United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-R-97-004B
Environmental Protection Emergency Response December 1996
Agency (OS-343)
<* c D A RCRA Permit Policy
sxtrA
Compendium
Volume 2
9420.1980-9441.1984
Hazardous Waste Management
System (Part 260)
• General
• Definitions
• Petitions
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste (Part 261)
• General
ATK1/3590/03 kg
-------
DISCLAIMER
The compilation of documents in this Compendium, as well
as the policies, procedures and interpretations outlined
in the documents themselves, is intended solely for the
guidance of employees of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This compilation may not include all
documents discussing Agency views on particular subjects.
In addition, these documents are not intended and cannot
be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with
the United States. The views expressed in these
documents do not necessarily reflect the current position
of the Agency, and EPA reserves the right to act at
variance with these views or to change them at any time
without public notice.
-------
General OSW Policy And Procedures
-------
9420 - RESERVED
ATKl/l 104/12 kp
-------
Hazardous Waste Management
System (Part 260)
ve>
•u
u>
o
-------
9431 - GENERAL
Part 260 Subpart A
ATKl/1104/2kp
-------
9431.1984(01)
PERMIT POLICY Q & A REPORT
DEFINITION OF UPPERMOST AQUIFER
SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
PERMIT POLICY CUfJSTION t ASS"..T.S
CCARTSPLY REPORT
C-rc-u^c-«ater Protection Standard*
1. Ouestion: Do tho dofinitions of "uppermost aquifer* and
"aquifer* include the top nost saturated clay layer even though
t.'ut stratum is net used as a grounrtvater resource? 40 CFR 260.1C.
Answer: The 26 July 1932 pr*anbl*i suggests that "aignificant
yield* of groundvatcr is fidtemined on a caae by case basl_«,
dopondinrj on site specific factors. Significant yield in the
Southwest is likely to be a much lo«er quantity than significant
yiol-J in the Kast. In addition/ the flaw fro* • nunb«r of well
systens c^n te totaled in order to reach the lovel of significance.
Thus, if the saturated, clay layer can produce a significant yeild
of ground-water frcn a single well or fron a combination of
wells, then that layer oay rwet the riofinition ct an aquifer.
If tnat layer is also the formation nearest to the natural ground
surface or is hydraulically interconnected to much a surface.
it r.cecs the cefTniticn of uppermost aquifer. ^431 O
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9431.1987(01)
JUNE 87
A. RCRA PROGRAM
1. '.s'aste Minimization Requirgnents
What is the basis for waste ra.rj_T.izati.Dn arc what is required?
In the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) rD the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 'Section 3002), Congress
stated that as a ratter of national policy, the generation of hazardous
waste should be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible.
Waste that is nevertheless generated should be treated, stored or
disposed of so as to minimize the present and future threat to hurar.
health and the environment.
HSWA required that generators of a hazardous waste submit a biennial
report to the Regional Administrator which would include: 1) efforts
undertaken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste
generated, and 2) the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually
achieved during the year in corparison with previous years (Section
3002(a)(6)(A-C). Effective September 1, 1985, generators had to use a
manifest containing a certification by the generator that he had a
program in place to reduce the volune or quantity and toxicity of
hazardous waste to the degree determined by the generator to be
economically practicable. The program must include a practicable
method currently available to the generator which minimize the present
and future threat to hunan health and the environment. Also effective
September 1, 1985, any permit issued 'under Section 3004 of the Solii
Waste Disposal Act for the 'treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous
waste must require that the permittee certify no less often than
annually that he has a program in place to reduce the volume and
toxicity of hazardous waste that he generates to the degree detenrar.ec
by the permittee to be economically practicable. The permittee's
proposed method of treatment, storage or disposal must include a
practicable method currently available to him which minimizes the
present and future threat to human health and the environment.
The term "'waste minimization" has been defined differently by different
organizations. The U.S. EPk, in its October 1986 Report to Congress or.
the minimization of hazardous waste, defined waste minimizaton as:
"The reduction, to the extent feasible, of hazardous waste that
is generated or subsequently treated, stored, or disposed of.
It includes any source reduction or recycling activity undertaken
by a generator that results in either: (1) the reduction of total
volume or quantity of hazardous waste or (2) the reduction of
toxicity of hazardous waste, or both, so long as the reduction is
consistent with the goal of minimizing present and future threats
to human health and the environment. Waste minimization does not
include treatment of hazardous waste."
Source: Elaine Eby (202) 475-7237
Research: Carla A. Rellergert
-2-
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9431.1987(02)
JUNE 87
?. rpA Waste MiPJJTJ.nation Prograr Activities
What is EPA currently doing in the area of waste rrd.iLTd.zat.ion?
~ir the Dasi twc /ears, the Cffire of Solid Waste has ;>ser. ^ r". ivelv
..-•.'clveo in the area of waste r.ir.irMzati:r.. In a 1956 report tc
:—.::ress re-quired under Section 30C2(r) of RCKA, £?A stated that
incentives for waste minimization are strong and growing. Since
data was scarce on existing waste minimization programs, EP^
stated that it would report back to Congress in 1990 on the need
for "cern.anc and control" regulations for -waste minimization.
Under Section 6002(r) Congress had asked EPA to look at desirability
and feasibility of "ccnrand and control" regulations.
As it is presently structured, the Agency's 'waste minimization
program has two principle objectives: (1) evaluate the need for
regulations for waste minimization and present this evaluation
along with appropriate recomendatior.s in a report to Congress in
1990, and (2) foster the use of 'waste minimization through technology
transfer and information dissemination activities. In order to
achieve these goals, CSV developed its 1987 and 1988 Fiscal Year
programs to focus on gathering inforrretion and data to determine
waste minimization trends and to develop information dissemination
and technology transfer activities.
