United States
imenta
Age:
Waste A
oEFA
Guidance For Inspection
Of Facilities With
Delisted Wastes
THIS DOCUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
iQUESTS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 5S2(B)(2) AND (B)(7)(e) OF THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
-------
Sr 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECflON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PRO
JUN 2 1992
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Guidance for Inspecting Facilities with Delisted Wastes
From: Bruce M. Diamond, Directo
Off ice of Waste Programs En orcement
To: Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I-X
Frank Covington, NEIC
Attached you will find a copy of the Guidance for Inspection
of Facilities with Delisted Wastes . We would like to thank all the
Regions that reviewed and commented on this document. Your time is
greatly appreciated. This document was developed to assist the
Regions and States in conducting inspections of facilities that
have successfully petitioned for delisting of one or more waste
streams pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 260.20 and 260.22. It provides
guidelines for inspection activities and lists some enforcement
concerns.
We consider this document to be exempt from release under the
Freedom of Information Act , 5 U.S.C. Section 552, Exemption
(b) (7) (E). We appreciate your cooperation in preventing its
release.
We are interested in your experience to date in inspecting
facilities with delisted wastes. Please include a summary
discussion of your experience with these facilities in the FY92
“End of the Year Report”.
If you have any questions relating to this guidance, please
feel free to contact John Dombrowski of my staff at (202) 260-7834.
Attachment
cc: Sylvia Lowrance, OSW
Kathie Stein, OE
Lisa Friedman, OGC
Barrett Benson, NEIC
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Printec on Recycled Paper
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9938.2B
May 1992
GUIDANCE FOR INSPECTION
OF FACILITIES WITH DELISTED WASTES
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
RCRA Enforcement Division
THIS DOCUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
REQUESTS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 552(b)(2) AND (b)(7)(e) OF THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
-------
9938.23
DISCLAIMER
The policies and procedures established in this document are intended solely
for the guidance of employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They 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. EPA reserves the right to
act at variance with these policies and procedures and to change them at any time
without public notice.
2
-------
‘38 2B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose
I I. Overview of the Delisting Process 4
Ill. Inspection Priority/Targeting 13
IV. Preparing for Inspections of Facilities with Delisted Waste 1 4
V. Conducting Inspections of Facilities with Delisted Waste 1 8
VI. Post-Inspection Activities 24
Appe ndices
A. Sample List of Contents from Delisting File 26
B. Sample Petition for Delisting 29
C. Pre-Inspection Checklist and Checklist for Inspection of
Facilities with Delisted Waste 67
D. List of Regional Delisting Contacts 71
3
-------
9938.2 B
GUIDANCE FOR INSPECTION
OF FACILITIES WITH DELISTED WASTES
I. PURPOSE
This Guidance for Inspection of Facilities with Delisted Wastes (the Guidance) is
intended to be used by RCRA inspection personnel.in conducting inspections of
facilities that have successfully petitioned for’deli.sting One or more waste streams
pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 260.20 and 260.22. ‘ Th.e Guidance is intended to
supplement, and to be read in conjunction with, the RCRA Inspection Manual (OSWER
9938.2A March 1988)(the Manual) and, any revisions to it. Since the inspection of
facilities with delisted wastes vill most often occur as part of overall compliance
evaluation inspections (CEIs), much of the Manual will be.relevant to this particular
kind of inspection. Adcordir ly, frequent references to the Manual will be found within
this Guidance.
The focus of this Guidance is on the pre-inspection, inspection, and post-
inspection activities that specifically relate to facilities handling delisted waste. The
Appendices.to this Guidance include a sample list of contents to be found in a delisting
file; a sample petition for delisting; generic checklists that can be used in planning,
conducting, and reporting on inspections; and a list of current Regional delisting
contacts.
There are two reasons for inspecting facilities generating delisted waste. First. ,
inspections should result in the return to compliance of any facility that has been /
negligent in adhering to the terms of its exclusion or has used its exclusion as a cover
for reverting to the generation of waste properly subjectto regulation under Subtitle C.
Second , conducting these inspections should have a deterrent effect on all facilities
that have received exclusions; to the extent that a facility is aware its operations are
subject to post-exclusion oversight, it will be less likely to violate the terms of its
exclusion and more scrupulous in ensuring that its generated waste does not become
hazardous.
II. OVERVIEW OF THE DELISTING PROCESS
To make compliance inspections of facilities with delisted waste as effective as
possible, RCRA inspectors, and all other EPA Headquarters and Regional staff playing
any part in the process, must have a comprehensive understanding of the delisting
process. This Overview is intended to provide necessary information.
Lists of wastes that EPA has determined should be regulated as hazardous
under Subtitle C of RCRA are set forth in 40 CFR Part 261. If a facility handles waste
that is not listed as hazardous but displays certain ‘characteristics identified in Subpart
C of Part 261, it must still manage the waste as hazardous.
Facilities may petition EPA to have a particular waste stream excluded from the
40 CFR Part 261 lists on the grounds that: (1) it dOes not meet any of the criteria under
4
-------
382B
which the waste was originafly listed as hazardous by EPA, and (2) factors other than
those for which the waste was listed cannot cause the waste to become hazardous
To delist a waste (also known as obtaining an exclusion from the lists of
hazardous wastes), a facility must file a petition with EPA seeking a rulemaking
pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 260.20 and 260.22. These Sections provide authority for
delisting and contain genera) guidelines for the format and substance of submitted
petitions. As further described below, the favorable review of a petition results in a
rulemaking that is recorded in the Federal Register and, ultimately, Appendix CX of
40 CFR Part 261. This Appendix contains tables listing all of the exclusions that have
been granted by EPA since enactment of ACRA. Until recently, only EPA had the
authority to delist wastes; to date, eleven States have secured the authority to de ist
wastes. They are: Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota. Nebraska.
New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah.
Petitions to delist waste are submitted tO the Delisting Section 01 the Waste
Identification Branch of the Characterization and Assessment Division of EPA’s Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) (the Delisting Section). While
EPA Regional staff can and do currently participate in the delisting process in several
ways described below, the determination by EPA of whether to grant or deny a petition
is made by staff and management at Headquarters.
Since 1980, more than 800 petitions have been submitted to the Delisting
Section, and 98 exclusions have been granted. The distribution of these exclusions
among the EPA Regions roughly relates to the distribution of hazardous waste
facilities. Thus, existing exclusions number about 20 each in Regions 4 and 5.
Regions 2, 3, 6, and 7 each contain approximately 10 facilities with delisted wastes.
Each of the remaining Regions has jurisdiction over fewer than 1 0 facilities with
exclusions. The Delisting Coordinator in each Region is responsible for maintaining a
current list of facilities with exclusions within the Regional Office’s jurisdiction.
A. The Petition Process
As stated above, a facility may petition EPA to exclude a particular waste stream
that it generates from the hazardous waste lists, thereby reiiev ng the facility of the
obligation to comply with RCRA Subtitle C for that waste stream (assuming the delisted
waste does not exhibit a hazardous characteristic). The facility must still comply with
Subtitle C with respect to any other waste stream generated that is composed of listed
or characteristic hazardous waste.
To obtain an exclusion, a facility must submit to the Delisting Section a petition
that fulfills the requirements of 40 CFR Sections 260.20 and 260.22. For guidance.
see Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes: A Guidance Manual (April 1 985) (the
Delisting Guidance). A successful petition will demonstrate that the waste in question:
5
-------
9 38.2B
• Does not meet any of the criteria for which it was listed by EPA
• Does not exhibit any characteristics of hazardous waste (as detailed in
40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C)
• Does not exhibit any other factors that could cause it to be hazardous
• Will not contribute or has not contributed to the contamination of
groundwater
Does not pose any other threat to human health Or the envirbnment.
Failure to satisfy any one of these requirements will result in denial of a petition.
The Delisting Guidance describes the types of data that EPA should receive
before a delisting decision can be made. That data isdescribed in Section B below.
Each petition must also contain thefollowing certification statement, signed by an
authorized facility representative:
“I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar
with the information submitted in this demonstration and all attached
documents, and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted
information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment.’
EPA encourages the submission of draft sampling/analysis plans by petitioners.
The Delisting Section attempts to review these plans within 60 days of receipt and
then provide a response as to their adequacy. These draft submissions may also
contain initial waste characterization data by which EPA may be able to provide the
petitioner with a preliminary assessment of its chances for success..
B. Petition Review Process
Stages of Review -- When a petition is receiv.ed by the Delisting Section, the
petitioner is sent an ackno iIedgment letter, which assigns a petition number, provides
the name of an EPA contact, .and identifies staff reviewing the petition. A determination
is then made as to whether the petition includes all necessary information.
If a petition is seriously deficient, EPA can dismiss it and close the file. If only a
limited amount of information is missing, EPA will conduct a technical review of the
available data. If the information initially provided tends to support the exclusion of the
petitioned waste, the Delisting Section will notify the facility that the missing
information must be submitted within a given time period (six months or less) or the
petition will be dismissed (See 53 Fed. Reg . 6822 (1988) for dismissal policy).
6
-------
9938.2 B
Once the petition file is complete, if the Delisting Section tentatively determines
that the petition should be granted, a draft Federal Register notice is prepared. The
draft notice undergoes internal review by an Agency-wide workgroup. Approval of
OSW’s Office Director must be obtained for exclusions while approval for a petition
denial must be procured from the Assistant Administrator of OSWER.
Ultimately, the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register for public
comment. After all public comments have been addressed, a final notice is published
and the delisting rule becomes effective as of that notice’s date. The Delisting Section
notifies the appropriate Regional office of the publication of the Federal Register
notice. A final decision to exclude waste results in amendment of 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix IX, which lists all excluded wastes. Prior to actual publication of the Federal
Register notice, the facility is notified of the decision by a letter sent by the Delisting
Section which indicates that the delisting will be effective as of the date indicated in
that letter (or, in some cases, as of the date of signature of the letter).
If EPA determines that the petition should be denied, the Delisting Section
notifies the petitioner by letter and gives the facility a chance to withdraw its petition. It
the petitioner chooses not to withdraw the petition, EPA will then publish in the Federal
Register a proposal to deny the petition and solicit comments respecting that decision.
The duration of a particular review can vary, depending on a host of factors.
These include the workload of EPA staff, the complexity of the data, and the
willingness of the petitioner to provide all necessary data.
The petition review process is extremely thorough -- each petition undergoes
rigorous scrutiny by well-trained personnel. Over 50% of petitions have been denied
or withdrawn and approximately 20% have been mooted because the hazardous
waste lists change or the matter is referred to an authorized State.
ata Submission -- Outlined below is the information that a facility will be
required to provide EPA as part of its submission and that should be found in some
form in the delisting file maintained at Headquarters:
Waste and Waste Management History -- this includes:
- An explanation of why the waste in question is a listed hazardous
waste
- The hazardous waste description for the petitioned waste
- A statement of the physical form of the petitioned waste
- An estimate of the waste volume that the petitioner wants delisted
(including a description of the method of calculation used to
estimate the fixed quantity or generation rates)
- A description of past, present, and planned disposal methods.
7
-------
9938.2B
Information on Processes and Raw Materials Contributing to the
Petitioned Waste -- this information is used to determine whether the
petitioned waste is properly characterized with respect to all constituents
of potential concern. The Delisting Section requires this to enable it to
gain an understanding of the processes generating and contributing to
the waste at issue, how and where in the process the waste is formed,
and how hazardous constituents might enter the waste.
The petitioner may be required to provide, in substantial detail, a
description of: its physical plant, all manufacturing processes that might
contribute to the petitioned waste, waste treatment processes, process
materials used in the manufacturing and treatment processes and waste
management operations, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), and
waste management operations related to on-site, land-based units where
petitioned waste is managed.
• •Analytical Information -- petitioners are encouraged to.follow an
analytical plan approved by EPA and then include in their petitions a
complete list of constituents of concern identified as being in the
petitioned waste, mass balance demonstrations for constituents of
concern for which analyses were not conducted, and certain other
information.
• Information about the Facility’s Waste Sampling and Analysis -- the
Delisting Section is concerned with ensuring that a petitioner collects
samples sufficiently representative of the variability or uniformity of
petitioned waste, that waste sampling is conducted by qualified
personnel, and that sample integrity is maintained. These
determinations are essential because EPA uses these analytical results
in its review process. EPA also requires that laboratory quality control
procedures be performed and the results reported. Waste sampling and
analyses must generally be done in accord with the EPA publication
“Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods
(SW-846).
