&EPA
Unrmd StatM
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid W«»ie and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9503.5i-iA(85)
TITLE: RD&D Permit for a Sludge Drying Process in a
Wastewater System,'V
APPROVAL DATE: December 24, 1985
EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of solid waste
H FINAL
D DRAFT
«
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
Un i a ta E’,u”rner iii P,: ciur Ayenc)’
Vv shington, DC 20460
‘ e’E PA OSWE R Directive Initiation Request
cç Dii tc e .
9503 .5llA(85
Originator Information
ame of Contact Person
Mail Code Telephone Number
Nancy Pomerleau
WH—563 382—4500
Lead Office Approved for Review -
fl &a OSWER r f Ofbce Ore or Date/ /
Title
RD&D Permit for a Sludge Drying Process in a Wastewater
System
Summary of Directive
Sludge drying units at facilities with wastewater treatment
units do not need a RCRA permit.
Type of Directive (Manual Policy Directive. Announcement. etc) Status
Draft New
Policy memo I
Final Revision
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Direciive s ) Yes No Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)’ Yes No
If Yes to Either Question What Directive fnumber, title)
—0—
Review Plan
0 AA-OSWER 0 OUST 0 OECM 0 Other Specify)
0 OERR 0 OWPE 0 OGC
0 OSW 0 Regions 0 OPPE
Th 5 Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
ra re of Lead Office Dire tives Officer
Date /
/ / 7/
fOSWER Directives Officer
Date
EPA Form 1315-17(10 85)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
_____ WASHINGTON, D C 20460
OF F IC
D WASTE AND EL
V OSWER Directive 9503.51-1 .4(85)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RD&D Permit for a Sludge Drying Process in a Wastewater
System
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562) ‘
TO: Allyn M. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
Region VI
In your letter of November 15, 1985, you requested written
confirmation that the use of a sludge drying unit, manufactured
by Water Management, Inc., at facilities with a wastewater
treatment unit, would not jeopardize their exemption from RCRA
permitting. The sludge dryer is intended to further reduce the
volume of sludge requiring disposal.
If the sludge drying unit is a tank, as stated in your
letter, then persons who are currently exempt from RCRA permit
requirements under 40 CFR §270.l(c)(2)(v) because they have a
wastewater treatment unit, will continue to be exempt from RCRA
permitting if they use this sludge dryer. The Agency has clari-
fied the def inition of “tank”, for the purposes of the wastewater
treatment unit definition in §260.10, to cover unit operations
which are not obviously tanks such as presses, filters, sumps,
and many other types of processing equipment. (See attached
memorandum dated July 31, 1981 from John Lehman to Richard Boynton,
“Suspension of Regulations for Wastewater Treatment Units.”)
I understand that the intent of the sludge dryer is to
assist metal finishing industries, who have wastewater treatment
units, to meet the waste minimization requirements of the new RCRA
§3002(b). You should advise Water Management, Inc. that although
their potential clients will continue to be exempt from RCRA permit
requirements, their clients must comply with the RCRA manifest
requirements of 40 CFR Part 262 for generators. Also, they must
comply with 40 CFR Parts 261—263, as appropriate. The clients will
need to sign the RCRA manifest for off—site shipments of the residue
resulting from the use of the sludge dryer, including the waste—
minimization certification statement on the revised Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest Form (see 50 FR 28744—46, July 15, 1985).
-------
—2—
The client must also submit a biennial report to the Regional
Administrator which includes a description of the efforts under-
taken to reduce the volume and toxicity, as well as a description
of the changes in volume and toxicity of the wastewater actually
achieved during the year, by comparing it to previous years
(ç262.41, 50 FR 28746, July 15, 1985).
Since the sludge drying unit is intended for use by persons
with wastewater treatment units, and the facilities with these
units are exempt from RCRA permitting, it is unclear why Water
Management, Inc. wants a research, development, and demonstration
permit to test the unit. You should discuss this issue with
Water Management, Inc. to determine if you should spend the
resources on processing their permit application.