Presently, OSW activities include:
(1) Revising the requirement for a narrative statement for waste
rM.iinuzation in biennial reports. The current format consists
of a "blank page" with instructions to provide a "narrative
description" of 'waste minimization activities. The revised
biennial report will consist of yes/no questions which will
indicate generators' awareness of 'waste rru.ni.Tj.zation, specific
questions about waste minimization techniques, and volume of
tc-xicity of data.
(2) Initiating a corputerized data and information retrieval
system for waste minimization.
(3) Developing waste minimization policy statements which will be
non-binding and reflect EPA's ideas on what does and does not
constitute waste minimization.
(4) Co-Sponsoring two meetings "National Roundtable of State
Waste Reduction Programs" and Vfoods Hole III "Waste Minimization
- The Hurdles Ahead".
-3-
-------
9431.1987(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MOHTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 87
Laboratory Audit Inspection
'.tfiat is the Laboratory Audit Inspection (LAI) Program?
he Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires the owner/
operator of a surface impoundment , landfill or land treatment unit that
is used to manage hazardous waste to implement a ground water monitoring
program capable of determining a facility's impact on the uppermost
aquifer. 'The Environmental Protection Agency has developed guidance
titled, RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Coojnent (TEGD), which details the technical aspects of ground-water
rrordtoring system design and operation deemed important by the Agency to
assist a ground water monitoring system to meet the goals of the RCRA
program. Once it has been established that the owner/operator has
aieq--ately designed and constructed the ground water monitoring water
sys-,^is and that these systems are providing representative ground-water
sarples, EPA must confirm that these samples are being properly analyzed.
The Office of Waste Program Enforcement (OWPE), RCRA Enforcement Division,
is developing a RCRA Laboratory Audit Inspection (LAI) program. The
goal of the inspection program is to enable the owner /opera tor to
determine whether the laboratory that the owner/operator is using for
ground water sample analyses is properly equipped, maintained, and
staffed, and whether samples are properly logged and tracked throughout
the laboratory.
This inspection does not constitute a laboratory certification "or
purposes of the RCRA program. i,_ is sinply designed ,o confirm'^ we
laboratory is capable of performing quality analysis work for^he owner*
operators ground-water monitoring program. '
Source: .Ved Pryor (202) 475-7033
Research: Caroline Danek
-------
9431.1988(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 88
1 . Definition of Used Oil
Number 2 fuel oil is used to clean air filters and then is
burned for energy recovery. Is "used oil" subject to the
regulations of 40 CFR 266, Subpart E? If the substance used
for cleaning the air filters was gasoline, and then was
burned for energy recovery, would it be considered "used
oil"?
Currently, there is no more specific definition of
"used oil" than that found in RCRA Section 1004 and in
40 CFR 266.40(b). When the "used oil" technical
standards are proposed, a more specific definition of
"used oil" will be included in that proposal. EPA's
current position is oil that has been refined from
crude oil, used as a lubricating hydraulic or heat
transfer fluid, and has become contaminated through
use, is a "used oil." Petroleum distillates which have
been used only as cleaning agents, or only for their
solvent properties, would not be regulated as "used
oil" when burned for energy recovery or recycled in
some other manner. It is important to note that "used
oil" does not need to be a solid waste per Section
261.2 in order to be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C,
because the authority to regulate "used oil" is found
in Section 3014 of RCRA.
Source: Dave Tompton (202) 382-2550
Research: Becky Cuthbertson
-------
M oj
J . Disposal of Mixea r. d£ xoact ive a r, J r. azpraous ria^;.;:
A generator of a mixed radioactive and hazardous waste,
which is a listed hazardous waste with a pH below 2,
disposes of it on-site in a land disposal unit. The
disposal began in early 1986 and ended in the summer of
1987. The owner never submitted a Part A or Part B permit
application. The State in which the facility is located
became authorized for RCRA in late 1985, but is not
authorized to enforce HSWA provisions, and is not authorized
to regulate mixed waste. However, the State has its own
regulations regarding mixed waste. If the owner wants to
close the land disposal unit, will he be required to submit
a Part B permit application and conduct groundwater
monitoring?
According to the Federal Register of July 3, 1986 (51
FR 24504), mixed radioactive and hazardous waste is
subject to RCRA regulation. In a state which is
authorized to implement Subtitle C, the mixed waste
will not be subject to the Subtitle C authorized
program until the state becomes authorized to regulate
mixed waste; however, state regulations enforced under
state law would apply to the mixed waste. In addition,
if the facility contained a RCRA-regulated unit, and
was applying for its permit, EPA could use RCRA Section
3004(u) authority for releases of hazardous
constituents from solid waste management units (the
mixed radioactive and hazardous waste would be a solid
waste, per Section 261.2(b).
Once the State receives authorization to regulate mixed
radioactive and hazardous waste, the disposal unit
would become subject to the State's authorized program
regulations, and would become subject to the HSWA
provisions (which would be enforced by EPA until the
State gained authorization to implement HSWA
authorities).
P
5 If the disposal unit was closed and was an inactive
^ facility prior to the date chosen by the State to be
the interim status "in existence" date, the disposal
unit might not be subject to State Subtitle C
regulation unless the waste was subsequently managed in
a manner that would constitute treatment, storage, or
disposal. However, if State law does not otherwise
prohibit it, the State could elect not to grandfather
any inactive mixed waste units. A State could do this
because a State RCRA program can be broader in scope
than the Federal program. Thus, a State could choose
to regulate inactive units in some manner.
