • Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Wast.
cc: 3ack L.ehman
Kenneth Sbus ter
Arthur Day
Paul Cassidy

9 487.1985(04)
AUG 7 E5
Mr. Pst.r S. Daley
Director, Research and Development
Chemical Waite Management, Inc.
Thehnical Center
150 West 137th Street
Riverdale, Illinois 60627
Dear Mr. Dalay,
This is in respons. to your letter of June 24, 1985, in
wbi you r.qu.et.d clarification of a number of procedural
sitters dealing with the management of liquid hazardous wastes
in landfills.
Your first issu, concerns the use of the Paint Filter Liquids
Test for aoatain.riz.d materials. You are eorr.ct in your under..
standing that th. Paint Filter Liquids Test ( Federal Re Liter,
April 30, l98S) applies to containerized materials on y as a
mass. to v.rify, where n..d.d, that there are no •free—standing’
liquids. The current regulations (g5264.314 and 265.314) prohibit
th disposal in landfills of ‘free—standing liquids’ in containers,
not ‘ire. liquids’ (see 47 Federal R ister 12316, March 22, 1982).
The March 22 preamble descrT rr ..—s a ag liquids as those
thatforo disti ct pool, or lay.rs above or below the waste in a
container. The pr.amble furth.r states that where it is difficult
to determine wh•ther a layer is a fre.—standinq liquid, the paint
f titer test can be used. *er. there ar. no distinct layers or
pools of liquid at the surface or within the waste there are no
free-standing liquids. Free—standing liquids ar, a subset of
fr. liquids. Thus, th. waste light contain f re. licuids (in
accordarsos .ith the Paint Filter Liquids Test) but utiqht not be
classified em containing free-standing liquid. On th. other
band, a1 .. sistsndirsg liquids are free liquids.
Ii the Nsrch 22, 1982, rub, arid preamble, the Agency stated
that laadftll.ap.rator. should use readily available, technically
feasible t.chniques, such as d.canting of free—standing liquids
f os containers or other removal methods, or absorbing or solidifying
tbe free—standing liquids in containers, to eliminate free—standing
liquids prior to ).andf tiling. In most cases, determining the

presence absenc. of fr.e-.tanding liquids will not be
difficult. mere it is difficult to determine whether a
given substance is a free—standing liquid, the preamble
stated that the paint filter test can be used.
The promulgation of the Paint Filter Liquids Test on
April 30, 1985, does not change how the current requir.a.nts
for containers (i.e., free—standing liquids) should be complied
with. Your sugq.stion to supplement visual inspections with
routin. paint filter testing is a good quality control
Your second issue concerns the stabilisation of liquids
standing on bulk loads manifsst.d as solids, You stat. that
thus. liquids could be the result of rein, snow, or transporta-
tion vibrations, and that this occurrence can be especially
troublesome at sit.. without treatment permits it stabiltsation
of this liquid in situ is consider.d trsatmnt. You propose
to apply a stabtTiTItTon agent to thes. standing liquid.
on bulk loads and verify the effectiveness of this action by
the us. of the Paint Filter Liquids T.st rather than turning
away suct 4 , lead, at the gate. If the standing liquid layer
‘ on 4 Ce. poured of f or decanted, then your concapt of applying
a stabilisation agent to the surface of the load can be
p.rformed. Nowever, as you pointsd out, thi treatment
would r.quir. a treatment permit. There is no •z.mption or
ezception to the treatment definition for the chemical treatment
of bulk liquid..
A fac4ity that doss not have a treatment permit may be
abi. to us. tbe .zespt ian that applie, to wastes and absorbents
when they ar. added to a container for the first tin.
(5270.l(c)(2)(vLi)). ( Se. 47 Federal R ist.r 8304). If
th. standing liquid on the bulrT rc.n ecanted or
otherwise removed, this liquid can be placed in a container
with absorbents, or an absorbent can be add.d without requiring
a tr.atnent permit. Ybe disposal of the cant. in.r must
c lV with the aurrent r.quLr nta for containers.
*tbeqpsovLstan in the r.gulations allows the us. of
new tres pr o.s.us at interim status facilities to
faci1itatSC lta1bce with new regulatory provisions. Under
S27O.72(c) a n ouner or operator of a hasardous waste manaqenent
facility having interim status may file an amended Part A
application for a chang. in treatment, storage, or disoosal
processes, or the addition of such processes. if the change
is n.csssary to comply with P.d.xml r.qulstions or State or
local laws. Any such change in the Part A would have to be
approved by EPA or an authorised Stat•.

As a metter of clarification, we assume that by ‘ in situ ’
you mean thwaats is tr..ted in th. bulk container or othe
container, tank, or d.vjce, and do not mean treatment in the
landfill since all bulk hazardous wastes must be treated
2. .2E to placement in the landfill.
Your third issue concerns the disposal of bulk liquid
wastes to which the generator has added an absorbent. You
believe that such waste can be chemically stabilized throu jh
the addition of sufficient stabilization reagents, and that
the resulting product will pass the Paint Filter Liquids
Test. You asked for guidance on the acceptability of this.
Rased on the recent amendments to the Resource Conservation
and R.cowery Act (RCRA), we believe th. Congress intended
that liquid wastes that can be safely incinerated or otherwise
treated or that can be reclaimed and reused, especially
organic liquids, should be so treated or reclaimed. Purther,
we believe the language of Section 3004(c)(l) of RCRA prohibiting
the iandf tiling of liquids that are solely treated by the
us. of absorbents is intended to encourage such treatment or
r.claaaeion. Therefore, generators should b discouraged
fros simply adding absorbent materials to such wastes.
On the other hand, Congress also intenc!¼d that the ban
on landf tiling absorbent—treated liquid waste should not be
construed to restrict the landf filing of cbe ically stabilized
or treated wastes. Therefore, it is our belief that bulk
liquid wastes to which an absorbent has been added can be
chicaliy stab lised and can be landfilled after being
stabiiised.’We believe this type of activity is consistent
with the intent of Congress and is acceptable as long as the
chemical stabilization is in compliance with th. bulk
hazardous liquid vast, guidance (e.g., the treated waste
pass.. the Paint ?Llt.r Liquids Test).
Your fourth and last issue concerns the containerization
and .olidiftcation of bulk liquid wastes. You asked whether,
a aes—eç $Lpo. bssis, certain bulk wastes could be solidified
and laadtLlj.ed La containers. This is allowable under our
intarpretatios of the statute. Disposal of these containers
in the landfill must, of couras, comply with the current
disposal requirements for containers (40 Cr1 264.314 or
I hope these responses fully answer your que. tions, if
you should have additional concerns or co.a.nts. please feel
fre. to contact Mr. Paul Cassidy of my staff, at 202—382—4682.