• Groundwater Monitoring Information -- this requirement applies lithe
facility ever managed the petitioned waste in land-based hazardous
waste management units for which a RCRA groundwater monitoring
system is required. Evidence of groundwater contamination due to the
petitioned waste provides grounds for denying the petition.
• Confidential Business Information -- some of the information required by
EPA may be confidential, relating to specific business practices,
processes, and operations at the petitioning facility site. This information
will be kept confidential pursuant to applicable law (e.g., 40 CFR Part 2)
and will be reviewed by appropriate EPA personnel.
EPA Data Evaluation -- The Delisting Section’s technical evaluation is
typically based on fate and transport models that rely on waste-specific information,
8
-------
9938.2B
such as volume. The focus of the effort is to determine whether health-based levels for
constituents of concern are exceeded, supporting denial of a petition. Modeling tools
are used to evaluate the potential hazards of waste. In selecting models, the Delisting
Section chooses reasonable worst-case management scenarios, and consideration is
given to possible exposure routes for the hazardous constituents.
Currently, the TCLP test is used to determine leachable concentrations; this
analysis replaced the Extraction Procedure (EP) ri testing for toxicity. However, the
OWEP (SW-846, Method 1330) and the MEP (SW-846, Method 1320) procedures are
also required for oily wastes and stabilized wastes, respectively. The leachable
concentration serves as an input for an appropriate groundwater transport model
which permits analysis of groundwater transport to a hypothetical compliance point.
The model yields a dilution factor based on the assumption of a certain volume of
waste (See 56 Fed. Reg . 32993 (July 18, 1981)). Therefore, the most critical criterion
in evaluating a petition is a determination of what leaches out of the waste.
Spotchecks -- The Delisting Section will sometimes conduct unannounced
spotchecks of a facility as part of the petition review process. The primary reasons for
performing a spotcheck are to determine whether petition information is accurate and
to generate supplementary data to clarify materials submitted earlier by the petitioner.
A critical secondary reason for doing a spotcheck is to deter petitioners from submitting
false data. The regulated community learns of the occurrence of these spotchecks
through Federal Register notices proposing delisting decisions.
A full-scale spotcheck would involve performing sampling and analysis
independent of the facility’s efforts. Usually, three or four samples would be taken (for
organics, metals, etc.), a laboratory analysis performed, and, ultimately, a report
prepared. The Delisting Section typically performs a spotcheck only in situations in
which a facility seems to be a reasonably strong candidate for delisting or where the
data presented raises suspicions as to its validity. Rather than making an
unannounced appearance, EPA personnel may pay a visit when a facility is doing its
own sampling, allowing Agency officials to obtain one or more split samples which are
then sent to a laboratory for analysis.
C. Types of Exclusions
A successful petition will result in the granting of one of four types of exclusions.
The following are the four types ol exclusions:
A standard exclusion is granted with respect to a specific waste that is
currently being generated by a facility and will continue to be in the
future. During the earlier years of the delisting program, most exclusions
were of this variety.
An example of a standard exclusion is the one granted Arco Building
Products of Sugarcreek, Ohio; the excluded waste is described in the
Federal Register as “dewatered wastewater treatment sludge (EPA
9
-------
9938.2B
Hazardous Waste No. F019) generated from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum after August 15, 1986.”
A e-time exclusion is a form of exclusion typically given for a discrete
body of waste identified by a facility. Facilities with this type of exclusion
do not warrant compliance inspections because there is nothing to
foflow-up. An example of a one-time exclusion is the one received by
Universal Oil Products of Decatur, Alabama for “Wastewater treatment
sludges (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) generated from electroplating
operations and contained in two on-site lagoons on August 15, 1986.1
After that date, an inspector would have nothing to inspect from a
delisting perspective unless the tac ity adds new hazardous waste to the
units in question.
A conditional exclusion is given if the waste in question meets the criteria
for delisting but the Delisting Section is concerned about future
ariabilty. in such a case, the Delisting Section will grant an exclusion
but, typicaUy, require the generator to periodicaliytest batches of the
waste, hold the batches until analytical results are available, and then
manage the waste as hazardous if lab results indicate constituents are
present at levels above limits specified in the exclusion. Conditional
exclusions can involve the imposition of numerous conditions.
One example is the exclusion given to LCP Chemical of Orrington,
Maine, which reads as follows:
“Brine purification muds and waStewater treatment sludges
generated after August 27, 1985 from their chior-aikali
manufacturing operations (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K071 and
K106) that have been batch tested for mercury using the EP
toxicity procedures and have been found to contain less than
0.05 ppm mercury in the EP extract. Brine purification muds and
wastewater treatment sludges that exceed this level will be
considered a hazardous waste.”
In this case, should LCP Chemical determine through use of the EP
extract that the mercury level in a batch exceeds levels allowable under
the exclusion, that batch must be managed as hazardous.
Same facilities receiving conditiona’ exclusions are required, for a
speci ed length of time, to submit data from their sampling activities to
EPA Headquarters. Other tacihties are 9enerafly aflowed to simply
archive their data on-site, often after an initial period of testing during
whtch data are supplied to EPA Headquarters.
• Finally, upfront exclusions, a special form of conditional exclusion, are
granted for waste that is not yet being generated. Both standard and
condit onal exclusions are available only for waste Ihat is being
generated at the time a petition is filed. For an upfront delisting, EPA will
10
-------
99382B
grant a form of conditional exclusion based on available information,
such as pilot plant data, that demonstrates that petitioned waste will most
likely meet the delisting criteria. For example, the operators of a planned
incinerator or someone planning to stabilize a waste might seek an
upfront delisting. The facility will usually be required to perform certain
tests on an ongoing basis after full-scale operations begin, due to
possible variability between the pilot scale and full-operation data and to
subsequently ensure the process is working.
The impact of obtaining any of the above-described exclusions is that the waste at
issue will no longer be regarded as a listed hazardous waste automatically subject to
Subtitle C controls. However, if at any time after granting of the petition the waste
becomes characteristically hazardous, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C, the
facility must manage the waste as hazardous regardless of the original exclusion.
Intentional or inadvertent violation of the terms of an exclusion will result in
invalidation of an exclusion, although this will not be automatic. After the Delisting
Section has determined that deviation from the terms of an exclusion has occurred,
based on reports received from a Delisting Coordinator, that office will refer the matter
to the appropriate Regional enforcement staff for appropriate action. The RCRA
Enforcement Division (RED) will also be notified of the referral.
Reported deviations from the terms of an exclusion will be subject to careful
case-by-case review. Examples of possible violations include the following:
• The owner/operator of a facility with a conditional exclusion fails to
comply with testing requirements, such as ongoing sampling
• The owner/operator of a facility with an exclusion fails to notify the
Delisting Section of a change in corn position of the delisted waste,
resulting in the waste no longer being characterizable as non-hazardous
• A facility fails to notify the Delisting Section of changes to the waste
generating or treatment processes described in its petition, which
changes have a bearing on the composition of waste generated
• A facility exceeds the waste-generating volume restrictions placed on it
as part of a standard, conditional, or up-front exclusion.
In addition to cases of non-compliance, exclusion revocation can result from
regulatory changes modifying the list of hazardous wastes set forth in 40 CFR Part
261.
The Delisting Section is moving towards making all exclusions, including
standard ones, contingent on compliance with certain waste output volume
restrictions. Should a facility generate waste in excess of the allowed amount, at a
minimum, its exclusion would be ineffective for the surplus waste beyond that amount
and the facility would be subject to enforcement action.
11
-------
9938.2B
D. Exclusion Follow-Up
With few exceptions, the Delisting Section has become aware of potentially
problematic situations involving delisted waste when a facility notifies EPA of changes
in its processes, as they are required to do, or when Headquarters receives
information from a third party (e.g., Regional or State staff) that RCRA or exclusion
requirements are being violated. If the Delisting Section is notified of a possible
change in processes, the facility is asked to demonstrate that the characteristics of the
waste have not changed and that the process change was insignificant.
E. Regional. and State Role in Delisting Program
The role of the Regional offices and State hazardous waste agencies has been
quite limited to date. Through distribution of copies of correspondence, the Delisting
Section informs the Regions of petitions received and the progress of its delisting
evaluations. In addition, the Delisting Section routinely provides the Regions with a
Monthly Regional Status List of.active delisting petitions to show petition activities in
each Region.
Among the States authorized by EPA to conduct a hazardous waste program,
only eleven (identified on page 5) have obtained the necessary specific authorization
to engage in delisting. If a State becomes authorized to delist, then EPA will only play
a formal role in reviewing petitions from facilities located within that State’s boundaries
if the facility wishes to transport the waste out of State to an unauthorized State. Even
if a State is not authorized to delist by EPA, it may possess the authority to grant
exclusions under State law. As a result, a facility in an unauthorized State often must
submit a petition to both EPA and the State hazardous waste agency and be granted
an exclusion by both before it can manage its waste as non-hazardous.
The Delisting Section makes an effort to communicate with those States
authorized to administer a delisting program. An information package has been
developed that identifies key components of the Federal delisting program that State
authorities should consider in administering their own programs.
The Delisting Section often communicates with the appropriate State
hazardous waste agency after a delisting petition has been received. One key role
State agencies play under certain circumstances is supplying groundwater monitoring
information to the Delisting Section. This occurs when, instead of submitting such
information as part of their delisting petitions, a facility only identifies reports containing
such information and the State (or Regional) authorities who possess such reports.
Although in the past the Regional offices have played a limited role in the
delisting program, they will now be more heavily involved in the compliance process.
A Regional Delisting Coordinator will serve as the communication link between EPA
Headquarters, where delisting decisions are made and the central delisting files are
maintained, and the inspectors. The Delisting Coordinator will receive the monthly
reports from the Delisting Section identifying facilities within their jurisdiction that have
12
-------
9938.2B
submitted petitions (these monthly reports are supplied to all interested Regional staff).
The Delisting Coordinator will also become involved when a facility submits a copy of
its petition to the appropriate Regional office, which the facilities often do when an
enforcement action is pending or about to be commenced against them by that office.
During its review of a petition, the Delisting Section will contact the Regional Delisting
Coordinator to learn of any known problems with the facility and to find out if any
enforcement actions are pending. The Regional Delisting Coordinator will also be
responsible for obtaining from appropriate Reqional or State personnel groundwater
data that the petitioner does not provide
Historically, Regional offices and.State:agencieshavè beennotified of any
spotcheck visits of facilities planned by the Delisting Section. Representatives of those
offices often choose to accompany EPAHeãdquarterslstaff and may undertake a
separate inspection of the facility.
iii. INsPECTION PRIORITY/TARGETING
Annually, the RCRA lmplementation Plan (RlP) outlines various areas of
implementation and enforcement,that should be addressed during the fiscal year. In
both the FY91 and FY 92 RIPs, the Regions were askedtoevaluate several facilities
with delisting exclusions; The RIP appears to be thebest forum to target these
facilities because of the annual revisions.
The iñspectio’n priorities for.completing the evaluàtionof.facilitiés with delisted
wastes must consider the types of granted petitions, as outlined in Section ll(c) of this:
manual. The inspection priorities should focus on facilities with conditional exclusions
and tàndáfd exclusions. In scheduling inspections of facilities with delisted wastes,
one (1) out of every three (3) (or 33%) should focus on those with ständardéxclusions.
This ratio should assist in maintaining a balanced workload.
Conditional exclusions have beë n granted, in most ‘cases, vith a requirement
for periodic waste analysis This would indicate that waste analysis data should be
available at the facility and inspectors can eváluate this data based on.the parameters
outlined in the granted petition. These inspections shoüldbe.easier than’ those
invoIving standard exclusiOns, since’ á cdnditibnaI exclusion relies more-on waste
analysis data; in the case ofstandard exclusions, the inspectorwiII need to look for
process changes.
Standard exclusions have been granted, in most cases, with an emphasis on
the process that is generating the waste. The evaluation of a process change to
determine compliance is a time-consuming exercise that may involve areas of
expertise beyond that of a field inspector. Nevertheless, facilities with standard
exclusions must be evaluated for compliance. If a process change determination is
beyond the expertise of the field inspector, information about the process must be
gathered and reviewed by experts within the Regional or State office. This information
may include photographs, current schematics of the process, feedstock information,
and waste analysis data from sampling.
