&EPA
Unmd State*
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9503.5i-lA(85)
TITLE: RD&D Permit for a Slu'dge Drying Process in a
Wastewater System.
APPROVAL DATE: December 24, 1985
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of solid waste
B FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OS WER OS WER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
Wasriington, DC 20460
Un i u Ste ‘ ‘ 1- ,1oi’mer ’ i Prc t lion Agency .1L0;ri Drvci e
&EPA OSWER Directive Initiation Request 9503 .5l-1A(85
Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Nancy Potnerleau
Mail Code I Telepnone Number
WH—563 382—4500
Lead Office Approved for Review
tfice Directo
0 OERA 0 OWPE S
te
05W AA OSWER I Da/ ,/ ;/Z
/t/A- , - df
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 I Status
0 Draft 0 New
Policy memo 0 Final 0 Revision
I
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s;? Yes No Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)) Yes
If Yes to Either Question What Directive (number, title)
—0—
Review Plan
0 A ’A-OSWER 0 OUST 0 OECM 0 Other (Specify
0 OERR 0 OWPE 0 OGC
0 osw 0 Regions 0 opp
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Sigra re a
e Dire lives Officer
aZ,
Date
5i d ’jure of OSWER Directives Officer
Date
EPA Form 1315-17(1085)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
c,
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
1(-’I V OSWER Directive # 9503.51-JA(85)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJEcT: RD&D Permit for a Sludge Drying Process in a Wastewater
Sys t em
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
( 262.41, 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.
Attachment
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
e
U. 311981
OFFICE OF
$01. 10 WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Richard C. Boynton, chief
Permits Development Section
U.S. Enviroi ent*l Protection Agency
Jo P. T. nedy Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Re: Suspension of Regulations for Vastewater Treatment Units
Dear Mr. Boynton:
This letter responds to your recent request for an interpretation of the
regulations of November 17, 1980 (45 FR 76074) which suspended certain require-
ments of the hazardous waste regulations for owners and operators of was tevater
treatment units where such facilities are subject to regulation der Section 402
or 307(b) of the clean Water Act.
!our letter is correct in stating that there is nothing in the definitions,
preamble, or regulations which precludes an off—site hazardous waste management
facility from qualifying for a suspension of the hazardous waste requirements in
40 CTR Parts 122, 264 and 265. The Agency considered limiting the suspension and
proposed amendments 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 will, of course, be subject to the manifest requirements. 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 exempted for now (and ultimately subjected to the permit
by rule) all units in a facility must meet the definition of “tank” in §260.10.
Lagoons, incinerators, and other types of facilities are not eligible. It is,
however, true that the definition of “tank” is rathir broad, covering unit opera-
tions which are not obviously tanks such as presses, filters, Bumps, and many
other types of processing equipment.
The Agency also intends that the phrase subject to regulation under either
Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act” should be given a broad interpre—
tation This phrase includes all facilities that are subject to NPDES permits
and ncompasses facilities subject to either categorical pretreatment standards
or g neral pretreatment standards. It is .! necessary that the permits actuallZ
be ilsued or that pretreatment standards actually be in force. It is sufficient
that 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 waste—
wateza’ and not concentrated chemicals or non aqueous wastes. Jhile we have not
promulgated a formal definition, we are interpreting the term to refer to wastes
which are substantially water with contaminants amounting to a few percent at
most. It baa been suggested that a formal definition would be helpful. We are
considering adding such a definition to the final promulgation.
Public coents on the November 17, 1980 proposal al o noted that some waste—
water treatment emits do not discharge a liquid stream and thus are not subject to
the .ean Water Act. A is considering changing this “subject to” language to
include such zero discharge facilitie _ We psct to finalize the proposed
reguLitions for wastewater trea 1t it. and elementary neutralization its
within the n t few months.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to c all me or Pred
Lindsey, the Deputy Division Director at PTS 755—9185.
Sincerely yours,
9 2 S?
John P. Lehean, Director
Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division
cc: Dennis Beubner R. Stan Jorgensen
EPA, Region I EPA Region VI
Ernest Regna Robert I .. Morby -. —
EPA Region II EPA Region VII -
Robert L. Allen Lawrence P. Gazda
EPA Region III EPA Region VIII
James Scarbrough Arnold K. Den
EPA Region IV EPA Region IX
Karl J. Klepitsch Kenneth D. Feigner
EPA Region V EPA Region X
------- |