Thi £qs cy is still coi idrLn all co .nts, including
yours, that hay. bs.n r.c.ivd on th. bulk hazardous liquid
vast• quidanca. W. hop. to issue r.vissd quidanc. as soon am
pass ibis.
John P. L.h.an
Wasts Msnaquant aad
Econoetce Division
cci K•n Sinister
Paul Caasidy
Barbara Pee.
*CRA Division Directorsi Regions ! — I
IIB—S65BsPCass id7iJ fts 382-4(58

9487.1985( 04a)
Mi .m Techr 1oci 1 cuiru..r.ts
4. Section 3004(o)(3)(B) of the SoLid Wast. Disposal *ct, as a .- ed, provides t at the
requ . . ts for the i tailaeLcn of t or acre Li.-ars y e satisfied y t .e Lr.ter
statutory desiçn presented. Th s desiq i r.c1udss a top L er dssLg-ad, ‘ perated. a.-.d
cor.strucvad of uet.rtals to p.vent the migration of any r.scituter.t to sucn li- .r
durir the period mad facULty re L s th operation (i. ciud q any post-ciosue tcc t-
o:ir.g er i cd )...’ Shoj.ld the 1i’ar st the S3004(o)(5)(8) c:it. .a for the oper3ti.
Life of the psrticula: unit or of the enti.e facuLty?
The desiç , nstz ction, ar operation of the Li.’ .rs sh i4 prevent the c u.;aeLon :f
aza dous ‘ st. sti ents into the top Liner a thrci4t the L : Liar as Lor
as the partiai].ar ur.it ins in operation. The operati.q period incLuc se my post-
cLosure icr.itori period of the specific La f LU. or surfaos iitçou nsnt .in .t.
C3r.tact: Ca. Ott. (202) 382—4654

SEP 20 1985
Mr. Robert M. Pyle
MPF Ssrvtces Iocorporat.d
112 st 9th Street, Suite 615
Los Angeles, California 90015
Dear Mr. Pyl.i
This is in respons, to your l.tt.r of M3gust 29, 1985,
requ.sting clarification of the ass of absorbents for
contain.rized liquid hazardous wastes.
The RCRA Razardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (see
S.ction 3004(c)(2) attached) require that not later than 15 months
after the date of •nactment (P.bruary 8, 1986), the Administrator
shall promulgate final r.gulattons which minimize the presence of
free liauids in contain.r iz.d hazardous vast• to be disposed ot
in landfills. The r.qulations shall also prohibit the disposal
of liquids that have been absorbed in materials that biod.grad.
or that release liquids when compr.sssd.
You requested clarification concerning what the February 8,
1986, effective dat. means in terms of compliance. The provision
requires the Administrator to promulgate final regulations. This
provision, unlike others, does not contain a ‘baener; i.e., the
provision do.. not go into effect automatically. The provision
requires £PA to issue final regulations bet or. this provision
becomes effective. Until such tie. as a final promulgation
becomes effective, industry doss not hay, to comply with this
Until the .ff.cti.. dat. of final regulations issued by the
Agency, ths Current requirements contained in Sections 264.314
and 265.314 (attached) concerning containerized hazardous liquids
viii remain to if f.ct. The current requirement. do not prohibit
the use of absorbents nor do they restrict the typ. of absorbent
that can be used. I do wish to point out that, and although not
prohibited In the current regulations, the Agency strongly advises
against the use of biodegradable absorbents such a. shredded paper
or sawdust. $. believe that good management practices should not
allow- biodgradable absorbnts to be used because of their ability
to degrade and release liquids and hazardous constituents. Like-
wise, we believe absorbents that do not have structural stability
(i.e., that b.hav. like a sponge and rel•ase liquids under
pressures found in a landfill) should not be used.

b• last point on whIch you rsqu•at•d c]arifieation conourn.d
th. subswic• of the final r.uvlation. to be published by the
Agsncy to Iaplsn.nt S3004(c)C2) section )00*(c)(2) rsqulr.s Pk
to ‘prohibit th. d*.posal is lasdf ills of liquids that hive been
sbsorbsd Ira atarials that biod. rad. or that r.1.as. 3iqiai4s
when conpressid as night occur durina routine lasdtIll epsrstioos
Clearly, intended to all the e of acceptable physical
trastsont under 53004(c)(2) for contain.rLs.d liquids as oostrs.t.d
to the eh.nical tr.a snt ispliod by the rsquirásst in $3004(c)(l)
for bulk hazardous liquid vaitsa. It appears, at thu ti, that
the final r.Qrulatlons for 3OO4(c)(2) will sot riquir. choniani
treatsout of contain.ri..d liquid..
Thank you for your interest is thu issun. Ihould you
have additional question ., plessi contact Mr. Paul Ca..idy at
(202) 3$2”46t2.
John P. Lhean
Mast. Managonent and
Econonicu Division
bce , Zn Shueter
Art y
Paul Ciasidy

Non—Ha zardo s C. iqu ida Ban
2. The Hazard .as and Solid Waste knenä Ents of 1984 placed several bans on the
plac ent of certain wastes in & interim status or permitted Landfills. C* e
of the bans, as codified in 5264.314(e) and 5265.314(f) (50 FR 28749 28750.
July 15, 1985), statas that •effctivs No’ eeibsr 8, 1985, the lac ent of any
liquid which is not a hazardo as ste in a landfill is cttibited unlesa
certain conditions are .t. The BA egulaticns do not def ins what is
by the tet 1iquid. Is r.hers any clarification available r arding the
applicability of this ban to s i-solid or m .tti -has. wastes? Is the use of
aoeorbents ior. to placei nt in a RP landfill rth b3tId7
The ban on the place ent of non—hazard s liquids in landfills will apply
to any waste that is a liquid or that contains fre. liquids as determined by
the Paint Filter Liquids Test, Method 9095 as des ibed in Test Methods f
Evaluating Solid stes, Physical/Chesical Met s. (EPA Publication .
SW-846J Th ban does not specify that the use of absorbents to solidify non-
hazarda s liquids prior to plaoe nt in a landfill i prohibited.
Therefore, if a ncnhazardojs liquid has been has been solidified and contains
no free liquids as determined by the Paint Filter Liquids Thst, it y be
placed in a M landfill, .ocarding to current staff policy. Guidance will
be available to the gions in P1ovsi sr.
Source: Paul Caseidy (202) 382—4682

9481 i985(0
CC I 18
Mr. I’.. Ernst Minor
Vice Presicent.
Government Affairs
SolidTek Systems, inc.
4412 Aicholtz Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Dear Erniei
This is in response to your letter of October 3 1985,
as clarified by your telephone conversation with Bob Tonetti
on October 15, 1985. Your Letter requests our concurrence with
the 3—foot thic)c compacted clay bottom Liner that is a component
of SolidTek’s patented landfill design.
Consistent with the requirements of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), our regulations now require.
under 40 CFR 264.3Ol(c and 265.301(a), the installation of two
or more liners and a leachate collection system above and between
the liners for new landfill units. Th. regulations state that
the bottom liner require centa may be satisfied cy a liner aesigned,
operated and constructed to prevent the migration of any consti-
tuent through such Liner during the period sucn facility tor
unit) remains in operation, including any post-closur, care
period. A 3—foot thick layer of compacted clay or other natural.
material ‘with a piirueability of no morj than LX1O centimeters
per second has be•n de.md by HSW , at ’1.ast on an interim basis,
to meet thi. bottom liner requirement. Our regulations reflect
this provision of HSWA. Sinc, the SolidTek design includes a
bottom liner identical to that described in 4264.301(c), this is
an acceptable bottom liner design.
However, vs do believ, that other designs, such as a conçosite
bottom liner consisting of a flexible membrane (synthetic) top
component and a clay bottom coq>cnent are more protective.
Until such tins as our regulations may be revised, however, a
3-foot r.compacted clay bottom liner with a permeability of no
more than LX IO 7 centimeters p .r •scond is acceptable.