13
-------
9938.2B
IV. PREPARING FOR INSPECTIONS OF FACILITIES WITH DELISTED
WASTE
As a general matter, inspections of facilities with delisted waste are to be
conducted as part of, and in a manner Consistent with the procedures for, RCRA
compliance evaluation inspections (CEIs), and will be undertaken under authority of
Section 3007. Consequently, in preparing to inspect a facility with delisted waste, an
inspector should consult Chapter 2 of the Manual, as well as this Guidance. The
information in that Chapter will also be relevant if a facility Visit is made solely for the
purpose of evaluating delisting compliance.
The pre-inspection procedures should include:
• Determining the objectives and scope of the inspection
• Coordinating the inspection with all appropriate Federal and State
personnel
• Developing a detailed plan for conducting the inspection.
The key to conducting an effective inspection of a facility with delisted waste is
developing a comprehensive understanding of the operations of the particular facility,
the processes by which it generates the waste stream(s) at issue, and the delisting
petition filed by the facility. Proper evaluation of a facility’s compliance with its
exclusion can only be achieved if the inspector has taken the time to develop this
knowledge base.
The means of accomplishing this last goal, as well as those cited above, are
discussed below.
A. Scope and Objectives of Inspection
The scope and objectives will be determined by the inspector through
discussions with the Regional Delisting Coordinator and the inspector’s supervisor.
Although the general purpose of inspecting a facility with delisted waste is to ensure
that all relevant waste Streams are being handled in accordance with the exclusion,
the exact focus will vary depending on the type of exclusion a facility has been
granted. For example, inspection of a facility with a conditional exclusion may involve
the review of analytical data that a facility with a standard exclusion would not be
required to maintain. Much of the information needed to determine an inspection’s
scope can be found in the delisting file maintained at Headquarters and may be
obtained through the Regional Delisting Coordinator (see Appendix A for a sample list
of contents from a delisting file). However, discussions with appropriate Regional and
Headquarters staff, such as the Delisting Section personnel, may be needed to
develop the fullest possible understanding of the facility’s petition, exclusion, and/or
operations.
14
-------
9938 2B
Facilities with delisted waste streams may be regulated under RCRA with
regard to other waste streams they generate. In these instances, delisting compliance
inspections should occur as one component of a routine CEI. At facilities where
inspections are conducted solely for the purpose of assessing delisting compliance,
the inspector should be prepared to expand the inspection to a CEI if merited.
Determining the scope and objectives of an inspection is central to the conduct
of an effective compliance evaluation. Among other things, it will enable the inspector
to identify those aspects of a facility that he or she should study in advance and to
make a determination as to whether sampling will be required.
B. Coordinating the Inspection
Defining the scope of an inspection should help an inspector identify
appropriate EPA personnel and staff of other agencies with whom the delisting
compliance inspection should be coordinated. As is the case with other RCRA
inspections 1 coordination may be required for a number of reasons. One possibility is
that other offices or agencies may be planning action in relation to a facility that may
interfere with, or be negatively impacted by, a planned delisting compliance
inspection. RCRA Enforcement Division and OSW staff need not be notified in
advance of an inspection, but should always be informed of the results.
Coordination activities may include:
• Scheduling joint inspections
• Contacting the ORC and the States to obtain relevant information
regarding a facility’s administrative or enforcement status
• Obtaining facility information from State and local agencies.
RCRA inspectors 1 in conjunction with their supervisors, should take all reasonable
steps to confirm that the scheduling of any planned inspection will not interfere with
any other planned EPA action and that inspection resources are used as efficiently as
possible.
The inspector may also wish to coordinate activities with a facility being
inspected, to the extent that such coordination does not unduly interfere with effective
enforcement. For instance, in situations where waste sampling will be necessary, the
inspector may try to arrange a visit for a time when the facility will be engaged in its
own required sampling; the inspector will then be able to obtain split samples and
reduce the costs of conducting an inspection.
C. Developing and Reviewing the Facility File
As is the case with any RCRA CEI, an inspector should make use of all
available Agency resources relating to a facility. Certain specific procedures should
15
-------
9938.2B
be followed in preparing for the delisting compliance component of such an
inspection.
The inspector may need to review the entire delisting file for a facility. Access to
the file can be obtained through the Regional Delisting Coordinator. Although
summaries of these files may become available in the future , as of the present time,
the complete file should be examined. In general, a typical file will include the petition,
documentation supporting the petition, EPA analytical documents, and the Federal
Register notice setting forth the terms of the exclusion. Specifically, the inspector
should find and review:
• Descriptions of the manufacturing and/or treatment processes generating
the delisted waste
• Flow charts, schematics, diagrams, etc. depicting the processes and
equipment used to generate the delisted waste
• Descriptions of all waste generated by the facility
• Any post-exclusion testing results supplied to, or obtained by, EPA
• The results of any previous delisting compliance inspections or OSW
spotcheck visits
• A detailed map showing facility layout and the location of waste
management units, if available
• Records of any post-exclusion communications with facility
representatives.
Reviewing the delisting file, as well as any other relevant files maintained by EPA or
State agencies, should enhance the ability of an inspector to conduct a meaningful
delisting compliance inspection. Such an effort will:
• Provide the inspector with the needed technical understanding of the
facility and the wastes and processes underlying the exclusion
• Help develop an awareness of any compliance problems relating to the
delisted waste
• Assist in identifying potential troublespots.
Inspectors should be aware that some delisting files, especially those relating to
petitions granted during the early 1980s, may be incomplete or less clear than those
granted in recent years . This is because the Delisting Section has revised its
operations, the data collection process has been improved, and petitioners are now
required to provide more in-depth information. In working with such files, the inspector
may find support in several places. First, the inspector can communicate with Delisting
Section staff. The inspector may be able to obtain helpful explanations of processes,
16
-------
9938.2 B
equipment, etc., if the EPA staff member who worked on the delisting in question can
be located. Further, to gain a solid understanding of facility operations, the inspector
may want to review one or more of the EPA documents or standard references cited on
pages 2-13/2-14 of the Manual (e.g., Chemical and Process Technology
Encyclooedia) .
D. Developing Facility-Specific Plans and Checklists
As part of his or her preparations, an inspector should develop facility-specific
inspection plans and a checklist for preparations for the overall GEl. This section will
only address those aspects of that process relating to the inspection of facilities with
delisted waste. Working with his or her own checklist will allow an inspector to be sure
that all necessary steps have been taken prior to actually making a facility visit; the
facility-specific plan will be used to provide an organizational framework for the actual
inspection.
In planning a delisting compliance inspection, an inspector will want to ensure
that at least the following issues have been considered:
• Whether the facility should be notified in advance of the inspection
• Which facility records to focus on
• Which operations, processes, and waste will need to be examined
• Whether waste samples will be collected for analyses.
The inspector will want to have considered all aspects of his or her on-site activities to
ensure meeting the objective of verifying compliance with the terms of the exclusion.
Appendix C to this Guidance contains a generic checklist to be used as a
framework for an inspector’s pre-inspection activities. Of course, each inspector will
devise his or her own methods for ensuring that all necessary steps have been taken
prior to actually undertaking an inspection; the checklist is intended only to suggest
those areas an inspector will want to consider and those actions he or she will want to
take. Inspectors are encouraged to develop their own checklists, although other tools
may prove equally useful.
A specific checklist for inspecting facilities with delisted waste is also included in
Appendix C. This checklist should supplement the CEI checklist. Development of a
facility-specific checklist will also be based on review of the delisting file, other
information about the facility gained from discussions with individuals knowledgeable
about the facility, and review of files in the possession of EPA and other agencies.
An inspector must also decide in advance which equipment will be needed to
determine compliance with the terms of an exclusion. This decision will be based on
the inspectors own experience with similar facilities and, perhaps most importantly,
study of the delisting file. Reference should be made to Exhibit 2-1 in the Manual,
which contains a list of various types of equipment generally utilized in GEls.
17
-------
9938.2B
Inspection of a facility with delisted waste may require sampling. Consequently
unless an inspector receives contrary indications from another source, he or she
should always ensure the availability of sampling equipment. In situations where a
facility will be notified in advance of the inspection, the inspector is encouraged to
arrange the visit for a time when the facility will be performing its own sampling; in that
way, split samples can be obtained.
V. CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS OF FACILITIES WITH DELISTED
WASTE
Since inspections relating to delisted waste will generally constitute only one
component of a RCRA inspection, an inspector should be familiar with Chapter 4 of the
Manual, which is applicable to all types of inspections. For example, an inspector will
have to decide whether an inspection should be unannounced, identify the
appropriate time for entering a facility, and decide how to cope with any efforts to limit
access. Determinations as to which facilities will be inspected are made in
accordance with policies set forth in Section Ill of this Guidance.
The responsibilities of an inspector conducting an inspection of a facility with
delisted waste are, in essence, no different from those relating to any CEI. These
include:
• Entering the premises at a reasonable time and completing the
inspection as promptly as possible
• Issuing receipts for samples collected
• Providing duplicate samples.
A. Timing the Inspection
The inspector should determine the appropriate time of entry by considering the
anticipated extent and duration of the particular inspection. Factors affecting the
duration and extent of inspections of facilities with delisted wastes might include:
• The type of exclusion granted (i.e., standard exclusion inspections may
be more time-consuming than conditional or up-front exclusion
inspections because of the need to examine closely relevant waste-
generating processes; however, review of existing analytical data for
conditionals can also be quite time-consuming)
• The date on which the exclusion was granted (i.e., older exclusions are
likely to be less clear with respect to site processes and waste streams
and thus may require more extensive on-site review and analysis during
inspections)
18
-------
9938.2B
The contents of the petition (i.e., exclusions vary in complexity and some
inspections may warrant more in-depth review and analysis than others).
In all cases, a premium must be placed on conducting the most efficient inspection
possible. In the interest of thoroughness, an inspector should take all the time needed
to obtain desired information; through planning and coordination with facility
owners/operators, the inspector can minimize the length of that time period. For
example, in the case of facilities with conditional exclusions requiring periodic
sampling, inspectors should try to plan their visits for times when a facility will be
sampling the waste stream at issue. This will allow inspectors to review facility
sampling methods. In addition, this will facilitate split-sampling, allowing the inspector
to perform necessary analyses while limiting the duration of the inspection.
B. Opening Discussion with Owner/Operator
When the proper facility authorities have been located and EPA identification
has been presented 1 the inspector may discuss inspection plans with the facility
officials. The general procedures for opening discussions with owners/operators are
detailed in Section 4.2 of the Manual.
The inspector must base his or her approach to the facility owner/operator on
the knowledge gained from inspection preparation. Thus, he or she should have a
good idea of the specific operations that must be observed. After articulating the
objectives of the inspection, the inspector should discuss the order of the inspection
and meeting schedules, and arrange to be accompanied by facility personnel capable
of explaining key processes and answering questions. At facilities with delisted
wastes, inspectors should base their initial inquiries on the specific terms of each
exclusion. For example, at a facility with a conditional exclusion, the investigator will
need to ascertain the availability of samples, test results, and process change
documentation required under the exclusion.
As indicated in the Manual, if inspectors are diligent in questioning facility
personnel and in observing operations 1 they will be able to discern almost any
inconsistencies in what they see, hear, and have previously reviewed. Inconsistencies
must then be pursued until a finding can be made that the facility is or is not in
compliance with its exclusion.
Consideration should be given to holding the “opening discussion” with facility
representatives after the inspector has had an opportunity to make at least an initial
visual inspection of those portions of the facility integral to the generation or handling
of delisted waste. This may be particularly worthwhile in the case of an unannounced
visit, when the inspector will want to have access to key operations before any non-
complying condition or operation can be obscured.
In situations in which the opening discussion occurs prior to the actual
inspection, the discussion will present the inspector with a good opportunity to
establish his or her knowledge of the facility and, specifically, the delisting file and the
circumstances surrounding the granting of the exclusion. Pre-inspection preparation
19
-------
9938.2B
can pay significant dividends at this juncture of the inspection. A solid presentation at
the start will allow the inspector to: (1) establish control over the ensuing inspection
and (2) make clear to facility personnel that any attempt to obscure the true nature of
facility operations is likely to be detected.
C. Operations, Wastes, and Record Review
Following the opening discussion, the inspector should have the facility
representative describe overall facility operations and, specifically, those relating to
the process and waste that were the subject of the exclusion. For inspections of
facilities with conditional and upfront exclusions, the inspector should have the facility
representative describe the relevant testing, sampling, and recordkeeping practices
required. Since the inspector should already be familiar with the terms of the facility’s
exclusion through pre-inspection activities, the purpose of this discussion will be to:
• Develop a more detailed understanding of operations
• Obtain answers to any questions the inspector may have regarding the
relevant waste stream and waste management activities
• Help identify any changes in operating practices and/or waste generation
• Identify and reconcile any discrepancies between the operations
described by the facility representative and those described in the
delisting file.