If the disposal unit was still an active facility on
the date the State selects as its interim status "in
existence" date, which can be no later than the date on
which the State's authorization to regulate mixed waste
became effective, the facility would need to submit a
-------
Disposal of Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous Waste
(Cont'd)
Part A permit application within the timeframe
specified in the State's regulations or statute to
qualify for interim status.
Depending on the regulatory dates selected by the
State, closure of the disposal unit could occur while
the facility was under interim status. State law on
closure, post-closure permits, and groundwater
monitoring will control.
Source: Betty Shackleford (202) 382-2221
Research: Becky Cuthbertson
-------
*i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9431.1989(01)
* WASHINGTON, O.C. Z0460
JUN 26 1989
SOL-3 WASTE A.NO
Peter R. Simon, M.D., M.P.H.
Assistant Meical Director
Division of Family Heath
Cannon Building
Davis Street
Providence, PJiode Island 02908-5097
Dear Dr. Simon:
Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1989, regarding the
potential effect of the leach testing procedure on programs
designed to remove lead-contaminated soils from residential
areas.
Under existing solid waste regulations, if a contaminated
soil is removed from a site, the generator must determine
whether the soil is contaminated by a hazardous waste and thus
must be managed as a hazardous waste. (Contaminated soil that
is left in place is not subject to any hazardous waste
management requirements, including any testing.) This
determination can be made either by testing the waste
containing soil or through knowledge of the composition of the
waste soil. If the soil is deemed to contain a hazardous
waste, it must be managed under the Subtitle C regulations of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
RCRA requires that regulatory decisions regarding a
hazardous waste take into account the potential risks to human
health and the environment posed by mismanagement of the waste.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that a
municipal landfill, which does not have design and operating
standards as stringent as those under Subtitle C of RCRA, is
not an appropriate site for disposal of hazardous waste. Under
the existing statutory and regulatory framework, hazardous
waste generated as a result of cleanups at industrial and
residential sites are subject to the same management standards.
-------
-2-
As you know, EPA also has authority to clean up releases
of hazardous materials under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, more popularly known
as "Superfund." Superfund, like RCRA, requires cleanups to
protect human health and the environment. Furthermore, unless
certain exceptions apply, Superfund cleanups must comply with
requirements from other environmental statutes, such as RCRA,
when those requirements are "applicable" to the Superfund
activities. The Superfund statute also encourages compliance
with these other laws where they do not apply, but are
"relevant" or "appropriate" to the clean-up action. Currently,
EPA follows the rules outlined above to determine whether the
hazardous material at a Superfund site is a RCRA hazardous
waste — in other words, we test the material or determine
whether it is hazardous based on knowledge of its composition.
If the material were a RCRA waste, RCRA standards would
probably be "applicable," and disposal in a municipal landfill
would not be acceptable.
You have expressed concern that EPA has proposed to change
its regulatory test for determining whether a waste is toxic
hazardous waste. Section 3001(g) of the 1984 amendments to
RCRA specifically directed EPA to examine the extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity test as a predictor of the leaching
potential of waste and to make necessary changes to improve its
accuracy. In June 1986 (see 51 FR 21648), the Agency proposed
to require a new, more precise, leaching procedure, using a
buffered solution instead of an acid titration, to determine
whether a waste is characteristically hazardous based upon its
toxicity. This test, the toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP), is more precise than the original EP toxicity
test. A second Federal Register notice (53 FR 18792, May 24,
1988) provided additional information and opportunity for
comment on the TCLP. When the toxicity characteristic proposal
is promulgated as a final rule, the TCLP will supersede the EP
test.
We are aware that under certain conditions the TCLP may be
somewhat sore aggressive than the EP toxicity test. For this
reason, v« are gathering information on the relationship
between the two test procedures. We would like to ensure that
the test psjsctdures we use to determine whether a waste is
hazardous appropriately model our reasonable worst-case
mismanagement scenario — in the case of the toxicity
characteristic, management of a hazardous waste in a municipal
landfill.
-------
-3-
At this time, we are working closely with EPA Region I
officials to assess the possible implications of applying the
TCLP to lead-contaminated soils. I encourage you to provide us
with any information you may have that compares the results of
the two procedures on identical lead-contaminated soil samples.
We will be using these data in our continuing efforts to
improve the accuracy and reproducibility of our test
procedures.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us. To keep up
to date on our progress regarding this matter, we suggest that
you contact Gerry Levy, Branch Chief of Massachusetts Waste
Management, in our Region I office. Mr. Levy can be reached
at (617) 573-5720.
Sincerely yours,
'"&*?—
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED STAi£S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGfc.,CY 9431 . 1989( 02)
SEP 2 6 1389
Mr. Jeffrey J. Wells
Regulatory Consultant
HazMat Environmental Group Inc.
P.O. Box 676
Buffalo, NY 14217
Dear Mr. Wells:
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 1989,' requesting
verification of your interpretation regarding the wastewater treat-
ment unit exemption. Specifically, you are seeking confirmation
that a facility, which operates a wastewater treatment unit that
discharges to a POTW as defined in section 260.10, may also receive
and treat wastewater from any off-site source and not affect the
exemption under which the unit operates.
As you pointed out in your letter, in the September 2> 1988
Federal Register notice (53 FR 34079) , EPA stated that the
applicability of the exemption does not depend on whether the on-
site wastewater treatment facility also treats wastewater generated
off -site. As long as the facility accepting and treating the
wastewater from an off-site source does not violate the conditions
of its NPDES permit or pretreatment agreement, it is the Agency's
intent to allow a facility to operate with this exemption.
Of course, as also discussed in the same notice, any storage or
treatment tank system used to manage the wastewater at the
generator's facility, prior to shipment to the off-site exempted
wastewater treatment unit, is not eligible for the wastewater
treatment unit exemption.
Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your
letter. If you should have any further questions regarding this
issue, please call me at (202) 475-9614.
Sincerely,
William J. Kline
Environmental Scientist
cc: Chester Oszman, PSPD
Kirsten Engel, OGC
Randy Hill, OGC
-------
9431.1989(03)
June 5, 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Management of Test Samples as Hazardous Waste
FROM: Howard Wilson, Manager
Environmental Compliance Program
TO: Environmental Compliance Managers
This memo is intended to clarify a letter from the EPA's
Office of Solid Waste on the management of laboratory samples
under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (40 CFR Part 261).
According to 40 CFR Part 261.4 (d) (1) , samples collected
solely for the purposes of testing are exempted from the
regulations for hazardous waste management. I would like to
emphasize that this is a qualified exemption. The samples are
exempt from regulation as long as they meet any of the following
conditions contained in 261.4 (d)(1)(i..vi):
(i) Being transported from the collector to the
laboratory
(ii) Being transported from the laboratory back to the
collector following testing
(iii) Being stored at the collector waiting to go to the
laboratory
(iv) Being stored at the laboratory before being tested
(v) Being stored at the laboratory after being tested
but before being returned to the collector
(vi) Being stored at the laboratory for a specific
purpose after being tested (i.e. for a court case
in which the sample is evidence, etc.)
Regulation 261.4 (d)(3) states that the exemption does not apply
if the laboratory determines the waste is hazardous and the
conditions listed above are no longer being met.
According to 40 CFR Part 261.5 (a), facilities that generate
less than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste or 1 kg/mo of acute
hazardous waste are exempt from hazardous waste regulations.
This exemption is also conditional, based on a generator's
compliance with the following:
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
o Determining if their waste is hazardous; this is
required by 261.5 (b), which references 261.5 (g),
which cites 262.11.
o Disposing of their waste at a facility authorized to
accept it; this is required by 261.5 (f)(3) and 261.5
(g)(3).
Generators of less than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste would also
be subject to RCRA requirements under regulation 262.34 if they
accumulate, for the purpose of disposal, greater than 1000 kg of
hazardous waste.
In summary, samples held for testing need not be
managed as hazardous waste while they are being tested. Once
they are determined to be waste, a determination of whether the
waste is hazardous must be made if it hasn't been already. If
the waste is determined to be a hazardous waste, it must be
managed in full compliance with all applicable regulations,
including 40 CFR Parts 261.5 and 262.11.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9431.1990(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
5 1990
NOTE TO: Sylvia Lowrance
THROUGH: Dev Barnes
FROM: Susan Absher
SUBJECT: Yakima Indian Nation Involvement in RCRA Program
Decisionmaking on Tribal and Ceded Lands
We recently received a memorandum from Region X concerning
an issue raised by an Indian Tribe during the public comment
period of a Washington State program revision decision. The
Yakima Indian Nation (YIN) raised the question of Federal and
State laws and regulations that allegedly affect YIN Treaty
rights under the Treaty of 1855. Under that Treaty the YIN ceded
land to the United States Government (land, which subsequently
became 25.4% of the State of Washington), and the U.S. Government
guaranteed the YIN certain rights (fishing, hunting, etc., at
"all usual and accustomed places"). The YIN have expressed
concern that current and future HWMFs may "affect the Yakima way
of life, its cultural resources, the freedom to practice religion
on tribal and ceded lands, or the promises guaranteed in the
Treaty of 1855" (emphasis added).
At this time the YIN has not asserted any legal claim but is
requesting the opportunity to be involved on a "government-to-
government" basis in RCRA program decisionmaking on tribal and
ceded lands. The Tribe also wishes to be assured that their
Treaty rights are not disregarded by agreements between EPA and
the State. Finally, the YIN believe that EPA and the State must
provide technical and financial assistance to the YIN to develop
the ability needed to protect their Treaty rights and resources.
The Washington revision program decision has become
effective. Region X wrote the YIN agreeing to explore the
"ceded" land issue, and has sent information on the issue to OGC.
Region X ORC has the lead on researching the issue further. We
will track developments through the Region and OGC.
The Tribe's claim of an interest in "ceded" land is
interesting. One of the fundamental cases of U.S. Indian law,
U. S. v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905), was brought by the U.S., in
behalf of the YIN, to ensure the Tribe's fishing rights under
that same Treatv. on "ceded," and now State/private land. In
-------
that decision "the Indians were given a right in the [ceded] land
- the right of crossing it to the river - the right to occupy it
to the extent and for the purpose mentioned [in the Treaty]." It
is unlikely that fishing and hunting rights can be broadened to
general environmental rights in the "ceded" lands, but it is
certainly possible that a court could so rule, especially in the
event a HWMF were to be proposed near one of the "usual and
accustomed places."
cc: Jeff Denit
Matt Hale
Suzanne Rudzinski
Karen Morley
Judi Kane
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9431.1991(01)
2 6 1991
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Fate and Transport Model
FROM: David Bussard
Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
This memorandum concerns the possible use (or misuse) of a
subsurface fate and transport model (EPA's Composite Model for
Landfills, EPACML) which was developed by the Office of Solid
Waste (OSW) for the Toxicity Characteristic Final Rule (55 FR
11798, March 29, 1990).
The EPACML was developed for national regulatory purposes
and is implemented using the Monte Carlo procedures. The model
is not intended for site-specific use, since it is not designed
to simulate site heterogeneities and irregular site boundaries.
This is pointed out in the User's Manual for the model.