As a point of further clarification, the tertiary leechate
collection and rc. oval system below the bottom liner in the
SolidTek design is allowable by the new double liner system
require nenta in Parts 264 and 265.
If I can be of further aeeietdnce, please feel free to
contact e.
John P. Lehman
Waste Nanage ent and
Economics Divi.ion

9 487.1985(10)
5 DEC 85
Fred W. Bowditch, Ph.D.
Vice President
Technical Affairs
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
300 New Center Building
Detroit, Michigan 48202
Dear Dr. Bowditch:
This is in response to your letter dated October 25, 1985,
requesting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
clarify its interpretation of the prohibition of placing liquids
in landfills as regulated under 40 CFR 264.314(b) and 265.314(b),
as promulgated on July 15, 1985. You state that the EPA Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hotline’s interpretation
of the above—mentioned regulations is in contradiction with
the mandate of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
of 1984 and the published EPA interpretation as shown in the
July 15, 1985, Federal Register .
I will first respond directly to your concern over the RCRA
Hotline’s interpretation and, secondly, I will clarify points
that you brought out in your letter.
In regard to the Hotline’s interpretation that 5S264.314(b)
and 265.314(b) (bulk hazardous liquid prohibition) ban the place-
ment in landfills of hazardous liquids to which absorbents have
been added at non—landfill facilities, I believe this statement
to be accurate. I have enclosed a copy of the Statutory
Interpretive Guidance concerning the treatment of bulk hazardous
liquids that the Agency has developed. This guidance states that
the addition of an absorbent to a liquid hazardous waste that is
intended to be disposed of in bulk form clearly violates Congress’
intent behind the amendment. The Statutory Interpretive Guidance
on page 7 states that the statute bans the placement in a landfill
of bulk liquid hazardous wastes if an absorbent was added to the
waste regardless of where the absorbent was added. The Agency’s
published interpretation, as it appears in the July 15, 1985,
Federal Register , also supports the Hotline’s interpretation. In
50 FR 28705 (July 15, 1985) EPA states: The statute makes it
clear that the ban encompasses hazardous waste containing free
liquids even if absorbents have been added to such waste.

Although these proposals typically include same design
variation from what has been conventionally perceived as a
landfill, we consider these variations to be r.latively minor,
and they have not altered our viewpoint that these above—
qround’ facilities be considered landfills.
Although your letter does not describe specifically the
design and operation of the above—ground land emplacement
facilities that the Siting Commission is considering, for
the purposes of this letter we assum, that the tacilitios
are sii ilar to tho o above—ground facilities with whicn we
are familiar. Therefore, we will answer your questions based
on the assumption that th. units you refer to are landfills.
You posed three questions in your letters
1. ‘L o the land ban provisions of the 1984 Amendments,
which prohibit the land disposal of toxic wastes,
apply to New Jersey’s so—called land emplacement
Assuming that land emplacement facilities ar. deemed
to be landfill., the land ban provisions would apply. SCRA
Section 3004(k) expressly defines land disposal for purposes
of the land disposal restrictions program to includs ‘landfills.’
‘loreg,ver, even if it were to be determined that the New
Jersey units did not constitute landfills for purposes of
federal law, such units are still potentially subject to
the 4and ban, We believe Section 3004(k) allows EPA to
include within the definition of land disposal units other
than those specifically enumerated, and the Agency has done
so in its January 14, 1986, land ban proposal.. There, we
proposed to add any ‘concrete vault or bunker intended tot
disposal’ to the list of facilities identified in the
statute a. land disposal. Thus, if the proposed land
emptacement facilities are concret, vaults or bunkers, our
proposal would subject them to th. land disposal restrictions
whether or not they qualified as landfills. (See proposed
40 CFR 5282.2 regarding the definition of land disposal (51
PR 1602, 1607 (preamble), 1741 (proposed rule)).)
2. ffas EPA developed any standards, guidelines or other
criteria to assur. the integrity of ‘land emplacement
facilities,’ including ‘above—ground, long—term
storage’ faciliti..?’
Ai im. assuming that New Jersey’s land emplacement
facilities would be deem•d landfills under the federal RCP.A
scheme, EPA’s operating standards in 40 CIR Part 264 Subparts
F and N would apply. These include requirements for liners,
leachat. col l.ction and removal systems, groundwater monitoring.
correctiv. action, final covers and post—closure maintenance.

3. The 1984 Mendments establish a variety of minimum
technological requirements for land disposal facj1jtie
Would thee. regulations be adequate to ensure the
safe disposal of hazardous wastes in a ‘land et placemen
facil ity’?
‘U the New Jersey facility meets the federal definition
of a landfill, th•n the ainiawn technical requirements for
land disposal facilities, introduced by the 1984 Amendments,
would apply. The minimum technological requirements, together
with other existinq recuirements such as the ground—water
monitoring and corrective action standards, would ensure the
safe discosal of hazardous waste in such facilities.
We wish to address on. additional issue not raised
explicitly in your letter, pertaining to the relationship
between federal and state hazardous waste sanageftient programs.
It is not poesible to determine, on the basis of your letter,
whether a New Jersey state permit for a land emplacement
tacility would constitute an authorization to operate under
PCRft. New Jersey is currently authorized to allow permanent
disr,e,sal of hazardous waste only in facilities that. meet the
definition of a disposal surface impoundment, landfill,
injection well, or land treatment unit. If New Jersey
reculat ions currently consider land emplacement unita to be
landfills, then they must be permitted as such in.order to be
considered an authorized RCRA facility. Any attempt to
permit the land emplacement units as other than landfills
would be inconsistent with the State’s RCR.A authorization.
Therefore, if New Jersey elects to permit these units as
other than a landfill——either because it lacks authority
under New Jersey law to permit ther as a landfill or because
it has decided, for other reasons, not to permit them a. a
landfill—-then any authorization to operate would be effective
only for state law purposes and would not constitute authorization
to operate under CRA. /
*1 FPA intends tø issue separate permitting standards
Tunder a new Subpart X to Part 264) for units that do not
loc7lcally fit into any preexisting facility management
category. These may include standards for land disposal
units that do not fit well under the land disposal unit
categories discussed above. We anticipate the Subpart X
standards will be issued in final by the end of this year.
If the Agency were to promulgate Subpart X rules that applied
to certain above-ground land emplacmneflt units in lieu of the
landfill standards, New Jersey would have on or two years
after the new rules were issued to apply to CPA £ or authorization
to implement Subpart X. In the interim, euch facilities wouLd
have to continue to be permitted as landfills if they are to
be considered authorized RCR.A units.

we appreciat, the opportunity to provide you with
information regarding the federal procram for hatardous
waste Uisnaaement facilities. Please feel free to contact
Marcia bJillians, Director of the Office of Solid Waste, if
you have further au.stions on this matter.
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator

9487, 1986( 03)
MAR 6 1986
Mr. H. Lanier Hickman, Jr.
Executive Director
Governmental Refuse Collection
and Disposal Association
P.O. Box 7219
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Dear Mr. Hickman:
This is in reply to your letter to me dated December 5,
1985, in which you requested a clarification of how we intend to
regulate gaseous emissions from landfills. In particular, you
asked us to consider regulating gaseous emissions from hazardous
and non—hazardous waste landfills through the Clean Air Act (CAA)
rather than the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
As we stated in the recently promulgated regulations on the
burning and blending of hazardous waste (40 CFR Section 266.30),
we believe it is clear that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has the authority under both Sections 3004(n) and
4004(a) of RCRA, as well as the CAA, to regulate gaseous emis-
sions from hazardous and non—hazardous waste landfills. The
lead EPA office for developing air emission standards is the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). Because
OAQPS is only in the early stages of development of policies
and rules pertaining to gaseous emissions from hazardous waste
land disposal facilities, it is too early to provide you,with
anything definitive on this subject at this time. In addition,
no decisions have been made regarding any revisions to the land-
fill qas provisions of the ‘Criteria for Classification of Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices’ (40 CFR Part 257). We
will be developinq regulatory options for the Criteria revisions
during the next several months.
Because the GRCDA Landfill Gas Committee is already working
with the EPA Subtitle D program on similar issues, it may be
appropriate to discuss this issue at the meeting planned for
March 17, 1986, in Newport Beach, California. I have asked
Allen Geswein of my staff to work with OAQPS to put this issue
on the agenda for this meeting.