Specific Processes and Wastes -- because delisting files vary as to the nature
and extent of information provided about specific processes and wastes, the inspector
should be particularly careful at this stage of the proceedings to obtain all relevant
information. The extent of questioning by the inspector will depend on, among other
things, the type of exclusion in question. For example, when questioning the
owner/operator of a facility with a standard exclusion, an inspector will want to
specifically inquire about any significant process changes which could have modified
the composition of the waste being generated. Furthermore, if a standard exclusion
was granted early in the history of the delisting program, the exact nature of the
relevant process may be difficult to discern from the delisting file. Thus, an inspector
should be interested in learning from company representatives any process details
unavailable through file review.
During the discussions with facility representatives, the inspector should be
careful to record in writing all relevant information. No particular format need be
followed, although the waste information sheets provided in Appendix IV of the Manual
may be helpful.
IRecord Review -- after completion of this stage of information-gathering, the
inspector will usually proceed to the record review. The record review provides the
inspector with the opportunity to become thoroughly familiar with the operating record,
analytical data, and documented testing practices, and will assist in identifying specific
20
-------
9938.2 B
areas to focus on during the visual inspection of the facility. Please note that the
record review does not have to occur before the visual inspection. In some cases,
inspection objectives may be best served if the visual inspection occurs before the
record review, such as when weather may be a factor.
Record review will play a significant role in the inspection of facilities with
delisted waste regardless of the type of exclusion involved. Still, this function is likely
to be most important in the cases of facilities with conditional or upfront exclusions or
with waste output volume restrictions. Under these types of exclusions, facilities may
be required to perform tests, store analytical data on-site, and record significant
changes in facility processes, all of which information is subject to review. An
inspector should be thoroughly familiar with the specific recordkeeping requirements
set forth in the exclusion. Although a standard protocol does not exist, inspectors
should check for: (1) the existence of required records, tests, and samples, (2) dates of
any required records, tests, and samples (i.e. whether they are being kept up-to-date
and/or maintained for the required period), and (3) any suspected falsification of data.
Facilities with standard exclusions, especially those granted during the early years of
the delisting program, will not have been required to maintain special records relating
to the delisting. However, certain waste analysis data (e.g., TCLP results) may be
available from periodic testing required for disposal of the delisted waste as a solid
waste.
0. General Procedures
In general, the visual inspection of a facility should proceed in accordance with
the inspection plan or strategy developed by the inspector. As previously discussed in
Section lV(D), this plan should set forth, in the level of detail considered appropriate by
the inspector, the operations, processes, and waste that the inspector intends to
examine and the tentative order in which the inspection will proceed. The inspector
should be flexible enough to modify the plan based upon information obtained during
the record review or on-site discussions.
For general requirements, procedures, and recommendations for conducting
visual inspections, including the use of checklists, reference should be made to
Section 4.4 of the Manual. Appendix C to this Guidance contains a generic checklist
for conducting an inspection of a facility with delisted waste, previously discussed in
Section lV(D). The inspector should proceed in a manner that allows for evaluation
and understanding of the relevant process and waste stream and determination of the
compliance status of the facility. Use of a checklist will help in this regard.
E. Specific inspectIon Guidelines Relating to Standard Exclusions
As already mentioned, compliance inspections of facilities with standard
exclusions may be complicated by: (1) the lack of specific recordkeeping
requirements, (2) limited information in the delisting file, and (3) the need to identify
significant changes in the waste generation process. Visual inspections alone will be
of limited utility in most cases -- waste-generating processes may have undergone
21
-------
9938 2B
slight modifications which can only be detected through record reviews and
discussions with facility representatives.
The inspector’s on-site activities should therefore be focused on the following:
• Identification of the delisted waste stream and relevant waste generating
process
• Determination of whether and how overall facility operations and the
specific waste-generating process have changed or been modified since
the exclusion was granted
• Determination of the volume of delisted waste being generated, through
visual inspection and review of facility output records
• Evaluation of the waste-generating process for evidence of new or
previously undisclosed waste constituents
• Performance of sampling where deemed appropriate (see below).
F. Specific Inspection Guidelines Relating to Conditional and Upfront
Exclusions
For facilities with conditional or upfront exclusions, the inspector’s on-site
activity should focus on the following:
• Identification of the delisted waste stream and the relevant waste
generating process
• Determination of whether and how overall facility operations and the
specific waste-generating process have changed or been modified since
the exclusion was granted
• Determination of the volume of delisted waste being generated
• Evaluation of the waste-generating process for evidence of new or
previously undisclosed waste constituents
• Inspection of records for evidence of proper and timely testing required
under terms of exclusion
• Performance of sampling as deemed appropriate (see below).
G. Sampling
An inspector may need to perform sampling during delisting compliance
inspections. In many cases, the need for such action will be recognized during the
22
-------
9938.2B
pre-inspectiOfl preparations. The inspector should assess the need for sampling
based on the type of exclusion granted to the facility and, once on-site, the availability
of waste data. In the case of certain standard exclusions, sampling may be needed
because of the limited information in the delisting file concerning the waste stream in
question. In cases of standard exclusions with waste output volume restrictions, and
conditional or upfront exclusions pursuant to which sampling is already required,
decisions to conduct sampling during inspections must be made by inspectors on a
case-by-case basis.
Sampling results can play an important, if not decisive, role in evaluating
whether a facility is operating in compliance with its exclusion. Reference should be
made to Section 4.4 of the Manual for more information concerning sampling in the
context of a CEI.
Should an inspector, during the site visit, detect any indication that a facility may
not be in compliance with its exclusion (e.g., due to process modifications and/or
alterations in materials used during the waste generating process), he or she should
try to identify the types and locations of samples that may need to be taken during any
follow-up inspections as part of case development. The inspector should note the
specific wastes to be sampled, the physical locations at which sampling should occur,
and other relevant information that would be helpful in developing a sampling plan.
H. Observations for Follow-Up Case Development
Inspectors should record in their notebooks any and all observations made
during the inspection. Observations of potentially non-complying conditions made by
inspectors during detistirig inspections (e.g., observed process changes and/or
alterations in materials used during the waste generating process) may ultimately lead
to an exclusion’s being revoked. In addition, if an inspection reveals that a facility may
have acted in bad faith or was handling hazardous waste as if it was non-hazardous,
the facility may be subject to a civil or criminal enforcement action.
Observations of potentially non-complying conditions may be recorded directly
on inspection checklists. In some cases, it may be appropriate for the inspector to
create a photographic record. In all cases, it is essential that observations that may
lead to or support further case development activities be accurately documented.
Documentation is discussed further in the Manual, Section 4.5.
I. Closing Discussion with Owner/Operator
An inspector should anticipate that facility officials will be anxious.to discuss the
findings. Negative findings could have dramatic economic consequences for a facility.
Therefore, a closing meeting or conference should be held for the purpose of asking
and answering questions, preparing necessary receipts for samples, providing
information about the delisting program and about RCRA in general, and making
arrangements to obtain data that may not have been available during the course of the
inspection. If the inspector feels that it is appropriate to do so, preliminary findings can
23
-------
9938.2 B
be briefly discussed. Section 4.6 of the Manual provides detailed guidance on how to
conduct closing discussions.
VI. POST-INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
The inspector’s primary responsibility after conducting the inspection is the
preparation of a report detailing all findings. The report must be organized in a
manner that allows the inspector, his or her supervisor, the Regional Delisting
Coordinator and, eventually, Headquarters staff to make maximum use of the
information. It is critical that the report be completed expeditiously, especially when
the inspector believes that grounds may exist for invalidating an exclusion. In such a
case, the overriding goal is to return the facility to RCRA Subtitle C compliance in the
shortest possible time. Section 5.1 of the Manual presents the general method of
reporting inspection findings and conclusions. An inspector should refer to that
Section but should comply with Regional or State procedures for preparing a report.
A. Report Elements
Although the specific information included in reports of delisted waste
inspections will vary depending on the exclusion type and the complexity of the
inspection, each report will contain at least three basic elements: checklists, narrative
information, and documentary support. Suspected violations must be documented
through the use of these elements. The checklist and documentary support elements
of the inspection report are generally described in Section 5.2 of the Manual. The
narrative portion of a delisting inspection report should, at a minimum, provide the
following information:
• An explanation of the nature of the facility’s operations
• A brief explanation of the facility’s waste generating process and the
delisted waste at issue
• Documentation of certain basicfacts, such as the type of exclusion, its
effective date, and any conditions placed on the exclusion, such as
waste output volume restrictions
• An indication of whether and how the generating process or the volume
of waste being generated has undergone any significant changes
• A presentation of evidence of new or previously undisclosed waste
constituents
• A thorough evaluation of sampling, testing, and recordkeeping practices
of the facility and their consistency with the terms of the exclusion
24
-------
9938.2 B
• A description of the results of sampling or split sampling conducted on-
site during the inspection, including a detailed description of how the
sampling was performed
• A summary of any evidence tending to support a determination that the
facility is not complying with its exclusion.
In essence, the narrative supports and explains findings presented in the inspection
checklists and elaborates on the documentary evidence. The narrative may include
recommendations for follow-up actions relating to the exclusion.
B. Follow-Up Discussions And Report Distribution
The original delisting compliance inspection report will be kept in the Region,
and a summary of inspection results should be sent to the RCRA Enforcement Division
contact person and the Delisting Section. In cases where non-compliance is
suspected and an exclusion may need to be amended or invalidated, a copy of the
inspection report should be submitted to the Delisting Section staff, who will contact
Regional enforcement staff if it is determined to be a problem.
During preparation of the inspection report and following its completion, the
inspector may need to brief, or discuss inspection results with, his or her supervisor.
the Office of Regional Counsel, and the Regional Delisting Coordinator. These
briefings are likely to cover a number of subjects, including the need for possible
exclusion revocation and/or enforcement action. The inspector may also be asked to
brief State personnel in cases where a facility is subject to both Federal and State
oversight.
C. Preparing Inspection Files
Procedures for preparing delisting inspection files do not differ significantly from
the general procedures outlined in the Manual, Section 5.3. Inspectors conducting
delisting inspections should refer to that section for general guidance on preparing
non-confidential inspection files, as well as confidential business information (CBI)
files. Because of an inspector’s need to become well-acquainted with the physical
plant and technical processes of a facility, he or she must be particularly sensitive to
possible claims that information to be inserted in the report is CBI.
The inspector should take care to organize his or her report, notes, and other
documentation into a form that can be easily reviewed; this wifl facilitate decision-
making regarding the need for exclusion revocation or enforcement actions. For
delisting inspections, inspection files will normally be sent to the Regional Delisting
Coordinator for review. That person will conduct an in-depth review of the file to
determine the adequacy of information, If additional information is needed, the
inspector will be asked to conduct a follow-up inspection.
25
-------
99382B
APPENDIX A
26
-------
9938.2B
Appendix A
SAMPLE LIST OF CONTENTS
FROM DELISTING FILE
This list a real life example of the contents of a file relating to a facility with delisted
waste. Each file maintained by the Delisting Section should have a comparable
master list.
Master List
Perox, Inc. (#0639)
1. A cover letter with petition attached was sent to Alan Corson and signed by
J.T. Harrsen, dated 8/17/80.
2. Additional information was sent to Myles Morse and signed by Satish
Wadhawan, dated 03/20/86.
3. A letter was sent to S. Wadhawan and signed by Jim Kent, acknowledging
receipt of their petition, dated 3/11/86.
4. A letter was sent to A. Dailey, EPA with additional information and signed by
S. Wadhawan, dated 7/2/86.
5. DPDMS Verification sheet, signed by C. Hughes, dated 9/1 2’86.
6. Phone log from Jenny Utz, SAIC, to Paul Habada, Perox, regarding additional
information needed, dated 11/13/86.
7. Phone log from Satish Wadhawan, Perox, to Carolyn Bosserman, SAIC,
regarding petition status, dated 1/20/87.
8. Phone log from Satish Wadhawan, Perox, to Carolyn Bosserman, SAIC.
regarding petition status, dated 3/1 9/87.
9. A letter was sent to Mr. Donald Kuschel and signed by Bruce Weddle explaining
the Agency is going to conduct a site visit, dated 4/24/87.