The OSW is now in the process of proposing to adopt the
EPACML for use in evaluating delisting petitions. In this use,
we plan to propose the continued implementation of the model on a
nationwide basis, although in a modified form. The final
implementation procedure will depend on the nature of comments we
receive on our forthcoming Federal Register Notice, which is
expected to be published later this year. This intended use of
the model has significantly increased interest in its use for
site-specific purposes. We understand that in some instances EPA
Regional staff have recommended using the model in connection
with Corrective Action at a particular site.
We would like to discourage these applications of the EPACML
and ask that you inform your staff working on RCRA as well as
Superfund sites appropriately. We would be happy to assist your
staff in locating a model which is suitable for use on a site-
specific basis. Please contact Dr. Zubair Saleem of my staff at
FTS-382-4767 with any questions on EPACML or on suitable models
for site-specific applications.
cc: Jeffrey Denit
-------
' 9431.1991(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAY 9 1991
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Application of TC Compliance Date Extension to Shell
Oil Company»s Wood River, Illinois Facility
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Direct or jJ\^ \C.
Office of Solid Waste -*^ \
TO: David A. Ullrich, Director
Waste Management Division
We have carefully reviewed your March 19 memorandum and
attachments regarding Shell Oil Company's Wood River facility in
light of our recent action to extend the Toxicity Characteristic
compliance date for hydrocarbon recovery operations at petroleum
refineries. While we understand that someone may view the
operations at Wood River as somewhat similar to the operations
addressed in the proposed (and now final) action—see 56 FR
13406, April 2, 1991—the subject wastestream and waste
management unit are, in fact, significantly different and cannot
reasonably be interpreted to fall within the scope of the
extended compliance date.
First, in our discussions with the petroleum industry
regarding application of the TC rule to hydrocarbon recovery
operations with reinjection components, we were made aware that
treatment of the extracted petroleum-bearing groundwaters (e.g.,
removal of naturally occurring minerals) prior to reinjection can
result in the production of additional wastestreams, some of
which exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic. Issues associated
with the management of these additional wastestreams were given
consideration, but these wastestreams were never considered to be
within the scope of the "groundwaters" for which the compliance
date was extended. More specifically, we concluded that these
treatment wastestreams could and should be managed under RCRA
interim status provisions. This is different in the case of
reinjection of extracted groundwater, given the statutory
requirements of RCRA Section 3020. Because of Section 3020 and
the impossibility of receiving the required UIC permit, the
reinjection wells could no longer be operated. It is these
reinjection wells, and not treatment wastestreams, that are the
subject of the extended compliance date. These treatment waste
materials are considered as separate from the groundwater stream,
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
as they are more appropriately defined as treatment sludges per
40 CFR 260.10.
As to the Wood River Solid Waste Disposal Basin (SWDB) as an
infiltration gallery, note that the final compliance date
extension applies only to injection wells. Infiltration
galleries are not included and have been provided with six months
to comply with Subtitle C requirements. However, this six-month
compliance date would not apply to the SWDB since the leaking of
a disposal impoundment, which is designed to contain materials,
is substantially different from the intended design and operation
of an infiltration gallery. Thus, the SWDB would not be
considered as an infiltration gallery for purposes of TC
compliance dates.
Should you have any further questions regarding the
background or scope of the TC compliance date extension for
certain hydrocarbon recovery operations, feel free to contact
Dave Topping of my staff at FTS 382-7737.
-------
9A31. 1991(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
MAY I 7 1991
office, of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCE RESPONSE
Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Than* you for your letter of February 12, 1991, requesting
information about the progress of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act's (RCRA's) corrective action program, and the
Environmental Protection Agency's {EPA's) current approach and
future plans for managing this program. I appreciate the
opportunity to respond to these important issues.
To provide the facility-specific information you have
requested, we have initiated a considerable effort within our
headquarters and regional offices. A substantial amount of
data will also need to be obtained from state agencies. Due
to the volume of this information and our desire to respond as
completely and as accurately as possible to your questions, we
were not able to fully respond to your letter by the March 29
date that you requested. As ay staff indicated in a recent
telephone conversation with Deborah Jacobsen, the Subcommittee
Counsel, we are in the process of collecting this information.
We will be able to give you a complete and detailed response in
June.
I would like to take this opportunity, nevertheless, to
address a number of issues that you raised in your letter. These
include BPA's long-ten action plan and budgetary strategy for
implementing corrective actions at RCRA facilities, EPA's plans
for seeking statutory changes to RCRA in the area of corrective
action, EPA's timetable for publishing the final corrective
action rule, and EPA's plans and budget for meeting the 1992
deadline for issuing permits to storage and treatment facilities.
Printrt on fl#cyc/»d Pao
-------
Long-Ten Plaa tor Corrective Action
Our recently published RCRA Implementation Study outlined
a long-tern strategy for managing the corrective action program.
Over the past several months, we have been working to put the
components of this strategy into place through the following
initiatives.
Development of a Consistent National System for Setting
Priorities
This new national system i's already being implemented in
several EPA regions. It uses standard decision criteria to
evaluate specific environmental data, and generates high-,
medium-, and low-priority rankings for facilities. By October
1991, we expect to have completed setting priorities for all
facilities that are currently in the "pipeline" (i.e., pursuing
corrective action under enforcement actions or permits). All
remaining facilities for which preliminary environmental
assessments have been completed will be ranked by April 1992.
Acceleration of the Environmental Priorities Initiative
The EPI is an integrated RCRA-Superfund effort to identify
and evaluate sites that present the greatest risks to human
health and the environment. As noted in the RCRA Implementation
Study, this program has experienced initial start-up problems.
However, beginning in 7Y 1992, EPA will expand this effort to
greatly increase the number of facilities assessed, and to
broaden the scope* of the assessments performed to generate
additional data for purposes of ranking. At this time, we are
developing detailed plans and schedules for each EPA region for
implementing the EPZ in FY 1992 and beyond.