I hope that this information is helpful to you and expect
that through a coordinated effort we can develop an appropriate
approach for dealing with gaseous emissions from non—hazardous
waste land disposal facilities. If you have any specific
questions on the development of the air emission standards
for hazardous waste land disposal facilities, please contact
Susan Thorneloe or Randy McDonald of OAQPS. Both can be reached
at (919) 541—5671. Or, contact James Berlow of OSW at (202)
Sincerely yours,
Marcia E. Williams
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Susan Thorneloe (OAQPS)
Randy McDonald (OAQPS)

MAR 26 1986 9487.1986(04)
Honorable James 3. Plorio
Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation
and Tourism
Cot,’mittee on Eneray and Commerce
U.S. House of Representativee
Washinaton, D.C. 2051S
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in res onsa to your letter of Lebruary 26, 19R6,
reqardiru the regulatory status of ‘above—around land e’wlac.ment
facilities’ under the federal hazardous waste regulatory
The phrase ‘above—ground land emplacement facilities’
is not a term used in the federal regulations for treatment,
storaae, and disposal of hazardous waste. However, based on
the information in your latter, it appears that the New
Jersey Hazardous Waste Pacilitiee Sitina Commission defines
that phrase as permanent placement of wastes on or in the land.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
imT)lenerttinq reciulations, prmanent placement of hazardous
waste, tncludinq perpetual ‘storage’, falls into the regulatory
category of land disposal.
Over the nast several years, we have reviewed a number
of proposals for abov.—qround’ long-term storaae or disposal.
Without exception, we have viwed each of these proposals as
land disposal, and, more specifically, as landfills. *1
•/ EPA permitting regulations for hazardous Waite facilities
Eecoanize five kinds of land—based treatment, storace, or
dia osal units: surface impoundments, waste pil.s. land
treatment units, underground injection wells, and landfills.
Th. permanent placement of hazardous waits is nermitted only
at land treatment units, disposal surface impoundments,
underground injection wells, and landfills. Under !PA regulations
(40 CFR c260.lO), a landfill ii defined as a ‘catchall’
cat.nory, encompassing land disposal of hazardous waste that
does not constitute disoosal in any of the other three cateooriee.
LPA F.q 226.I (f2.7rn / ‘OPPICIAL. PHI COPY
: 1 1 0 —

I would like to also clarify certain points in your letter.
You state on page 2 that, ‘Therefore, the ban applies when the
addition of absorbents fails to convert the liquids into a non—
liquid form or fails in eliminating free liquids in the waste.
As stated above, the bulk hazardous liquid ban applies even if
(or when) an absorbent has been added to the waste and changed
its physical character (i.e., changed the waste from a liquid to
a solid).
Another point that you raised on page 2 is that the bulk
hazardous liquid ban does not apply to non—liquid (i.e., solid)
hazardous waste or wastes containing no free liquids, whether or
not absorbents have been added. This statement is true only if
a bulk waste is initially determined to be a solid by the Paint
Filter Liquids Test (Method 9095). This amendment does not
prohibit a landfill owner or operator from adding an absorbent
to a solid hazardous waste if he/she so chooses. If, however,
the bulk waste is initially determined to be a liquid by the
above test, the addition of an absorbent to treat the waste
(i.e., make it a solid) converts the waste into a material that
cannot be placed in a landfill.
I wish to caution you on your reading of 53004(c) (1) and
(c)(2). You appear to be combining these tvo paragraphs into
one. The Agency interprets S3004(c)(l) to regulate bulk, liquid
hazardous wastes while S3004(c)(2) regulates containerized liquid
hazardous wastes. The bulk hazardous liquid amendment prohibits
the use of absorbents while the containerized hazardous liquid
amendment allows absorbents that are non—biodegradable and struc-
turally stable (i.e., do not release liquids when compressed).
These two paragraphs ((c)(l) and (c)(2)) are exclusive with
different legislative histories (one originated in the House,
the other in the Senate), and thus should not be read to address
the same universe of waste.
In regard to th. example that you provid.d on page 4, I
wish to point out that the Hotline’s interpretation does not
prohibit ‘these types of liquid elimination processes. Your
example refers to ft.. liquid molecules that are bonded within
the structure of the solidified product (similar to the hardening
of concrete that binds water molecules). I understand this
process (i..., bonding) to be a chemical reaction and is often
referred to as chemical stabilization or encapsulation. These
bonding processes are what Congress envisioned to be acceptable
treatment methods for bulk liquid hazardous wastes. Again, what
the Hotline’s interpretation would prohibit is the bulk (or
non -containerized) disposal in a hazardous vast, landfill of a
liquid hazardous waste that has been treated only by absorption
regardless of where the absorption (or where the addition of an
absorbent) took place. interpret the Congressional meaning of
absorption to be the addition of an absorbent, vh.re a physical,

and not a chemical, reaction with the liquid fraction takes
place. This distinction between physical and chemical processes
is discussed further in the enclosed guidance.
I hope that this discussion responds satisfactorily to
your concerns. Ifyou should have any additional comments or
questions, please contact Paul Cassidy, of my staff, at (202)
J. Winston Potter
Assistant Administrator

C CP.Ai:t ’uM
SUaJECT: Regulatoty Inte ptetation of an on Use
of Liquids in Landfills
1arcja C. Wi1Lia” s, Director O t n1 S ed !:.
Oftice of Solid Wast. (WW .562PL1r ia 2.
TOs David A. Stringhaz , Chi.f
Solid Waste Branch (SHS—13)
a.gion V
Thank you for your mmorandum of March 27, 1986, requesting
clarification on th. use of hazardous and nonhazardous liquids in
landfills. Th. applicant, LTV Se•.J. Co any, proposes to us. on.
of two typs of liquid, to improv, the handling propertie, of
electric a c furnace dusts and grinder dusts as they are placed
in the landfill.
The first 1 qu use Is contact runoff from the
activ. portions of d &l Thi runoff is consid.rsd to b
a hazardous ltqi2i ate, bcsuse it is liksly to have mined with
1.achat., which is a listed hazardous waste. Section 3004(e)(1)
of SWDA bans th placm .nt of bulk liquid hazardous waste in
landfills, even if absorbents are used to treat the liquid. The
use of such a hazardous liquid waits for tr.atiria the dusts would
violate this ban.
LTV also proposed using a nonhazardous liquid (noncontact
runoff) to treat the wastes. You asked if this spraying activity
would be banaed by Section 3004(c)(3), the nonhazardous liquid.
provision. Tbts section stat.. thats ‘the placement of any
liquid which is not a hazardous vast, in a landfill, I. prohibited
unless tbe owner oz operator of such landfill demonstrates to
the Administrator, or the Administrator determines, that (a) the
only reasonably available alt.rnativ. to the placement in such
landfill is placement in a Landfill or unlined surface impound
merit...., and (b) placement in such owner or operator’s landfill
will not present a risk of contamination of any underground
•auree oLd i, k4, n se.r ’