10. A letter was sent to S. Wadhawan and signed by Carolyn Bosserman, SAIC
requesting clarification of previously submitted data, dated 5i1 5/87.
11. A letter was sent to C. Bosserman and signed by S. Wadhawan answering her
previously addressed questions, dated 6/16/87.
12. A report entitled. Sampling Mission No. 4 prepared by ERCO Labs, dated July
1987.
13. A letter was sent to S. Wadhawan and signed by S. Bromm for Bruce Weddle
informing him of recent changes in procedures, dated 4/19/88.
27
-------
9938.2 B
Appendix A
14. Phone log from Carolyn Bosserman, SAIC, to Satish Wadhawan. Perox
regarding petition status, dated 4/19/88.
15. Phone log from Satish Wadhawan, Perox, to Carolyn Bosserman.
SAIC, regarding petition status, dated 4/20/88.
16. Phone log from Carolyn Bosserman, SAIC, to Satish Wadhawan, Perox,
regarding the alloy metal content of Steels, dated 7/14/88.
17. Phone log from Carolyn Bosserman, SAIC, to Satish Wadhawan, Perox.
regarding disposal of waste if exclusion is granted, dated 7/25/88.
18. Phone log from Sara Hartwell, SAIC, to John Schrader, Chester Laboratories.
regarding discrepancies between spot-check data and data submitted by
petitioner, dated 9/20/88 and 10/17/88.
28
-------
9c38 2B
APPENDIX B
29
-------
9938.2 B
Appendix B
Sample Petition for Delisting
Only excerpts have been included for purposes
of this manual.
USX CORPORATION
USS DIVISION
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE
FROM REGULATION 40 CFR PART 261
EMISSION-CONTROL DUST FROM THE
ELECTRIC-FURNACE PRODUCTION OF STEEL
30
-------
9938.2 B
Append B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PETITION - 40 CFR PARTS 260.20 THROUGH 260.22
PETITION FOR EMISSION-CONTROL DUST FROM THE ELECTRIC-
FURNACE PRODUCTION OF STEEL FROM U.S.X. CORPORATION
SOUTH, CHICAGO, PLANT OF GARY WORKS FROM REGULATION:
40 CFR, PART 261
SECTION A - PROCESS DESCRIPTION
SECTION B - PROPOSED REGULATORY LANGUAGE
SECTION C - TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
SECTION D - DESCRIPTION OF MANUFACTURING OPERATION AND EMISSION-
CONTROL SYSTEM
SECTION E - QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
31
-------
9938.2 B
Appendix B
PETITION TO AMEND 40 CFR 261 FOR EMISSION-CONTROL DUST
FROM U.S.X. CORPORATION SOUTH, CHICAGO, PLANT OF GARY WORKS
260.20 (b) (1) Petitioner’s Name and Address:
USX Corporation
USS Division
Southworks Plant, Gary Works
3426 E. 89th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60617
260.20 (b) (2) Statement of the Petitioner’s Interest In the Proposed
Action
USS Corporation (“USS” or “PETITIONER”) submits this Petition in
order to obtain a regulatory amendment, pursuant to 40 CFR Part
260.22 of the regulations of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA”), to exclude from the lists of hazardous
wastes of Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 260.22 of the regulations of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), to
exclude from the lists of hazardous wastes of Subpart D of 40 CFR
Part 261 the emission-control waste generated from the electric-
furnace production of steel (“EAF” waste) at USS’s South Chicago
Facility (“Gary Works”), which waste has been categorically
assigned the hazardous -waste number K061 (hazard code T).
Delisting of the residue resulting after treatment of the EAF waste
utilizing the CHEMFIX® process (as described herein) should
allow this waste to be managed as a non hazardous waste. The
information included in this petition is intended to support this
conclusion and to demonstrate the nonhazardous nature of the
CHEMFIX® treated waste residue.
Treatment of hazardous EAF waste utilizing the CHEMFIX®
process will substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste and
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from
the waste so that the risk of commingling hazardous waste with
wastes of other generators disposed at a commercial hazardous
waste disposal site will be substantially diminished.
32
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
260.20 (b) (3) DescrIption of the Proposed Action, Including
Suggested Regulatory Language:
Petitioner proposes to retain Chemfix Technologies, Inc. (“CTI”),
2424 Edenborn Avenue, Metairie, Louisiana 70001, to stabilize
the EAF waste produced at the Gary Works utilizing the
CHEMFIX® treatment process and associated processing
equipment described in Exhibit A .
Petitioner proposes to render EAF waste nonhazardous utilizing
the CHEMFIX® process and, upon exclusion from regulation as a
hazardous waste, to manage the treated material as a
nonhazardous residue.
Based upon data and information contained herein demonstrating
the non hazardous nature of the CHEMFIX® treated EAF waste
residue, Petitioner suggests specific regulatory language
amending 40 CFR Part 261 provided in Exhibit B .
260.20 (b) (4) Statement of the Need and Justification for the
Proposed Action, Including Supporting Tests, Studies,
or Other Information:
EPA in future regulations may require the pretreatment and/or
recycling of Petitioners EAF waste prior to disposal in a
hazardous waste landfill after August 1988. Petitioner may elect to
render EAF wastes nonhazardous, so long as Petitioner satisfies
state regulatory requirements necessary to obtain permits and
approvals needed to treat and dispose of the treated waste
residue as a solid waste. A prerequisite for issuance of these
permits is an approved Petition for Exclusion from Regulation as a
hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261. In view of the August
1988 regulatory deadline for pretreatment of EAF wastes,
Petitioners final plans for the treatment management (referenced
within 260.20 (b) (3) supra ) are, of course, contingent upon
33
-------
9938.2 B
Appendix B
expeditious approval of this Petition consistent with the regulatory
deadline.
Alternative disposal scenarios, such as hauling to a
hazardous waste facility, would substantially increase the
cost of managing the EAF waste and the hazardous waste
would have to be hauled through numerous communities to an
approved hazardous waste disposal facility. Incineration of the
hazardous waste is impractical because the constituents of
concern (hexavalent chromium, lead, and cadmium) are clearly
not destroyed by incineration. Furthermore, the substantial
amounts of residue resulting from incineration would itself require
management as a hazardous waste.
Perhaps most important, Petitioner believes that the approval of
this Petition is justified due to the immobilization during treatment
of the metals which caused the waste to be listed as hazardous in
the first place.
As described in detail below, Petitioner, after discussions
with EPA (by telephone and during meetings on October
9, 1987 and October 15, 1987), has evaluated all factors
(including additional constituents) for which the waste
was listed or could reasonably be considered to be
hazardous. Petitioner believes that it has demonstrated
through extensive analytical screening; Extraction
Procedure.for Toxicity (“EP”)test data for all EP toxic
metals; Multiple Extraction Procedure for Toxicity (“MEP”)
test data; test data on the four hazardous waste
characteristics; and additional test data including total oil
and grease, that the chemically stabilized treatment
residue does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics and does not contain any additional toxic
constituents at levels of regulatory concern.
34
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
260.22 (I) (1) Name and Address of the Laboratory Facilities
Performing the Sampling or Tests of the Waste:
The name and address of the laboratory performing sampling and
testing of the EAF waste are provided in Exhibit C .
260.22 (I) (2) Name and Qualifications of Personnel Sampling and
Testing Wastes:
The name and qualifications of personnel who sampled and
tested EAF waste are provided in Exhibit C .
260.22 (I) (4) Location of the Generating Facility:
USS’s “South Works” facility (which produces the EAF waste
made subject to this Petition) is located at 3426 E. 89th Street.
Chicago, Illinois 60617.
260.22 (i) (5) A Description of the Manufacturing Processes or Other
Operations and Feed Materials Producing the Waste
and an Assessment of Whether Such Processes,
Operations, or Feed Materials Can or Might Produce a
Waste Not Covered by the Demonstration:
A description of the manufacturing process which produces the
EAF waste subject to this Petition is provided in Exhibit D .
260.22 (I) (6) A Description of the Waste and an Estimate of the
Average and Maximum Monthly and Annual Quantities
of Waste Covered by the Demonstration:
The EAF waste dust generated from the electric-furnace operation
that is the subject of this demonstration is in the physical form of a
filter cake from the vacuum filter. (See Exhibit D , Figure 1.) The
dust collected by the several wet scrubbers becomes well mixed
as it passes through the clarifier and vacuum filter system, so that
a sample of the filter cake discharge taken at any given time
should be representative of the material emitted from the furnace
operations over a period of several hours. The waste is a reddish-
35
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
brown material composed primarily of oxides of iron, with lesser
quantities of the oxides of furnace additive materials and trace
metals in the scrap charge. The filter cake typically contains 35-45
percent water. The iron content is typically 20-40 percent iron on a
dry basis.
The estimated quantity of waste generated and disposed of, based
on data from 1981 through 1983, is as follows:
Monthly average - 995 tons
Monthly maximum - 1,843 tons
Annual average - 11,934 tons
Annual maximum - 20,926 tons
260.22 (i) (7) Pertinent Data on and Discussion of the Factors
Delineated In the Respective Criterion for Listing a
Hazardous Waste, Where the Demonstration is Based
on the Factors in 40 CFR Part 261.11 (a) (3):
EPA Hazardous Waste Code K061 is listed in 40 CFR Part 261
due to the presence of hexavalent chromium, lead, and cadmium.
Hexavalent chromium compounds can cause ulcers and
dermatitis on prolonged contact. Chromium is indicated to be a
human carcinogen because of the increased incidence of Jung
cancer among workers in the chromate producing industry. Lead
is a cumulative body poison. It is toxic by ingestion or by
inhalation of dust or fumes. Cadmium compounds are recognized
carcinogens of the connective tissue, lungs, and liver. In addition,
inhalation of cadmium fumes or dust primarily affects the
respiratory tract, resulting in pulmonary edema, while ingestion of
cadmium results in violent gastro-intestinal poisoning.
Only chromium, lead, and cadmium, are present in the
waste in significant concentrations (see Exhibit C) . Although
they are not subject to degradation, they are chemically
reactive and, therefore, immobilized within the CHEMFIX®
product by conversion to metal or hydrated metal silicates
36
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
and absorption into silicate matrices. Thus, though
chemically bonded constituents could be spilled onto the
ground or interred in a nonsecure landfill, the constituents would
be an inert, immobilized form, and not able to enter groundwater,
surface water, or the food chain. This is due, in addition to the
chemical structure, to the reserve alkalinity, low permeability, and
cation exchange capacity of the CHEMFIX® product.
However, emission-control waste from the electric-furnace
production of steel is categorically listed as a hazardous waste
only because of the assumed potential to leach significant
concentrations of chromium, lead, and cadmium. The results of
laboratory tests of representative samples of the specific waste
under consideration show these elements to be present.
However, as will be discussed in detail in a later section of this
Petition, only very small percentages of these elements or any of
the other listed toxic metals leach from the waste when subjected
to the EP Toxicity Test. The resufts of the EP Toxicity Tests, as
presented in a later section, show that for all samples tested the
leachate had concentrations of all toxic metals below the
maximum criteria as published in 261.24. On the basis of the test
results, there is no reason to believe that this waste material poses
a danger to health or the environment if mismanaged.
260.22 (I) (8) DescrIption of the Methodologies and Equipment Used
to Obtain the Representative Samples:
A complete Technical Assessment of the waste and the resultant
CHEMFIX® product from laboratory simulated and full-scale
treatment of the waste (showing the treated EAF waste residue to
be nonhazardous) is provided in Exhibit C . A proposed Quality
Assurance Program for the full-scale treatment of the waste, and a
proposed Quality Assurance Program for the full-scale filed
processing and treatment program (in the event that such a
program is required by the EPA) is provided in Exhibit E .
37
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
260.22 (I) (9) Description of the Sample Handling and Preparation
Techniques, Including Techniques Used for Extraction,
Containerization, and Preservation of the Samples:
Description of the sample handling and preparation techniques,
including techniques used for extraction, Containerization, and
preservation of the samples is provided in Exhibit C .
260.22 (I) (10) Description of Tests Performed (Including Results):
Description of tests performed (including results) is provided in
Exhibit C .
260.22 (i) (11) Names and Model Numbers of
Instruments Used In Performing
the Tests:
Names and model numbers of instruments used in performing the
tests are provided in Exhibit E .
260.22 (I) (12) Petitioner’s Certification Statement:
I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and
am familiar with the information submitted in this demonstration
and all attached documents, and that, based on my inquiry of
those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the
information, I believe that the submitted information is true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility
of fine and imprisonment.