Development of a Strategy for Stabilizing RCPA Facilities
We are currently developing a set of operating directives
and technical guidance) documents to focus interia measures at
facilities to reduce existing exposures to contamination and to
prevent ths contamination from spreading. Although fully
implementing this new program direction will be a longer-term
effort, we expect that It will enable the program to accelerate
the overall pace of cleanups, by initiating remedial activities
at a faster rate at a greater number of facilities. For FY 1992,
we expect to be identifying potential candidates for interia
measures and to expedite the collection of the data needed to
evaluate RFA facilities (those facilities at the RFA stags of the
correctivs action process) for stabilization aeasures.
-------
Differential Oversight
In May 1991 we will be issuing guidance for use by the EPA
regions and the states to tailor their oversight approaches for
implementing corrective actions, as appropriate to site-specific
factors.
Budget strategy for Corrective Action
EPA's proposed FY 1992 budget for RCRA corrective action and
the RCRA-Superfund EPI effort is as follows:
EPA Regions: 169 full-time employees (FTEs)
$22.3 million (extramural funds)
EPA Headquarters: 28.5 FTEs
$3 million
State Grants: $14.2 million
EPI: 16.6 FTEs
$18.3 million
There was a relatively small decrease in regional FTEs in
FY 1992 from FY 1991 levels (about 17 FTEs). However, EPI
resources in FY 1992 were increased over FY 1991 EPI resource
levels by 4.9 FTEs and $5.8 million. When FY 1992 EPI resources
are factored into the total Corrective Action Program resources
for FY 1992, there is a net loss to the Corrective Action Program
of 12.6 FTEs and a net gain of $5.4 million in extramural
resources. In addition to the above resources, several
corrective actions will take place under the Great Lakes
Initiative as well.
These resource levels reflect the high level.of importance
that EPA attaches to the Corrective Action Program. At the same
time, in managing the national hazardous waste program, we must
strike an appropriate resource balance between RCRA's mandates
for both cleanup and prevention. The FY 1992 RCRA Implementation
Plan, which should be released shortly, will describe in more
detail how EPA intends to rank the environmental priority of all
facilities in the RCRA universe and balance priorities between
corrective action and other program activities. We expect,
however, to reevaluate the resource needs for corrective action
over the next two to three years, as we gather more definitive
data on the number of facilities requiring cleanup, and the
severity of their environmental problems. At that time, EPA will
be better able to assess the effectiveness, and the resource
implications, of the corrective action management strategy
outlined above.
-------
The results of th« forthconing Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for the corrective action rule will also be useful in
establishing the program's resource needs. The RIA will evaluate
the costs and human health and environmental benefits associated
with different regulatory options for implementing the corrective
action program. Among many other things, it will specifically
address how the timing of corrective action affects both the
costs and the benefits of this program.
The RCRA corrective action program is clearly in a
transition phase. In light of this, we agree that the "outyear
scenarios" that we provided to the Subcommittee in 1989 are no
longer accurate projections of our longer-term expectations for
implementing the program. Although we are unsure at this early
stage of implementation of precisely how adopting our itrt
will change these outyear scenarios, we can see that it will
alter the fundamental assumptions we used to develop those
earlier projections. Once we have completed the prioritization
effort and the other analyses now under way, we will provide you
with our new assumptions and our updated multiyear projections.
Potential 'Statutory Changes
At this time, EPA is examining a number of potential changes
to the statute, in the context of a possible reauthorization of
RCHA in the coming months. Relating to corrective action, we are
analyzing approaches to statutory and regulatory requirements for
managing remediation wastes. We are also considering options for
changing the existing procedural Subtitle C permit requirements
as they apply to cleanup actions to accelerate and create more
incentives for private party cleanup actions.
Timetable for Publishing the Rule
As outlined in the Federal Register preamble to the proposed
"Subpart S" rule (published July 27, 1990), EPA has committed
itself to conducting a revised RIA for this rule. Before
finalizing the rule, we will publish the results of this major
new analysis for notice and comment. We will provide you with a
detailed status report and description of this RIA effort in our
follow-up response to your letter. In short, however, we expect
to be abls to publish the results of the new analysis no sooner
than June 1992. The final nils should be published within one
year thereafter, or by June 1993.
1992 Deadline for Issuing Permits
As of March 12, 1991, permitting decisions were made at over
1,000 treatment and storage facilities. Of these determinations,
more than 900 permits were issued, and 64 permits were denied.
We have approximately 850 remaining RCRA Part B applications to
process for treatment and storage facilities, and just over 1,700
-------
facilities are not pursuing RCRA permits (i.e., they did not file
Part B applications and/or are on traclc to close).
As you know, the RCRA Implementation Study noted that the
1992 deadline for issuing permits to treatment and storage
facilities constrains EPA's efforts to focus the program's
resources on those facilities that pose the highest risks to
human health and the environment. We believe strongly that it is
EPA's responsibility to allocate the program's resources in such
a way as to maximize the environmental benefits to be gained.
Our draft FY 1992 RCRA program guidance establishes a priority-
setting framework for the RCRA program, and ve expect to be
evaluating the environmental priority of all RCRA facilities
beginning this year and ending in mid-FY 1992. Accordingly, we
plan to continue making permit determinations at treatment and
storage facilities to the extent that determinations at these
remaining facilities are a high environmental priority.