Th. guidance on nenhaza dous liquids (‘Restriction on the
Placement of NonhazardOus Liquids in Hazardous Waste Landfills’)
which I intend to issue shortly, will, specify that nonhasardous
liquids uued to meet other regulatory requirements an, not
considered to be subject to the r..trictions in Section 3004(c)13).
On. of these t.quir.ments is to control wind dispersal of
particulate matter at landfills (Section 264.301(f)). Use of
nonhazardo * liquids for dust suppression purposes Is specifically
mentionsd In th. guidance as not beirtg subl.ct to restrictions of
Section 3004(c)(3). If the spraying activity prop sd by LTV ii
tzuly for dust suppression purposes (‘a. achieving stability/density
of the waste as specified in your memorandum), the activity would
be acceptable.
I recommend that you d.termine it th. proposed us• of the
northasardous liquids is for dust supp .ssion purposes, or to
tacilitat. opti al placement of the wastes in the landfill.
If LI”! demonstrates to your satisfaction that the purpose is
to prevent th. wind dispVsal of these dusts prior to placement
of a soil cover, I believe that t e activity can be permitted
without riquiring the demonstrations called for in 3004(c)(3)(s)
and (b). -
Should you or your staff hay, any additional questions,
pleas, contact Allen Maples in the Land Disposal Branch, vho can
b reached at PTS 382—4683.
ccs John Lehman
Btuce Weddle

WASH NGTON. D.C. 20460
, j7
Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Minority Member
MUD—Independent Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Leahy:
Thank you for your letter of May 7, 1986, regarding an
inquiry from your constituents in Bristol, Vermont. You
requested information regarding residues from municipal waste
resource recovery facilities and any federal laws that apply
to the disposal of these residues.
Solid residues from m ip l combustion (NWC)
processes consist of fly ash and crubb0r sludge recovered from
air pollution control equipment, and bottom ash. Disposal of
these residues is accomplished by landfillinq. Fly ash as well
as other residues from MWC processes sometimes exhibit the
characteristics of hazardous waste and, therefore, are regulated
under the applicable disposal standards in 40 CFR Parts 260 through
265. Other than those occasions when the wastes meet the definition
of hazardous waste, the Federal regulations that apply to the
landfilling of any nonhazardous solid wastes, including most
residues from MWC processes. are the Criteria for Classification
of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practicee (40 CFR Part
257), which were promulgated on September 13, 1979, under authority
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Criteria
include general performance standards that are used to determine
which solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable
probability of having no adverse effects on human health and the
environment. A copy of these standards is enclosed for your
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (RSWA) to
RCRA require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
complete several new efforts with regard to solid waste disposal.
By November 8, 1987, EPA must complete a study and report to
Congress on nonhazardous waste land disposal facilities and
practices to determine whether the current Federal Criteria

are adequate to protect human health and the environment. Iri
addition, by March 31, 1988, EPA must revise the current Criteria
(40 CFR Part 257) for disposal facilities, including municipal
waste landfills, that receive household hazardous waste and
small quantity generator hazardous waste. HSWA also requires
the Agency to develop a report to Congress and guidelines on
dioxin emissions from municipal waste incinerators or resource
recovery facilities.
In response to these USWA mandates, we have recently
initiated several projects in an effort to address problems per-
tinent to your inquiry. EPA is currently developing a technical
information document for use by State and local governments in
evaluating municipal waste combustion projects. We anticipate
that this document will be available in February 1987. The EPA
contact for this effort is Stephen Greene, (202) 382—4608.
We are also currently engaged in a comprehensive study to
determine the characteristics of ash from MWC processes and to
assess the potential health and environmental impacts from the
disposal of these residues. The results of this study will
be incorporated into the February 1987 information document
mentioned above. The Agency contact for this ash study is
Gerri Dorian, (202) 382—4688.
Your letter presented several questions regarding this
matter. I have specifically addressed each of them below.
1. Has EPA tested the wastes from municipal waste
resource recovery facilities to determine the
characteristics of such wastes ? If so, what did
those tests find? Have such wastes ever been
characterized as hazardous?
Various agencies, domestic and foreign, have performed a
range of analyses on th.se residue.. A list of technical papers
available to the public is enclosed for your information. EPA
will not complete its full evaluation of this until February
1987. However, it i. known that ash residues (predominantly fly
ash) sometimes exhibit the characteristic of EP toxicity as
determined using th. RCRA Extraction Procedures (EP) for toxicity
(40 CFR. Parts 260.20 and 260.21), because of the presence of
certain msta]s, such as lead and cadmium. If a waste is charac-
terized as EP Toxic, it is a RCRA hazardous waste. Additionally,
recent testing of fly ash and flue gas from municipal waste
combustion processes has, in som. cases, demonstrated the presence
of polychlorinated dibenzo—p—dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans
and polychlorinated biphenyls in both media in relatively small
concentrations • EPA has not determined whether the presence of
these organic constituents pose a hazard when landfilled.

2. Do EPA’s tests for toxicity of the waste include
a full range of organic chemicals ?
The EP toxicity test (40 CFR Part 261.24) addresses eight
inorganics and only six organic constituents. These organjcs
include: Endrin, Lindane , Methoxychior, Toxaphene, 2,4—D, and
Silvex. EPA is currently developing a new toxicity characteristic
and associated leaching procedure (TCLP) that will result in the
evaluation of a broader range of organics. For further information
on the TCLP, your constituents should contact Todd Kimmel at
(202) 382—4795.
3. If the waste were determined to be a hazardous waste,
what requirements would apply to a landfill in which
the waste is disposed ?
Owners and operators of hazardous waste landfills must
comply with all applicable requirements in 40 CFR Parts 260
through 265.
You should be aware that certain States have more stringent
or specific standards for the disposal of MWC ash, whether or not
the ash is classified as a RCRA hazardous waste. The State of
Vermont has proposed regulations that address the disposal of
MWC ash. For further information on the State of Vermont regula-
tions (existing and proposed), your constituents should contact:
Mr. John Malter, Director
Waste Management Division
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(802) 828—3395
4. Under the Clean Air Act, are there ari ’ authorities
for controlling the blowing dust particles that
may result from the disposal of these wastes ?
Under the Clean Air Act, the Agency has the general authority
to investigate and regulate emissions, including particulate
emissions, from various sources that may pose a threat to human
health or the environment. The Agency also has authority under
RCRA to control duet. For your general information, the State
of Delaware has experienced some dust control concerns regarding
municipal waste combuetor residues. For more detailed information
on the approach Delaware has used, your constituents may wish to

Mr. William Razor, Supervisor
Solid Waste Management Branch
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 736—4781
5. Under the Clean Water Act or any other water—
related federal statutes, are there any authorities
for controlling leaking ground water from a landfill
in which such waste is deposited ?
The Clean Water Act does provide EPA some author4ty for
ensuring ground—water protection, but these authorities are
less specific to this purpose than those delegated under RCRA.
EPA’s primary authority for ground—water protection at active
landfills is derived from RCRA. For more detailed information
regarding these Federal authorities, your constituents should
contact our Office of General Counsel, either Dov Wejtman at
(202) 382—7703 or Ken Gray at (202) 382—7706.
I hope this information is useful to you and your constituents.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate
to contact us again.
3. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
cc: Mr. John Malter
Mr. William Razor

9487. 1986(09)
June 12, 1986
SUBJECT: Bulk Liquids and Drain/Leaching Fields
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
This is in response to your April 30, 1986, memorandum
concerning the April 7, 1986, note I received from Jack Lehman
addressing two issues that you are concerned about. You believe
Mr. Lehman misunderstood your point on both issues.
Regarding bulk liquids, we disagree with your conclusion
that Section 3004(c) (1) can and should be used to force “ organic
waste streams ” toward incineration or other treatment other than
“simple solidification” prior to the implementation of Section
3004(d). First, Section 3004(c) (1) applies only to “bulk...
liquid hazardous waste or free liquids contained in hazardous
waste”. It does not apply to non-liquid waste nor non—hazardous
waste, as you imply. Further, Section 3004(c) (1) says nothing
about applying to organic waste, let alone forcing alternative
technologies for organic wastes, nor does the legislative
history. Instead, as you are aware, other sections in RCRA
address the disposal of specific hazardous constituents and
wastes, including organic wastes, and the use of alternative
treatment technologies (i.e., the land disposal restrictions
requirements of Sections 3004(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j),
(k), and (in)). The Congressional findings in Sections
1002(a)(4), (b)(2), (b)(6), and (b)(7) do not give different
interpretive authority to EPA regarding the language of
3004(c) (1) as you imply.
Second, as we have previously discussed with you and your
staff, the “10% rule” you propose is arbitrary and unsupportable.
Different organics behave differently, and different
solidification treatment systems behave differently for different
This has been retyped from the original document.