Signature
Date
38
-------
EXHIBIT A
Table of Contents
I. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
II. OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
III. HIGH SOLIDS PROCESSING SYSTEM
39
9938.2 B
Appendix B
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
I. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The CHEMFIX® process is defined as a chemical fixation/stabilization
technology. This proprietary process, patented by Chemfix Technologies, Inc. (“CTI”),
stabilizes mobile constituents of concern within a waste by chemical reactions and
physical encapsulation. Depending upon the particular constituents of concern and
required leachate concentrations to be achieved, CII may add various proprietary
agents to the CHEMFIX® process in order to pretreat the EAF waste as required.
The CHEMFIX® process is based on the use of soluble silicates and silicate
setting agents. The combination and proportions of reagents are optimized for each
particular waste requinng treatment. The two part, inorganic chemical system reacts
with polyvalent metal ions, certain other waste components, and also with itself to
produce a chemically and physically stable solid material. The cross-linked, three
dimensional polymeric matrix displays properties of good stability, high melting point,
and a rigid, friable texture similar to that of a clay soil.
Three classes of interactions can be described. First are the rapid reactions
between soluble silicates and the polyvalent metal ions, producing insoluble metal
silicates. Second, are reactions between the soluble silicates and the reactive
components of the setting agent, producing a gel structure. Third, are hydrolysis,
hydration, and neutralization reactions between the setting agent and the waste and/or
water.
When first blended with a waste, the CHEMFIX® reagents disperse and
become dissolved throughout the aqueous phase. Reactions occur utilizing the
reagents, polyvalent cations in the waste, and some of the water. As a result of these
reactions, inorganic polymer chains from throughout the aqueous phase
and physically entrap the organic colloids within the micro-structure of the CHEMFIX®
product matrix. The pore diameters of this matrix are too small to permit any significant
migration of the organic colloids. Reactions involved in the CHEMFIX® process begin
immediately with addition of reagent and continue to completion regardless of the
placement conditions.
Within the CHEMFIX® process, the water soluble silicates are reacted with
complex cations in the presence of a siliceous setting agent. At least two general
types of reactions occur.
1. Amorphous, colloidal silicates. These silicates are extremely complex
and the chemical formulae will vary depending upon: (a) pH, (b)
availability and concentrations of cations, and (c) temperature. These
40
-------
9938. 2B
Appendix B
properties vary as the reactions proceed, thus, various silicates are
formed.
Silicate anions are in the form of double trigonal and tetragonal rings of
the (Si 6 0 15 )-6, (Si 8 0 20 )-8, and (Si 8 0 18 (OH) 2 )-6 compositions.
2. Si0 2 acts as a precipitating agent. The metallic precipitates generally,
are developed within the physical structure formed during the
precipitation of amorphous colloids. This seals the faces of those
particles, which makes them impermeable to water.
Most of the heavy metals contained in the waste become part of the complex
silicates with some of the heavy metals precipitating within the structure of the complex
molecules. However, a very small percentage (estimated to be less than one percent)
of the heavy metals precipitate between the complex silicates and are not chemically
immobilized.
Some organics may be larger particles than the colloids. During the
CHEMFIX® process treatment, all of the waste is pumped through processing
equipment which creates sufficient shear to emulsify such organic constituents.
Emulsified organics then are immobilized as described above.
This mixture is discharged to a prepared solidification area in which the gel
continues to set. Cementitious reactions create a solid which, though friable, encases
within its macrostructure organic substances which may have escaped emulsification.
Such substances are immobilized by the impermeability of the macrostructure.
Portions of the water contained in wastes which are treated by the CHEMFIX®
process are involved in three reactions:
1. Hydration similar to that of cement reactions.
2. Hydrolysis reactions.
3. Equilibration with the environment through evaporation.
There are no side streams or discharges resulting from the CHEMFIX® process.
During processing, all the waste is transferred to the reaction vessel wherein the
reagents immediately react to form a gel. This gel is then discharged to the receiving
area. Even at this early stage, the water in the CHEMFIX® product does not form a
separate phase. Some of the water becomes part of the solids, but most is physically
bound in the hydrophilic CHEMFIX® product. Although it can evaporate, it is not free
water.
41
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
II. OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
The CHEMFIX® process is able to operate over a wide range of
conditions and diverse waste types. Total solids, particle size, and pumpability
are all physical characteristics which are important in determining the treatability
of a waste. As a result of having a history of diverse jobs, several different
treatment units have been engineered and developed. The mobile
units are appropriate for on-site closure programs of short duration, or where frequent
equipment resistings are required. However these same units may be “skid mounted”
where on-going use of a permanent facility is anticipated.
Normal operational procedures require that low solids content wastes be
pumped through the process, whereas high solids content wastes are handled by
conveyors and other solids handling equipment. Reagent additions are adjusted to
suit the waste and to provide levels or treatment needed to achieve desired leachate
concentrations. A certain amount of water is required to activate the reagents. In
cases of insufficient moisture content a minimum amount of water must be added to
assure the required reactions go to completion.
The CHEMFIX® process can treat waste materials with varying particle size.
When required, a blender, grinder, or other material sizing system can be inserted at
the front of the process to reduce particles to acceptable sizes. The material can also
be passed through a screen system to remove untreatable and oversized debris.
Gil’s overall processing system includes dry and liquid reagent feeders, input
feeders, means of controlling and properly mixing these three inputs, and related
materials handling equipment. A prewetting chamber is available for the treatment of
dry solid wastes. A small lab trailer is also included with CTI’s processing system.
Small quality control trailers are provided on a job basis, as required.
The area occupied by the CHEMFIX® treatment system varies by project.
Overall work areas of 75 by 150 feet can accommodate all but the largest of projects.
Physically, the CHEMFIX® process converts waste matenals into a
soil-like solid with properties similar to a silty clay. The resultant CHEMFIX®
product has an unconfined compressive strength between 2,000 to 10,000 pounds per
square foot, and a permeability of 1.0 x 1 0-5 to 1.0 x 10-6 cm/sec. The CHEMFIX®
product also has a high residual Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC), allowing it to react
with the free metal ions contained in any liquid passing through the processed
material. This high CEC, combined with a high reserve alkalinity, forms the basis of
42
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
CTI’s patent for the improvement of landfill leachate through the application of
CHEMFIX® product as interim or daily cover.
In addition to being used for landfill cover material, the CHEMFIX® product may
be utilized for other end use applications including backfill and land reclamation,
erosion and subsidence control, and road base support.
III. HIGH SOLIDS PROCESSING SYSTEM
Because of its high solids content, normally EAF dust would be handled as a
solid throughout the CHEMFIX® process with a minimum of water addition. This
assumes the EAF dust is directly furnished to the treatment process and that the
treated material can be efficiently handled directly as it occurs via conveyors, trucks,
etc. These efficiencies can be outweighed by handling costs where the input materials
occur at locally distributed sites, or where the output matenals are to be placed into
multiple, small containments or into areas having insufficient foundation strength to
support heavy trucks. In these cases, conversion of the dust into a pumpable slurry
may be the preferable situation.
The typical high solids processing system consists of dry reagent silo and
feeder, liquid reagent tank and pumps, feed hopper, weigh feeder, control/
monitoring system and instrumentation, pugmill, and several conveyors.
Grinders, blenders, and homogenizers may also be used, depending on project
requirements. Key elements are the weigh feeder, which accurately measures the
amount of EAF dust to be treated and controls the addition of any makeup water
needed; and the pug mill in with the waste and the dry and liquid reagents are
thoroughly mixed.
Depending on the particular treatment situation, it may be advantageous to
premix part of the chemical additives with the EAF dust prior to introducing the
remaining dry and liquid reagents. Doing so will require introduction of a
blender/homogenizer prior to the conventional pugmill mixer.
43
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
EXHIBIT C
Table of Contents
I. ABSTRACT
II. SAMPLE COLLECTION
III. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
IV. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF UNTREATED
WASTE
V. CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHEMFIX® PRODUCT
VI. U.S. EPA-SPECIFIED EXTRACTION PROCEDURE FOR TOXICITY (EP)
RESULTS CHEMFIX® PRODUCT
VII. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHEMFIX®
PRODUCT
VIII. MULTIPLE EXTRACTION PROCEDURE CHEMFIX® PRODUCT
44
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
I. ABSTRACT
Chemfix Technologies, Inc. (“CTI”) presents, within this assessment, results of
analyses performed on the untreated and chemically stabilized residual material
(CHEMFIX® product) resulting from the treatment of USS’s listed Electric Arc Furnace
(“EAF”) waste.
The untreated waste was analyzed for the Priority Pollutant List of metals:
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc. The untreated waste contained high levels of
cadmium, hexavalerit chromium, and lead.
Samples of the resultant CHEMFIX® product from treatment of the waste were
prepared under laboratory conditions simulating field processing conditions. The
CHEMFIX® product is a chemically and physically stable solid with characteristics
similar to that of a clay soil. The results of the U.S. EPA-Specified Extraction
Procedure (“EP”) and the Multiple Extraction Procedure (“MEP”) are presented within
this assessment, which document the nonhazardous nature of the resultant
CHEMFIX® product.
II. SAMPLE COLLECTION
CTI used sixteen daily composite samples taken from the USS South Works
facility. One set of eight samples was gathered in July 1986 and one set of eight
samples was gathered in October and November of 1987.
The July samples were collected by USS employees between July 6, 1986 and
July 16, 1986. This sampling program included collecting ten random samples, two
liters in size, for each day of processing. The ten individual samples representing one
day of production were then sent to CTI at its laboratory in Kenner, Louisiana, where
the ten samples were composited.
The samples from the second sampling trip were collected by a CTI employee
at the USS South Works site. Eight random samples, taken one per hour were
composited to make one production day sample. The samples were stored in glass
jars with teflon caps and packed in an ice chest to ensure preservation of volatiles. At
the end of the sampling period, the ice chest was shipped to CTI’s laboratory under
proper chain of custody procedures. Each sample was labeled according to the date
that the sample was taken. Table 1 lists the dates of the daily composited samples.
45
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
Table 1
Daily ComDosite List
7/06 10/27
7/07 10/28
7/08 10/29
7/09 11/03
7/13 11/04
7/14 11/05
7/15 11/10
7/16 11/11
Figures 1 through 8 are included to demonstrate that there is little variation in
the daily steel product. The data in the graphs are the “ladle analysis” results
compiled daily by USS. The ladle analysis consists of the percent by weight of various
metals in the steel product on a daily basis.
It is CTI’s contention that since there is little variation in the steel product there
will be little variation in the resultant waste product. In general, the chemical test
results of the daily composites support the position.
Consequently, the CHEMFIX® process will be successful despite variations in
the waste.
46
-------
2.0 -
Chromium
Limits: 0.06% . 0.17%
9938.2B
Appendix B
% by Weight of Nickel from ‘ladle analysis
1.0
2.0
‘5
10
:5
5.
. —
,
,ø .. . . . . . .
.
1’ (7
Days 8 12 16
Figure 1
%
by Weight of Chromium from ‘ladle analysis’
4
.4
0
Nickel
LImits: 0.10%
. 0.30%
I
4
Days
8
Flgur• 2
.5
47
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
Table 2
Summary of Laboratory Analyses
of Untreated Waste
Parameters Type of Sample Methodology
Total Metals Concentration:
Antimony (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7041
Arsenic (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7060 (ref. 1)
Beryllium (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7091 (ref. 1)
Cadmium (mg/kg). Daily Composite 3050, 7130 (ref. 1)
Chromium (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7190 (ref. 1)
Copper (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7210 (ref. 1)
Lead Daily Composite 3050, 7420 (ref. 1)
Mercury (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7471 (ref. 1)
Nickel (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7520 (ref. 1)
Selenium (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7740 (ref. 1)
Silver (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7760 (ref. 1)
Thallium (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7841 (ref. 1)
Zinc (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3050, 7950 (ref. 1)
Total Cyanide (mg/kg) Daily Composite 9010 (ref. 1)
Hexavalent Chromium (mg/kg) Daily Composite 7196 (ref. 1)
Oil and Grease (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3-284 (ref. 2)
pH (S.U.) Daily Composite 9045 (ret. 1)
% Solids Daily Composite D2216 (ref. 2)
Density (g/mI) Daily Composite D71 (ref. 2)
ref. 1: “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes”, EPA SSW-846 1982.
ref. 2: ASTM Standards, 1984.