If your staff has any further questions on this matter,
please have them contact Nancy Pomerleau at (FTS) 382—4500.
Attac hrnent
cc: Bruce Weddle
Jack Lehman (WH—565)
Irene Homer (WH—565A)
Ken Gray (LE—132S)
Peter Guerrero
Art Glazer
Nancy Pomerleau
Tina Parker (WH—562)
William Rhea, Region 6
Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I—X
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
i L 31 1981
OFFICE OF
lOUD WASTE AND lME GENCY UPONSE
Richard C. Boynton, Chief
Permits Development Ss et ion
U.S. vixonmental Protection Agency
Jo P. T.n sdy Bnilding
3oston, MassachusettS 02203
Re: Suspension of Regulation. for Was tewater Tr.a nt Units
Dear Mr. Boynton:
This letter responds to your recent request for an interpretation of the
regulations of November 17, 1980 (43 Th 76074) which suspended certain require
ments of the hazardous waste regulations for owners and operators of wastewater
treatment units where such facilities are subject to regulation * der Section 402
or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act.
Your letter is correct in stating that there is nothing in the definitions,
preamble, or regulations which precludes an off—site hazardous waste management
cility from qualifying for a suspension of the hazardous waste requirements in
CTR Parts 122, 264 and 265. The Agency considered limiting the suspension and
I, oposed emeudments to on—site facilities but was unable to justify that this
type of facility was inherently less hazardous than an off—site facility so as to
necessitate different standards. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to distinguish
between on—site and off—site facilities in this regulation.
Even under the terms of the suspension, hazardous waste shipped to an of f—
site facility viii, of course, be subject to the manifest requirement;. In addi-
tion, the treatment facility must be subject to regulation under either Section
402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act.
To be completely eiempted for now (and ultimately subjected to the permit
by rule) all units in a facility must meet the definition of in S260.10.
Lagoons, incinerators, and other types of facilities are not eligible. It is,
however, true that the definition of ‘tank ’ is rather broad, covering unit opera-
tions which are not obviously tanks such as presses, filters, sumps, and many
other types of processing equipment.
The Agency also intends that the phrase TM subject to regulation under either
Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Acts ; bould be given a broad interpre-
tation . This phrase includes all facilities that are subject to NPDES permits
and qnconpasseS facilities subject to either categorical pretreatment standard;
or g n.ral pretreatment standards. It is not necessary that the permits actually
iisued or that pretreatment standards actual]y be in force. It is sufficient
let the facility be subject to the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
-------
—2—
It should be noted thr eligible facilities must in fact be treating vaste—
er. and not concentrated chemicals or non aqueous wastes. While we have not
yrnuulgsted a formal definition, vs are interpreting the term to refer to wastes
which are substantially water with contaminants unting to a few percent at
most • It has been suggested that a formal definition would be helpful. We are
considering adding such a definition to the fi”al promulgation.
Public comments on the Novmbsr 17, 1980 proposal aI so note4 that some waste—
water treatment imita do not discharge a liquid stream aád thus are not sub j set to
the ean Water Act. ‘A is considering changing this subjsct to language to
include such zero disihirwe faeilities J is p.ct to f ift s1ize th. proposed
i.gulations for vut.water trsatm t muits and elem tary neutralization units
within the n t few months.
If you have any further questions, pleas. do not hesitate to call me or Pred
Lindsey, the Deputy Division Director at PTS 755—9185.
Sincerely yours,
ç ç?
John P. Lehean, Director
Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division
cc: Dennis Heubner B.. Stan Jorgensen
EPA, Region I EPA Region VI
Ernest Regna Robert L. Norby
EPA Region II EPA Region VII
Robert L. Allen Lawrence P. Gazda
EPA Region III EPA Region VIII
James Scarbrough Arnold ft. Den
EPA Region IV EPA legion IX
Karl J. Kiepitich Kenneth D. Feigner
EPA Region V EPA Region X
------- |