Although we recognize the importance of substantial progress
in issuing permits to storage and treatment facilities, it is our
responsibility as managers of this program to balance that goal
against the many other environmental priorities that place
demands on the program's capabilities. We will rank corrective
action needs at these facilities using the national priority
ranking system discussed earlier.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to these
important issues. We look forward to sending you the remainder
of the information that you have requested in June. In the
meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely yours,
Don R. cr
Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9431.1993(01)
JUL 2 8 !993 OFF.CE.OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Kevin Igli
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
3001 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, IL 60821
Dear Mr. Igli:
You requested a clarification of whether the triple-rinsing requirement found at
40 CFR 261.7(a)(3) applies to containers holding residues from the incineration of acute
hazardous wastes. You argue that the triple rinsing requirement should not apply to
these residues because incineration eliminates the hazardous constituents in the acute
hazardous wastes.
The triple rinsing requirement (40 CFR 261.7 (a)(3)) does apply to containers
holding residues from the incineration of acute hazardous waste. EPA does not agree
that residue from acute hazardous (e.g., P-listed waste) can be reclassified as other than
P-listed waste under the current Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste regulations. Our general policy is that a waste's code designation
carries through to residuals from treating or otherwise managing that waste.
As you are aware, the hazardous waste regulations allow the use of an alternative
cleaning method in place of triple-rinsing. The regulations in 40 CFR 261.7(b)(3)
describe the conditions under which a container that has held acute hazardous waste
(e.g., P-listed waste) becomes empty. If "the container or inner liner has been cleaned by
another method that has been shown in the scientific literature, or by tests conducted by
the generator, to achieve equivalent removal", then the container is empty (40 CFR
261.7(b)(3)(ii)). EPA requires no formal approval process if an alternative cleaning
method is used to empty the container, and no variance is necessary under the federal
regulations when using alternative cleaning methods pursuant to 40 CFR 261.7 (b)(3)(ii).
We would suggest that if you do use an alternate cleaning method, you document the
method used and keep this record as part of your facility's operating record.
Please note that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6926) individual
States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste programs
in lieu of the federal program. When States are not authorized to administer their own
-------
program, the appropriate EPA Region administers the program and is the appropriate
contact for any case-specific determinations. Please also note that under Section 3009 of
RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6926) States retain authority to promulgate regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. If you have
questions specific to a particular site, contact the appropriate State or EPA Regional
office.
If you have further questions, please contact AJlen Maples of my staff at (202)260-
8551. Thank you for your interest in :he safe management of hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
Jeffery D. Denit,
Acting Director,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
>-—'/
r,
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9431.1994(01)
2 1334
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND HMESGE
RESPONSE
Mr. Tony M. Margiotta
Kleen-Rite, Inc.
4444 Gustine Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63116
Dear Mr. Margiotta:
Thank you for your letter dated February 18, 1994, concerning the Hydro-Mist unit
used in the treatment of wastewater at drycleaning facilities. I apologize for the delay in
responding to your letter. In your letter you specifically requested a "letter of approval"
from the U.S. EPA for the Hydro-Mist process. Let me begin by clarifying that our office
is not able to certify, endorse, or otherwise "approve" specific technologies, but we
sometimes are able to provide information on how your technology would be regulated
under the hazardous waste regulations, and I hope this will be helpful to you.
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) responded in writing to an inquiry last June
regarding evaporator units and the applicability of the hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In that letter dated June 2, 1993,
from Sylvia Lowrance to Mr. William Fischer (of the International Fabricare Institute), we
stated that the evaporator units described to us by the drycleaning industry representatives
met the definition of wastewater treatment unit (WWTU) in 40 CFR 260.10, and as such
were-exempt from federal hazardous waste permitting requirements per 40 CFR 26l.4(g)(6).
Based upon the information you provided to Mr. Ross Elliott of my staff over the
telephone, it appears that you are interested in a determination as to whether or not the
operation of the Hydro-Mist unit is comparable to other types of evaporator units, with
respect to the federal hazardous waste regulations under RCRA. The principal issue
requiring clarification is the mechanism by which the wastewater is eliminated: the Hydro-
Mist unit uses an atomization or misting technique to eliminate drycleaning wastewater,
while other types of wastewater evaporators use heat to evaporate the water.
One of the conditions of the WWTU exemption is that wastewater meeting the
definition of hazardous waste is "treated" in a tank. EPA defines "treatment" rather broadly
under RCRA (40 CFR 260.10), but "evaporation" is not specifically defined. According to
the information you provided, after treating the perchlorethylene-contaminated wastewater
with carbon adsorption, the Hydro-Mist unit uses an atomization process that releases the
treated water into the ambient air in very small droplets, where evaporation of these
RecycledyRecyclable
Printed with Soy.Canola Inx on ojoe
contain* at least SO1", recycled '>ber
-------
droplets occurs. With respect to the definition of "treatment" as it would apply under the
WWTU exemption, we see no difference between the evaporation of water from a tank
using elevated temperatures, and the evaporation of very small water droplets at ambient
temperatures using an atomization technique. Therefore, provided the unit meets the other
criteria for the WWTU exemption as outlined in § 260.10, the use of atomization would not
preclude the unit from being eligible for the WWTU exemption.
Finally, I would like to point out that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
Section 6926), individual States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own
hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal program. Please also note that under
Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. If a
State agency authorized to implement the RCRA hazardous waste program does not
recognize the wastewater treatment unit exemption, or is regulating WWTUs more
stringently or broader in scope than the federal program, the authority exists for that State
to deal with the situation directly.
I hope this information helps to clarify the issue you raised concerning your Hydro-
Mist unit. If you have any questions, please call Ross Elliott of my staff at 202-260-8551.
Thank you for your interest in the safe management of solid and hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
NOVI5TO 9431.1994(02,
OFFICE GF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORANDUM RESPONSE
SUBJECT: £xide Corporation's Proppsed Fuming/Gasification Unit
FROM:
i .- Offic of Solid Waste (5301)
PT (.