organics. Thus, different concentrations of organics could
effect the performance of solidification based on the organic
type and solidification process. We do not have information to
support a 10% or any other percent rule.
Third, as you point out, a “10% rule” is rather meaningless
anyway because dilution still enables landfill disposal under
your proposal.
In summary, while we agree that a number of organic wastes
(especially solvents) should not be placed on the land, it is
through the land disposal restrictions provisions cited above
that Congress intended to address these wastes. Section
3004(c) (1) is simply concerned with treating bulk liauid
hazardous waste, not hazardous constituents.
Regarding your second issue concerning drain/leaching
fields, these facilities are regulated under RCRA if they are
surface drain fields and under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
if they are subsurface drain fields. Surface drain fields for
hazardous waste are regulated as land treatment facilities under
Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart N).
Surface drain fields for non-hazardous waste are regulated by the
Subtitle D “Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices.”
Subsurface drain fields are regulated by the Office of
Drinking Water, Underground Injection Control Program (UIC),
which develops regulations under Part C of the SDWA. Under these
regulations, septic tank and drain field systems are classified
as either Class IV or Class V injection wells. If the waste is a
hazardous waste or radioactive waste and is injected into or
above a formation which contains an underground source of
drinking water within one quarter mile, the septic system is a
Class IV injection well. The construction, operation, and
maintenance of Class IV injection wells are generally prohibited
by 40 CFR 144.13 (copy attached). Further, Section 7010 of RCRA
prohibits underground injection of hazardous waste into a
formation or above a formation which contains an underground
source of drinking water within one quarter mile of the injection
well. This prohibition became effective May 9, 1985. As I
understand your issue, the facilities you described are Class IV
wells and are, therefore, prohibited. If the waste in the septic
system is neither a hazardous waste nor radioactive waste and the
septic system serves a multiple dwelling, business establishment,
This has been retyped from the original document.

community, or regional business establishment, the septic system
is a Class V injection well. For further information on the UIC
program contact Mario Salazer (FTS 382—5361) in the Office of
Drinking Water.
I hope this clarifies our position on both issues.
This has been retyped from the original document.

SUBJECT: Supplementary Cuidance on Determining Linen
Leachate Collection System Compatibility
FROM: Bruce 1. WeddI e, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Director.
Regions I-I
A n ber of question. have arisen regarding th. owners and
operators’ responsibitity to demonstrat. the chemical resistance
of liner and leachacs collection and removal system component.
to ch. waste or lesehat. to which they are exposed (see especially
4OCFR 264.301, 264.231, and 264.221). This morandua answers
some of the.. questions and further clarifies existing guidance
(See especially the draft Minimia Technology Guidance on L ubl.
Liner Systems for Landfills and Surface Iajoundm.nts - Design.
Construction, and Operation, May, 1q85.)
Is HDIE a universal material for liner and Leachat. collection
system components that needs no additional vasts/liachate
immersTon testing. ?
No. RDP is a relatively inert synthetic material that can
chemically withstand a wide variety of substances; however,
there are chemicals that can seriously affect the performanc, of
RUPE (e.g., many aromatic and halogenated hydrocarbon compounds).
Many of these chemicals are found In measurable concentrations
in leachatas generated at hazardous waste facilities.
* HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) i one typ. of polyethylene
liner material. Polyethylene mat.rtals are th. most popular
synthetic liner material beth& proposed for new mits.
9e5—4a7-I 3

Long-term immersion test results from low level .xposure to
chemicals or concern showed measurable deterioration of NDPE
properties. Therefore, low concentrations of chemicaLs of
concern must be tested for liner compatibility it they will be
present in the waste.
EPA has been asked by the Institute of Chical Waste
Management (ICdM) to consider approving HDPE liners as being
chemically resistant to certain class.. of wastes without
chemical resistance testing. EPA is investigating this
possibility by reviewing the available data and by discussing
this issue with technical experts in the polymer chemistry
field. At this time we have not completed our review of the
technical issues or received enough data to grant blanket
approvals for HDPE. In addition, preliminary conclusions
tram an EPA meeting with polymer chemistry experts indicate
that in the case o a typical land disposal unit, they do not
have the ability at this time to establish classes or chemicals
that specific flexible membrane liner materials are universally
chemically resistant to. primarily because of the complexity
of the wastes, liner stresses posed by the typical land disposal
enviror ent (e.g., temperature ranges and differential loading),
and variations in liner properties (See also response to next
Therefore, in general, EPA is unable at this tise to approve
HDPE (or any other liner material) tor use at any hazardous waste
unit without unit-specific verification of chemical. resistance
based on the specific Liner material and waste for that unit.
(Method 9090 or equivalent).
es the generic term )IDPE implj’ that all HDPEs are alike ?
No. Polyethylene plastics, as defined by ASTh D 1248
(Polyethylene Plastics Molding and Extrusion Ilatertals). are
plastics ox resins prepared by the polymerization of no less
than 852 ethylene and no less than 95% of total olef ins, by
weight. Within this category RDPE L. defined as having a density
of greater than O.940g1cm 3 . This higher density is an indication
of increased rystalltntty that. vtth all, other things being
equal, prodsc.s a material that is harder, stiffer, more chemical
and heat resistant, and strom*.r than less crystallin, material.
U density inCreases, the properties of elongation, resistance
to anviroumastal stress cracking. impact strength and permeability
decrease. In addition, cosonosers are added during resin manufacture
that affect the degree of crystaUlnity and other material properties
(depending on the processing tecimique and th. type and ount
of comonomer). Process type and process additives, such as
carbon black, thermal/ultrsviolet stabilizers and antiblocks,
will also affect material properties.

When the sheet eztruder gets the resin he vi]], in turn,
extrude the material into a sheet using his own proprietary
additives. The physic.] and chemical properties of the finished
product vii.] again be affected by the additives and type of
extrusion process. (Even the handling of the material immediately
after extrusion can affect material properties.)
As can be seen from th. above d..criptton. individual
HDPE liner properties can vary, depending on chemical com-
position and a number of processing factors.
EPA also motes that the ASTM d.stgnatton for L4DPE is not
as meaningful as when originally proposed. Advances in resin
manufacturing (such as the addition of new comonosers) have
blurred the characteristic distinction b•tween high density
and aedi density and even low density polyethylene..
Materials are being marketed that ar. technically medium
density polyethylene., but are labelled high density poly-
ethylene, and, in fact, may exhibit some of the physical
characteristics of high density polyethylene. Therefore,
the density of the polyethylene Ia not necessarily as key to
overall chemical performance as it once was. Since the
designation NDPE is no Longer as relevant as when first
published by ASTh, EPA prefers to designate the various
polyethylenes as “polyethyleiie” ano dtstthquish one from
another by their other properties, including resistance to
envirooment.l stress cracking, chemical resistance, yield
strength, impact strength. sesmability. etc. Density Is but
one of the factors aftecting overall field performance.
For these reasona EPA is continuing to insist that
owners and operators verify liner/].achate compatibility on
the specific waste and liner material that will be used in
each disposil wiLt. Verifying the compatibility of vaste/
leachate with a particular polyethylene does not guarantee
in itself compatibility with other po]y.thylenes.
Therefore, permit writers should require owners and
operators to demonstrat. th. chemical resistance (immersion
testing) of th. specific liner material(s) they expect to
use in the acevat construction. Ib.n the owner or operator
baa already performed the taa.rs ion test, and proposes to
thstall a different manufacturer’s polyethylene or a dtff.rent
batch or fo*.ulatton of polyethylen e. he must donscrate
that the alternate polyethylene Is compatible by .Ith.r
running Method O9O (or .qiaival.ut) on the material selected
for installation or demonstrate .at.rtal equivalenc, through
a Ut tng.rprtnttngN process (see attactent).