48
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
Table 3
Summary of Analyses CHEMFIX® Product
Parameters Type of Sample Methodology
Extraction Procedure Daily Composite 1310 (ref. 1)
Antimony (mg/I) Daily Composite 7041 (ref. 1)
Arsenic (mg/I) Daily Composite 7060 (ref. 1)
Beryllium (mg/I) Daily Composite 7091 (ref. 1)
Cadmium (mg/I) Daily Composite 7130 (ref. 1)
Chromium (mg/I) Daily Composite 7190 (ref. 1)
Copper (mg/I) Daily Composite 7210 (ref. 1)
Lead Daily Composite 7420 (ref. 1)
Mercury (mg/I) Daily Composite 7471 (ref. 1)
Nickel (mg/I) Daily Composite 7520 (ref. 1)
Selenium (mg/I) Daily Composite 7740 (ref. 1)
Silver (mg/I) Daily Composite 7760 (ref. 1)
Thallium (mg/I) Daily Composite 7841 (ref. 1)
Zinc (mg/I) Daily Composite 7950 (ref. 1)
Distilled Water Extraction Daily Composite 1310 (ref. 1)
Hexavalent Chromium (mg/I) Daily Composite 3060, 7196 (ref. 1)
Extractable Total Cyanide (mg/I) Daily Composite 9010 (ref. 1)
Oil and Grease (mg/kg) Daily Composite 3-284 (ref. 2)
Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/1 OOg) Daily Composite (ref. 3)
Total Alkalinity (mg/kg) Daily Composite D21 66 (ref. 4)
Permeability (cm/sec) at 20 C Daily Composite (ref. 3)
Unconfined Compressive Strength (lbs/ft 2 ) Daily Composite D2434 (ref. 4)
Reactivity Daily Composite 1210 (ref. 1)
Reactive Cyanide Daily Composite (ref. 5)
Reactive Sulfide Daily Composite (ref. 6)
Multiple Extraction Procedure Daily Composite 1310 (ref. 1)
Antimony (mg/I) Daily Composite 7041 (ref. 1)
Arsenic (mg/I) Daily Composite 7060 (ref. 1)
Beryllium (mg/I) Daily Composite 7091 (ref. 1)
Cadmium (mg/I) Daily Composite 7130 (ret. 1)
Chromium (mg/I) Daily Composite 7190 (ref. 1)
Copper (mg/I) Daily Composite 7210 (ref. 1)
Lead Daily Composite 7420 (ref. 1)
Mercury (mg/I) Daily Composite 7471 (ref. 1)
Nickel (mg/I) Daily Composite 7520 (ref. 1)
Selenium (mg/I) Daily Composite 7740 (ref. 1)
Silver (mg/I) Daily Composite 7760 (ref. 1)
Thallium (mg/I) Daily Composite 7841 (ref. 1)
Zinc (mg/I) Daily Composite 7950 (ref. 1)
49
-------
9938.26
Appendix B
ref. 1: “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes”, EPA SW-846 , 1982.
ref. 2: Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analyses of Sediment and Water
Samples”, EPA, 1981.
ref. 3: USDA Handbook #60, 1970.
ref. 4: Federal Register, Volume 49, #206, page 42591, October 23, 1984.
ref. 5: “Test Method to Determine Hydrogen Sulfide Released from Wastes”, EPA, July
12, 1985.
ref. 6: “Test Method to Determine Hydrogen Cyanide Released from Wastes”, EPA,
July 12, 1985.
50
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
IV. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF UNTREATED
WASTE
EAF waste is the emission control dust or sludge resulting from the primary
production of steel in electric furnaces. The hazardous nature of this material is due to
the high leachable concentrations of cadmium, hexavalent chromium and lead.
The raw material from the daily composite was tested for the Pnority Pollutant
List metals as well as hexavalent chromium, total cyanide and oil and grease. Tables
4 through 7 of this Exhibit tabulate the results for all the physical and chemical
characteristics.
Samples reviewed prior to this report contained total concentration levels of
cadmium ranging from 149 mg/kg to 336 mg/kg. The hexavalent chromium total
concentration levels ranged from 36.2 mg/kg to 74.2 mg/kg. The lead concentration
levels ranged from 6,040 mg/kg to 14,600 mg/kg. The total concentration levels for the
other metals analyzed were not significant in all the samples.
51
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
Table 4
Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of Untreated Waste
Daily Composites
Physical
Characteristics ZLZ
pH(S.U.) 11.6 11.2 11.3 11.1
% Solids (%) 60.5 58.2 57.0 56.9
Density (g/ml) 1 .80 1 .81 1.80 1 .83
Chemical
Constituents
Antimony <10 <10 10 <10
Arsenic 12 9 14 16
Beryllium <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Cadmium 253 172 166 149
Chromium 1,260 1,070 1,010 1,020
Copper 780 730 720 740
Lead 6,040 6,060 6,920 6,630
Mercury 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Nickel 93 103 103 77
Selenium <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Silver 23 24 24 23
Thallium <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Zinc 32,000 32,000 36,800 31,600
Hexavalent Chromium* 44.9 38.9 42.4 68.1
Total Cyanide 0.81 0.37 0.37 0.40
Oil& Grease 1,050 840 930 1,170
* Alkaline Digest
Metals concentration given in milligrams per kilogram.
52
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
Table 5
Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of Untreated Waste
Daily Composites
Physical
Characteristics 7114 7It 711
pI-i(S.U.) 11.5 11.3 11.3 11.3
% Solids (%) 57.6 64.3 59.1 58.6
Density (g/ml) 1.80 1.83 1.81 1.81
Chemical
Constituents
Antimony 10 10 10 10
Arsenic 12 18 14 18
Beryllium <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Cadmium 149 164 187 178
Chromium 1,020 1,870 1,420 1,120
Copper 810 770 830 740
Lead 6,830 8,110 8,240 7,290
Mercury 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Nickel 174 344 267 153
Selenium <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Silver 25 27 27 27
Thallium <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Zinc 34,400 45,200 45,200 56,800
Hexavalent Chromium 44.5 52.0 61.5 64.3
Total Cyanide 0.38 0.40 0.34 0.27
OiI& Grease 620 640 860 790
* Alkaline Digest
Metals concentration given in milligrams per kilogram.
53
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
Table 6
Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of Untreated Waste
Daily Composites
Physical
Characteristics 10/27 10/28 1 O12 11/3
pH (S.U.) 9.9 9.8 10.1 11.2
% Solids (%) 75.4 75.4 75.4 68.6
Density (g/ml) 2.40 2.41 2.40 2.15
Chemical
Constituents
Antimony 10 10 10 20
Arsenic 30 36 36 30
Beryllium <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Cadmium 281 308 269 232
Chromium 3,160 2,910 2,750 1,880
Copper 3,060 3,220 2,590 1,960
Lead 13,900 14,600 12,900 10,200
Mercury 0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1
Nickel 336 349 334
Selenium <2.0 <2.0 3.2 <2.0
Silver 45 53 50 45
Thallium <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Zinc 71,600 62,800 52,400 68,400
Hexavalent Chromium* 53.2 74.2 68.8 36.2
Total Cyanide 0.26 0.27 0.56 0.38
Oil&Grease 640 610 680 570
* Alkaline Digest
Metals concentration given in milligrams per kilogram.
54
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
Table 7
Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of Untreated Waste
Daily Composites
Physical
Characteristics 11/4 11/5 11/10 11/11
pH (S.U.) 10.7 10.3 10.7 11.0
% Solids (%) 70.5 72.9 68.6 66.8
Density (g/ml) 2.25 2.35 2.07 2.06
Chemical
Constituents
Antimony 40 12 10 15
Arsenic 28 28 32 21
Beryllium <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Cadmium 336 208 206 187
Chromium 1,970 2,280 1,730 1,660
Copper 2,450 2,042 1,670 1,450
Lead 9,670 8,820 10,900 11,700
Mercury <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1
Nickel 398 304 332 422
Selenium 4.8 2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Silver 35 34 33 33
Thallium <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Zinc 52,800 73,600 68,400 67,600
Hexavalent Chromium* 70.4 64.6 44.3 45.7
Total Cyanide 0.37 0.37 0.30 0.30
Oil&Grease 790 600 1,290 1,170
* Alkaline Digest
Metals concentration given in milligrams per kilogram.
55
-------
9938.28
Appendix B
EXHIBIT D
A DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES OR OTHVR
OPERATIONS AND FEED MATERIALS PRODUCING THE WASTE : r D AN
ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER SUCH PROCESSES, OPERATIONS, OR FEED
MATERIALS CAN OR MIGHT PRODUCE A WASTE THAT IS NOT COVERED BY THE
DEMONSTRATION
56
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
EXHIBIT D
Table of Contents
I. MANUFACTURING OPERATION
II. EMISSION-CONTROL SYSTEM
III. FIGURE 1
(SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM)
S. 57
-------
9938.2 B
Appendix B
I. MANUFACTURING OPERATION
A schematic diagram of the facilities at the South Works plant Electric Furnace
Shop is shown in Figure 1. The shop contains three electric-arc furnaces, which
produce predominantly carbon steel and some alloy grades of steel to be
subsequently rolled in the South plant and Gary Works rolling mills. There is also an
Argon-Oxygen Decarburization (“AOD”) vessel in the shop, which is operated only
very infrequently for further refining of special grades of steel product.
Two of the electric furnaces (No. 411 and 412) have capacities of approximately
200 tons per heat and the third furnace (No. 435) has a 100-ton capacity. The 100-ton
furnace is operated only during periods of maximum production demand. These
furnaces, which are the conventional electric-arc type, are shallow steel cylindrical
vessels lined with refractory brick. The domed roof can be lifted and swung aside to
accommodate top charging of the metal scrap raw materials. Three graphite
electrodes can be extended through holes in the furnace roof to conduct the electric
current used for melting and refining. The furnace is mounted on rockers so that it can
be tilted to drain out the molten steel upon completion of a heat. A description of a
typical cycle to produce a batch heat of molten steel from a charge of scrap is as
follows.
A weight of scrap from stockpiles of identified grades is selected to give
the desired chemical properties in the finished steel. The electrodes are
raised, the furnace roof is swung aside, and the scrap is emptied into the
furnace from an overhead crane bucket. Flux material, predominantly lime, is
also charged to the furnace to provide the necessary reactions for removal of
impurities from the scrap. Upon completion of the charging, the furnace roof is set in
place, the electrodes are lowered into the furnace, and the power is turned on. The
heat resulting from the arcing between the electrodes and charge eventually melts the
metal. This process may be aided by the addition of oxygen into the furnace through a
lance. Upon completion of a heat, the power is turned off, the electrodes raised, and
the furnace is tilted to tap the molten steel product into a ladle. Any necessary alloys to
adjust to the final desired analysis are added either in the ladle or in the furnace prior
to tapping. Coke is also sometimes added for adjustment of the carbon content. A
batch heat time from charge to tap is normally about four hours.
The following is a list of the materials charged to the South plant electric
furnaces and the quantities in tons for the year 1983 to produce approximately
58
-------
9938.2 B
Appendix B
770,000 tons of steel. The general type of steel produced in 1983 is typical of that
expected to be produced at this facility for the foreseeable future.
1983
Raw Amount
Material ( tons )
Scrap -
Iron scrap - (Broken cast iron ingot molds 40,229
and stools, and spilled iron from Gary
blast furnaces.)
Ordinary steel scrap - (Plates, beams, etc. 341 ,282
from demolition of structures, purchased
from scrap dealers.)
Structural steel scrap - (Recycle scrap from 90,257
plant’s own structural rolling mill.)
Basic-oxygen-furnace pit scrap - (spillings, 317,592
etc. from Gary Works basic-oxygen furnace
operations and steel contained in slag from
these operations.)
Turnings - (Waste metal generated at Gary 13,776
Works and South plant machine shops.)
Roll scale - (Iron oxide dredgings from scale 2,855
pits in South plant’s rolling mills - used
experimentally in 1983.)
Nickel-bearing scrap - (used to adjust nickel 1,557
content of certain products.)
No. 2 bundle scrap - (Compressed blocks of 6,308
scrap materials purchased from scrap dealers.)
No. 1 heavy metal scrap - (Compressed blocks of 80,954
higher quality than No. 2 bundles above, also
purchased from scrap dealers.)
Copper armatures - (Added only occasionally for 57
copper adjustment to certain products.)