The attached guidance ror wfingerprintingul is very general.
It the owner or operator selects this option, agreeing on the
nature of the testing program and interpreting test results
will present difficulties. The effect of a change in any given
fingerprinting characteristic (e.g., percent ash) is poorly
What other liner and leachate collection system components
are required by current reguLations to be compatible with
wastes ?
Landfill design and operating requirements state that the
leachat. collection and removal system, as well as the liner,
must be constructed of materials that are chemically resistant
to the waste managed at the landfill and the leachate expected
to be generated (1264.301(a)(2)). landfill, waste pile, and
surface impoundment design and operating requirements also
state that liners and leachate collection systems must protect
hinan health and the environment. It is, therefore, incinbent
upon owners and operators to assure EPA that each component of
the liner(s) and leachate collection system(s) is compatible
with the leachate or waste to which it is subjected. Suggested
general procedures for various components are as follows;
1. Piping - Piping should be prepared for strength
testing per ASTM D 2412 or equivalent. At least
one prepared sample should be subjected to the
same immersion test as pertoraed on the liner
material (e.g., the immersion test outlined in
Method 9090). After the immersion test the pipe
simple should be dried (per Method 9090) and
subjected to a strength test (see especially ASTM
D 2412 paragraphs 6-9). Testing of a control
specimen (a sample not subjected to the immersion
test) should be performed. A report should be
prepared similar to that outlined in ASTM D 2412
paragraph 11 (including 11.1.7 and 11.1.9) comparing
th. test results of the immersed and control
2. Gsot.zttl.s - G.otezttl.s cam be used to perform
any 0 f three major functions in the land disposal
units 1) protection of the flexible membrane
liner, 2) us. as filtering media, or 3) us. in
tb. transmission of liquid (water or l.acbat.).
Testing procedures for a given g.oteztil. depend
on its function. When the geotextile is used
either as a filter or as a protective media for
the flexible membrane liner, immersion testing
like that for flexible membrane liners should be
performed. After drying the immersed specimen(s),

both the immersed specimen(s) and identical control
spectien(s) should be subjected to the ASTM D
1682 Grab Strength Test and the ASI’M D 751 Puncture
Strength Test to determine if a significant loss
of strength has occurred.
Synthetic fabrics used for drainage, such
as nets should also be immersed in the expected
vast./l.achat.. Follovtng immersion, both a
control spec Lien and the L ersed spec Lien should
be tested for in plane trwsmiestvity. At this
time no £STM method exists to evaluat, tn-plane
transmtssivtty; however, the Federal }Itgbvay
Administration’ a Geotextile Engineering Manual
references a technique by oern.r and
This method (or another method to determine
in-plane tranamissivity) can be used to compare the
in—plane transaissivity of the immersed specimen to a
control specimen.
Two specific recommendations need to be made
to implement the test.
(1) The final pressure exerted on the geotexci].e
should be at least 1.5 times the maximum expected
pressure to be experienced during the active
lire and post-closure period of the tmtt.
(2) The geotextile should be placed in the
apparatus under expected field conditions;
i.e. both sides of the geot.xtile should be
placed against the materials experienced in
the field (e.g., soil, sand/gravel, flexible
membrane liner, or other geotext tie).
3. Earthen Materials — When rock or gravel are used in
the l.achate collection system, the owner or operator
s uld verify that the mineral content of the rock is
compatible with the vmste/lsscbate mixture. The
m.r or op.rator will need to demonstrate that the
rock will not be dissolved or form a precipitant that
wnuld clog the l.achats colletion system.
1 LM. and love, J.A., Nin_Plane hydrauLic
Properties of Gsotextiles,* G.otextil. Testing Journal ,
GTJODJ, Vol. 6, No. 4, Dec. 1983, pp. 190-195.

For soil, used as a liner or a component of a liner,
tht material should be subjected to .PA Method 910u,
using the expecteu leachate to determine its effect
on the hydraulic conductivity ot the compacted lo w
permeability soil. The o iner or operator may use the
rued-wall or çriaxial teat. (Note: Method 9100 ii
currently under revision.)
Should environmental stress cracking be considered
as a modification to Method 9090 ?
Although environmental stress cracking (ESC)
is not currently included in Method 9090, recently
reviewed data and discussions with technical
experts, including polymer manufacturers, have
reemphasized the need to require an ESC test for
crystalline and set icrystalline polymeric aeribranc
liners. We are currently making revisions to Method
9090 that will outline availabl that ESC testinp
be metr ods.
Until specific test procedures for ESC can be
developed that represent land oiaposal facility
conditions, we suggest that per’nit writers diacuse
the need rot .SC data on these materials and suggest
that the owner or operator conduct ESC testing.
The type of test and initial interpretation of
the data would be the responsibility of the
Should the leachate be changed during the immersion
Some of the constituents of greatest concern
in the chemical resistance immersion test are those
that are volatile or that enter into the material
being tested. The owner or operator must assure that
the chemical composition of the leachate remains
relatively constant during the test to provide a
r.pr.sentative atmosphere for samples being immersed.
The owner or operator must attempt to seal the
immersion vessel as tightly as possible to prevent
loss of volati]es. In addition, the concentration
of chemicals in the leachate that are suspected to
atfect the sples (such as aliphatic and halogenatsd
hydrocarbons) must be determined prior to immersion
testing, and should be checked when samples are
removed at the first 30—day testins period (tor
hethod 9090). If the composition ot the leachate

baa changed significantly, the owner or operator
should change the leachate in the iaaers ion vessel..
and continue to change the l.eachate on a frequent
baits (frequency to be negotiated with the permit
writer) to assure that the liner sples are expert-
encing exposure conditions stailar to those in
the fieLd.
cc RCRA Branch Chiefs, Region. 1 -I
RCR.A P.r.its Section Chiefs, Regions I-X
PauL Iugri.ano, Region 2
Frank Langone, Region 2
Greg Uetrechc, Region 6
Harvey King, State of New York, DEC
Bob Tonecti
Ken Shueter
Terry Grogari
Lea Otte
Robert Landreth
Chris Rhyne
Peter Guerr.ro
Ana Avile.
Agnes Orcis

DEC 4 6
SVWVC?t P.queat for Assistance In D.t.ratninci DoubleLin.r
!cuiv.l .ncv(3004(o)(2)) —Aa.rican Cyansiuld
FPOPI , Marcia !. Wiltiasa, Director
Of f ice of Solid Waite
TO: Conrad Sison. Director
Air & Wait. Manaqesent Division (2Amt)
Region I I
We have rsc.tvsd your t4oveab.r 7. 1984 request for u..nt
on the .quivel.nce d.aon.tratloa proposed by Aasrican Cyanarid
to rest the rinisur t.duiologtcal requirre.nti (section 3004(o)(3)).
Sine. we received thts request. a have bssn iriforrsd that Arerican
Cyanarid has subsi tted a cosprsh.ns tes rspoxt dewss tratirig .qut.-
al.nc.. We will reserve coarent on the pralisinary •ubsieston
attached to your request until w• recall. Awerican Cyansaid’.
co.preh.nsiv. rport. This report should b ’ subsitted to
Chris Phyne of our Land Disposal Permit Assistance Tsa. for .valu-
at I on.
With reaard to the issue of whit standard a s.ction 3004(o)(2)
.auivalenc• ds.onatreticn should be evaluat•d against, it mist
be equivalent to th• Int.rir statutory double—liner design provided
fri section 3004(o)(S)(8). (I.. also Guidance on I p1erentation
of the Minisus ?.chnolcgieal lsquirre.nts of 1!S%JA of 1984, P..-
p.cting Liners and L.achat . Collect ton Systeas. P.authoritatton
Statutory Int.rpr.tstion $50, EPA/530-SW —8’-012. ay 24, 1985.
Page 27).
Th. flail r 1. .od fyinq the minirus t.ehnoloqlcal r.ouir.—
ants is smsduled to hi published in the Tderal in
Septesber. 1987.
CC: Bruce Vddle
Ken Shret.r
lob Ton.tti
ferry drogan
Las Otte
Chris ihyne
Angel Chang, Region II

DEC 30 1986
Mr. Jim Gilbert
Office of Comr odity Manaqev ent
General Services Adivinistration
Federal Supply Service
;:ashtnqton, D.C. 20406
Dear l r. Gilberts
This is in reference to our t.lephon. conversation an
December 23, 1986, concerning a GSA letter addressed to a
r. Michael A. Taylor of Andesite of Caliternia, Inc.
(Enclosure A). I would lik, to summarize our conversation for
th. record.
We discussed a statement extracted from another letter
(unavailabl, to EPA) written to GSA by an r.y lab in atick,
MA, The only commercial product which meets the EPA’s criteria
tar adsorption is ‘Safestep,’ an absorbnt/anti —elip compound
manufactured by Andesite of California, Inc., Los Angeles,
California. This statement is incorrect.
The EPA t as no criteria for adsorbents such as those alleged
by the statement. In the regulatory language of 40 CFP Parts
264 and 2b5 (Sections 264.314 and 263.314), which joverns the
disposal of both bulk (non—containerized) and containerized
liquids, the Agency allows any absorbent material to oe used as
a tr.atrent method for containerized hazardous liquids, and do..
not allow any ab— or adsorbent material to be used as the sole
method of treatment for bulk liquids.
Th rent regulations for the disposal of containerized
hazardous vids specify that an absorbent used in a container
r ust raau free-standing liquids (Enclosure 8). The Agency
has proposed a regulatory change that will requir. the us.
of non—biodegradable absorbents for th treatrent of contain-
erized liquids. The proposal (Enclosure C) will also require

that tb ridable aosorbent/vaste miztu • not releas.
liquid. Until this proposal is tinaliz.d and
iv., any absorbent Is still ailov.d to be used to
co ly wi cuzr.st re alations for containerized liquids,
although have rsco sadsd os various occassions that non—
blod.grad.bl. types be uead therefore, r. Taylor’s product,
Saf.st.p,’ La Ot the only material that may be used to treat
containerized Liquids.
Zn respon.. to Section 3004(c)(1) of the 1984 Hazardous
and Solid Waste AaendP ents (REWA) to the Resource Conasrvoeion
and Recovery ACt (RCRA), which prohibits the placement of
bulk or noncontatnerised liquid hazardous waste or free liquiøs
contained in hazardous waste (whether or not absorbents have be•n
added) in any landfill, the Agency developed a guidance document
to support the statutory language. The Agency issued a notice
of availability for thi quidanc. document, vhich discussea
the use of aD— or adeorbents for th. treatment and dispomel
of bulk liquids (8nclosur. I)). tn this document, the Agency
states that both absorption and adsorption are rsv•rstb le
processes and can tel . . .. the sorbed liquid beck tat. the
landfillj therefore, th Agency has interpreted the statutory
l.ngige defining such bulk liquids to inulud. material.
that sorb wastes through •itPier ab— or adsorptt.a. Clearly,
the us. of sb- or adsorbsnts as a sole treatment method for
bulk liquids is not shoved, thus renderina isaeevrat• the
claim made in the above statement to r. Taylor.
In summary, the claim that Mr. Tay1or’ product, ‘Safestep,’
is the only commarcial product which meats PA’s criteria for
adaorption is corçletely incorrect. if you should have any
further questions, please call ma at (202) 382—4682.
Yours truly,
Paul P. C.ssidy
environmental ,n ineer
C nc losur.
cc, MarilVil M. Cai’pbsll
It, Qetriet, GSA
James Ms1cO1J , CPA
Arthur Day. EPA -

DEC 3 I 6
Mr. Gary Sd.lstiin
Wticonsin D.partaent of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7 2L
Madison. Wisconsin 53707
Dear Hr. Edelstein;
This is in reepons. to your request for clariticatiori
concerning the relationship between Sections 264.315 and 265.315
and Sections 264.314(d) and 265.314(c). Your question was
wheth•r 5S264.3 15 and 2 S.3lS took precedent over 15264.314(d)
and 26S.314(c). Ths answer is that these sections do not
take precedent over 51264.314(d) or 265.3 14(c).
Batteries and capacitors do not have to be $% fell wbe
placed in the landfill nor would they ha’s to be cr ked.
shredded, or reduced in volume to the aaziea. practical .z t
before burial. Batteries uid capacitors ar. a specific .zcaption
froc th. containerized liquids requirements since the Agency
believes that the difficulty of opening and emptying them appears
to outweigh th. small benefits gained from •1i’ insting their
liquid content. In order to coi’nly with 552 (4.315 and 265.315
a battery or capacitor would need to be openel or emptied which
would run counter to 1264.314(o) or 5265.314(c).
Lah packs are another specific exemption from the containerized
liquids r.quirer.nts and are further regulated under 5S264.316
and 265.316. The lab pack requirement. (I.e., S’264.316 and
265.316) override the containerized liquids regulatory tanouage
in S5264.314(d) and 265.314(c).
I hops tbat this r•spons• helpe and if you need any additional
intormation fl fr.. to call m at (2t)2) 382—46 2. Sorry tor
the delay in tting this response to you.
Yours truly,
Paul F. Casaidy
Bnvironm.ntal Engineer
Office of Solid Waste
Land Disposal Branch

j jgtjng units and M.th.inn n Techrz l y Standards
The aener/ erator of an existfrq Landfill unit which is
1ding F006 ste, nts to r tcve all the ste fran the
laM..fill in order to stabilize it. )ice the baste is stabilized,
it w l]. be pit back in the same landfill and the landfill will.
then be closed. Will this action change the status of the
LandfiLL iii an existing unit to a replaceI nt unit? If the
Landfill s then considered a replaosr nt unit. ‘a ald it
have to meet rtd.niziun techz lo ’ r uire nts under 30O4(u)
of RA before the stabilized ste is replaced?
unit is isidered a repLac nt if it is taken it
of service and all or s stantially, all ste is reroved
fran it, and then reused. If the r zcvaL, stabilization,
and replaceient c f the ste is £ art of clos e, and r ri
ste is being d 1ed to the landfill, then PA ã es not consider
that the unit ,aa been “reused”. Therefore, the Landfill uld
retain its status as an existing unit and .ild not have to
meet minisLun technology standards prior to replacing the ste.
S iroe: rbe.ra Pace (202) 382—7703
Susan Sth 1es (202) 382—7706
ieerch: yri Neaville