Flex Materials -
Dolo Lime 3,509
Burnt Lime 24,899
59
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
1983
Raw Amount
Material ____
Alloying Additions -
Copper 80.9
Manganese 1,151.1
Chromium 363.4
Silicon 117.1
Molybdenum 30.0
Vanadium 214.1
Columbian 0.8
Titanium 0.3
Nickel 69.2
Aluminum 194.1
Other-
Coke 5,993.6
Graphite 14.4
Phosphorus 3.8
60
-------
9938.2 B
Appendix B
U. EMISSION-CONTROL SYSTEM
As shown schematically in attached Figure 1, each of the three furnaces is
provided with a direct furnace offtake system for capture of the primary air emissions
and with an overhead canopy hood for capture of secondary fugitive emissions. The
primary emissions from each furnace are cleaned by wet scrubbers. The secondary
emissions from the canopies over the 200-ton furnaces are also cleaned by wet
scrubbers. The secondary emissions from the canopy over the 100-ton furnace are
cleaned by a baghouse (dry system).
The wastewater from the wet scrubbers is partially recycled and a blowdown
stream is passed through a thickener for removal of the suspended solids. The
overflow from the thickener is sent to the plant’s central wastewater-treatment system.
The underi lows from the thickener and the Central Treatment Plant are dewatered by
vacuum filtration and the resulting filter cake is the waste for which a delisting from the
hazardous classification K061 is being requested. This material is currently trucked to
USS’s Gary Works for disposal. The filtrate from the vacuum filter is returned to the
thickener.
For the foreseeable future, it is expected that the South plant electric-furnace
shop will produce basically the same general types of carbon steel grades and use the
same general types of process and raw materials as during the sampling period.
Therefore, it is not expected that a waste will be generated that is not covered by this
demonstration.
61
-------
To Fan
and Stack
I
Canopy
Hood
To Fans ê. Stacks
kecycle
To ilant
Central
Treatment
System
Scrtdahers
Col Ict ted
SlUdije
( L lecte.I
I)ry Oust
Schematic DAaqram of Environmental Co,,trol System
at S. Steel South Works Electric-Furnace Shop
>
-o
(b 0
Xj )
ww
4
Canopy
flood
S . i ubbe r
Canopy
flood
cruihIier
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
EXHIBITE
Table of Contents
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION
A. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CTI’S FIELD LABORATORY
B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE CHEMIST
C. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER
D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHIEF OF APPLIED
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY
III. TESTING PRIOR TO PROCESSING
A. OPTIMUM RATIO
IV. TESTING DURING PROCESSING
A. REAGENT RATIO MONITORING
B. CHEMFIX® PRODUCT SAMPLING
C. TEST METHODS
1. Percent Solids Determination
2. U.S. EPA-Specified Extraction Procedure
for Toxicity (EP)
3. Leachate Evaluation
V. LOT ISOLATION AND IDENTIFICATION
VI. CONTINGENCY PROGRAM
A. TESTING CRITERIA
B. ACTION PLAN
63
-------
9938.2 B
Appendix B
I. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
The objective of Chemfix Technologies, Inc.’s (CTI) Quality Assurance program
is to demonstrate that the CHEMFIX® product produced under field conditions does
not vary outside the chemical and physical properties represented within the Petition
for exclusion. The following parameters will be utilized to demonstrate program
compliance.
Reagent feed rates and mixing ratios will be monitored continually to assure
consistent treatment and that the CHEMFIX® product does not vary outside the limits
represented within current demonstration samples. During active processing, one
grab sample of the CHEMFIX® product will be taken each hour as it is pumped to the
solidification area from the process unit. At the end of each processing day, the hourly
grab samples will be composited and EP toxicity tests will be run on the composite
sample. If constituents of concern exceed the project criteria, the CHEMFIX® product
in question will be removed and either retreated or further managed as a hazardous
waste. In addition, the CHEMFIX® product will be maintained within the solidification
area to assure that the CHEMFIX® product generated during each production will be
identifiable and retrievable.
The CHEMFIX® treatment operation will be confined within suitable
containments. Primary among these containments will be a concrete slab With
impervious underliner. Materials falling onto the slab area, including rainwater and
washdown water, will drain into a holding tank and will subsequently be pumped back
into the waste treatment stream (or passed through a certified water purification
system). At the end of each processing day, all equipment directly involved with the
treatment stream will be flushed to prevent any waste or treated material from
remaining in the system.
The containment system will include sufficient berm walls to contain with excess
freeboard, the largest spill deemed possible.
The CHEMFIX® treatment allows the proper control of all forms of air pollution,
including dusts and odors. The process used is a closed one where little potential
exists for dust and odors associated with the waste to be allowed to escape. As
appropriate, individual pieces of equipment can be shrouded to further reduce any
such emissions.
To control potential dust problems with the dry reagent, a closed hopper system
and process mixing system is used. In addition, a negative pressure suction system is
often used at the point where the reagent is introduced into the process mixer. This
64
-------
- 9938.2B
Appendix B
can also be supplemented in very dry situations with mixing water sprays to trap the
dry materials.
A baghouse dust collection system is always employed with the dry reagent
silo. This collector is a sealed steel container with inlet and outlet air connections
which traps dust raised during the transfer of dry reagents from supply trucks to be
stationary reagent hoppers. Dust collected on the enclosed bags is subsequently
returned to the hopper and consumed during the treatment process.
II. QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION
Chief of Applied Environmental Chemistry
Environmental Assessments Group, CTI
Quality Assurance Chemist Quality Control Manager
Field Laboratory CTI, Louisiana
A. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CTI’S FIELD LABORATORY
The CTI Field Laboratory, which will be located on-site during the project, will
perform the analyses required by the daily testing and quality control programs. This
facility will have complete capabilities to perform all of the following procedures during
the project: Solids measurement (moisture balance method), Extraction Procedure
(SW-846 method incorporating automatic pH controllers, pressure filtration and
impeller mixing), and metals analyses (SW-846 method using atomic absorption
spectrophotometry for cadmium, chromium, and lead). It is the responsibility of the
Field Laboratory to maintain the necessary capabilities, to perform all analyses in
accordance to U.S. EPA-acceptable procedures, and to keep proper records. The
Field Laboratory will be the responsibility of the on-site Quality Assurance Chemist.
B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE CHEMIST
The Quality Assurance Chemist is responsible for overseeing that the hourly
samples are taken properly and that the daily composite is accurate, properly blended,
and properly sized. He is responsible for documenting to the Quality Control Manager
at CTI headquarters that the daily testing laboratory has accurately carried out its part
of the Quality Control Program. He will have backup capability established with a local
65
-------
9938.2B
Appendix B
laboratory to perform tests should the Field Laboratory become disabled. The Quality
Assurance Chemist is responsible for the maintenance of three concurrent log books:
the Project Log, the Contingency Enactment Log, and the Equipment Maintenance
Log. He will be responsible for splitting the daily composite and preparing the
spiked EP extract on every fifth production day and preparing representative split
samples and spikes.
C. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER
The Quality Control Manager is responsible for implementing and maintaining
the Quality Control Program. Responsibilities include preparation of quality control
blind samples which will be analyzed by the Field Laboratory and CTI’s Laboratory.
He will maintain a permanent record of all quality control information and reports
generated throughout the project. At the completion of the project, the Quality Control
Manager will issue a final report to the Chief of Applied Environmental Chemistry to
document that all objectives of the project have been met.
0. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHIEF OF APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL
CHEMISTRY
The Chief of Applied Environmental Chemistry is ultimately responsible for
documenting that the Quality Assurance Program objectives have been accomplished.
The Chief of Applied Environmental Chemistry will be responsible for maintaining the
three concurrent log books from the field, in addition to his own quality control records.
His responsibilities will include submittal of the final Quality Assurance report, which
will contain all information concerning the project, appropriate to documenting that the
Quality Assurance Program objectives have been accomplished.
66
-------
9938.2B
APPENDIX C
67
-------
9938.2B
Appendix C
Pre-Inspectlon Checklist
This Pre-lnspection Checklist is intended to supplement the standard RCRA inspection
checklist and worksheet, found in the RCRA Inspection Manual , in preparation for
conducting inspections of facilities with delisted waste. It is intended only to serve as a
guide for inspectors, and should help facilitate comprehensive and efficient
evaluations of delisted facility operations, processes, and wastes.
___ Obtain delisting file
___ Confirm facility address and names, titles, and telephone numbers of facility
representatives
___ Identify type of exclusion received by facility (conditional; standard; up-front)
___ Review waste and waste management history information
___ Review waste generating process and management information
___ Review information on constituents of particular concern at time petition was
originally reviewed by Delisting Section staff
____ Identify grounds for exclusion (e.g., waste constituents deemed below “health-
based” levels)
___ Review information concerning waste analysis and sampling performed in
connection with original filing of petition
___ Review any ground-water monitoring information
____ Identify any conditions of delisting, (e.g., sampling requirements, requirements
for documentation of process changes, etc.)
___ Contact all appropriate EPA and State staff and local agencies for information
about facility
___ Meet with Regional Delisting Coordinator/Supervisor
____ Obtain information regarding facility’s administrative or enforcement status
____ Review all available post-exclusion testing results
___ Ensure availability of detailed map of facility layout
68
-------
9938.2B
Appendix C
Decisions To Be Made Prior to Inspection
___ Determine whether facility should be notified in advance of inspection
— Notify facility in advance of inspection, if appropriate
— Make initial determination as to whether meeting with facility representatives
should be held prior to tour of facility
___ Prepare list of facility records to be reviewed on-site
___ Determine which operations, processes, and wastes need to be examined
Decide whether sampling must be done as part of inspection
___ Identify all equipment needed for inspection and ensure availability on-site
___ Arrange for possible split sampling
___ Decide whether coordination with other agencies is needed
69
-------
99382B
Appendix C
Checklist for Inspection of Facilities with Delisted Wasi
This Checklist for Inspection of Facilities with Delisted Waste is solely intended as a
supplement to the General Facility Checklist contained in the RCRA Inspection
Manual . An inspector will want to develop a specific checklist for each facility to be
inspected but should incorporate all or most of the steps below into any inspection
Opening meeting with owner/facility manager/other representatives
Identify all facility staff necessary to contact
Meet with all appropriate facility staff
Identify delisted waste stream and relevant waste generating process
Identify whether facility operations and the waste-generating process have
been modified since exclusion was granted
— Determine volume of delisted waste generated, through visual inspection and
review of facility output records
Determine whether delisted waste contains any new constitutents and. if so.
identify
— Reconcile observations of, and records of, waste generating process with
information in petition file
— Obtain answers to all questions pertaining to waste stream and waste
management activities
Identify all required records. including test results and sampling information
— Issue receipts for samples collected
— Provide splits of any samples taken
Closing discussion with owner/facility manager/other representatives
70
-------
9938.2 B
APPENDIX D
71
-------
9938.2B
Appendix 0
List of Regional Delisting Contacts
Region Address Name Telephone
1 John F. Kennedy Building Stephen Yee (617) 573-1644
Waste Management Branch
(HRL-CAN2)
Boston, MA 02203
2 26 Federal Plaza John Gorman (212) 264-9631
2AWM-HWF Room 1043 Andy Bellina (212) 264-0505
New York, NY 10278
3 841 Chestnut Street David Friedman (215) 597-2863
Waste Management Branch Robert Allen (215) 597-0980
(3HW34)
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(404) 347-3433
4 345 Courtland Street, NE Doug McCurry (WES) (404) 347-3016
Atlanta, GA 30365 James Scarbrough (4WD RCRA)
5 230 South Dearborn Street Allen Debus (312) 353-6186
Solid Waste Branch Gordon Garcia (RCRA) (312) 353-8097
Chicago, IL 60604
6 1445 Ross Avenue Guy Tidmore (214) 655-6480
Hazardous Waste Programs Rena McClurg (214) 655-6480
Branch (6H-CX)
Dallas, TX 75202
7 726 Minnesota Avenue Chet McLaughlin (913) 551-2852
RCRA Branch FTS (913) 276-2852
Kansas City, KS 66101
Mike Sanderson (913) 551-2930
FTS (913) 276-2930
8 One Denver Place Debbie Scherer (303) 293-1642
Suite 1300 Terry Anderson (303) 293-1790
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
9 75 Hawthorne Street Rich Vaille (415) 744-81 19
Waste Management Program
San Francisco, CA 94105
10 1200 6th Avenue Betty Weise (206) 442-2808
Waste Management Branch Michael F. Gearheard (206) 442-2782
Mail Stop 533
Seattle, WA 98101 72
* U.S. G.P.O. :1992-311—893:60313
------- |