TO: v Marcia Parisi Vickers
Associate Division Director
Office of RCRA Programs, Region III (3HW03)
This is in response to your September 29, 1993, memo
requesting a Headquarters' determination as to whether the RCRA
regulations apply to a fuming/gasification unit that Exide
Corporation proposes to build adjacent to its existing lead
smelting facility near Reading, Pennsylvania. In particular, you
ask if the device would be subject to RCRA regulations, and, if
so, would it be classified as an incinerator, industrial furnace,
or miscellaneous treatment unit (i.e., Subpart X unit). Further,
you asked, if the device is considered to be a Subpart X unit,
how would the permitting priorities established under the
Combustion Strategy relate to the Exide facility? The remainder
of this memo provides some basic information that needs' to be
considered in making a decision and then provides our response to
your questions.
Description of the Process. As we understand, the fuming/
gasification device would use a plasma arc to process lead-
contaminated soil and soil mixed with spent battery casings.
Lead and organic compounds would be vaporized in the device and
exhausted to the afterburner section of an existing reverberatory
furnace. The reverberatory furnace and its afterburner is used
for secondary lead smelting and would qualify for the metals
recovery exemption under the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF)
rule. The afterburner would serve to destroy the organics in the
exhaust from the plasma arc device and the lead would be captured
(i.e., by condensation onto particulates and gas cleaning for
particulate matter) and returned as feed to the reverberatory
furnace for processing into salable product. The inorganic soil
fractions that do not vaporize would be tapped off as slag.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed wltn Soy/Canola inic on
contains st least 50". recycled M
-------
Classification of Devices V3 Process Trains. Given that the
off-gas from the plasma arc device would be vented to an existing
secondary lead smelter, previous guidance would require that we
evaluate the classification of the new device -- that is, the
fuming/gasification unit -- for determinations such as interim
status eligibility, when applicable. For determining what
regulatory standards and permit conditions should be applied, we
would look at the process train in which the device would be
incorporated (i.e., the plasma arc, secondary lead smelter, and
afterburner). This guidance describes how the regulations apply
to combustion devices at a facility where: (1) more than one
device type (e.g., incinerator, industrial furnace, Subpart X
unit) is connected in a process train: (2) the emissions from the
connected devices emanate from a single stack; and (3) each
device is separately burning or processing hazardous waste. See
my July 29, 1994, memorandum to Allyn Davis (copy attached).
As discussed in that memo, a case-by-case determination
needs to be made to identify the standards, and permit conditions
that should apply to the process train in its entirety. For
purposes of making interim status determinations, the
classification of the individual device must be determined
separately. Since there is no issue with respect to the
eligibility of the new device to qualify for interim status, that
evaluation need not be made and is not discussed further in this
memo.
Evaluation of the Process Train. The process train would be
comprised of the existing reverberatory furnace with its
afterburner and the new plasma arc device that is also connected
to the afterburner. The question is whether the new plasma arc
device would affect the regulatory standards and permit
conditions applicable to the process train. In this particular
case, we believe the first step is to look at how we would
classify the plasma arc/afterburner portion of the process train
if it were a separate unit. If it would not be classified as an
industrial furnace, we then need to determine what regulations
are applicable to a process train comprised of an industrial
furnace and some other device (i.e., the plasma arc/afterburner).
Given that the plasma arc device would be vented to an
afterburner-"that uses controlled flame combustion, that portion
of the process train would meet the definition of an incinerator,
industrial furnace, or theoretically, a boiler, as those devices
are defined in §260.10. Thus, this part of the process train
would not be classified or regulated under Subpart X, Part 264,
if it were a separate unit. Further, this portion of the process
train would not be classified as a boiler because energy is not
recovered and exported. Consequently, this portion of the
process train would be classified as either an incinerator or
industrial furnace depending on how it would be operated.
-------
We have previously determined that a retorter is a type of
pyrometallurgical device that meets the definition of smelting,
melting, or refining furnace. See my December 17, 1993,
memorandum to Joseph Franzmathes (copy attached). In the
metallurgical industry, a retorter is a furnace consisting of a
fire chamber in which metals are recovered by vaporization and
subsequent condensation. The plasma arc/afterburner portion of
the process train would meet the definition of a retorter if:
(1) wastes or materials fed into the device contained
economically recoverable levels of lead (see 56 FR 7143 (Feb. 21,
1991)); (2) Exide is in the business of producing lead for public
sale, whether to an ultimate user or for further reprocessing or
manufacture (see generally, §260.10 (definition of industrial
furnace); see also EPA Region VI, Statement of Basis for Denial
of Permit Application by Marine Shale Processors, Inc., Sept. 15,
1994, p. 6 (devices on enumerated list of industrial furnaces
must still be operating as an integral component of a
manufacturing process to be an industrial furnace)); and (3)
significant levels of lead are recovered. If any of these
criteria are not met, this portion of the process train would
meet the definition of incinerator.
If it is determined that the plasma arc/afterburner portion
of the process train would be an industrial furnace and if it
were a separate unit, then the entire process train (i.e.,
including the secondary lead smelter) would be regulated as an
industrial furnace. The emission standards and exemptions for
industrial furnaces would apply. If the plasma arc/afterburner
portion of the process train is determined to meet the definition
of an incinerator, however, then the evaluation of what
regulations would apply is more complex.
Would the Process Train Be Subject to RCRA Regulation? If
the plasma arc/afterburner portion of the process train meets the
above criteria, then the entire process train would be classified
as a smelting, melting, or refining industrial furnace. In this
case, even though §260.10 defines a plasma arc incinerator as
"any enclosed device using a high intensity electrical discharge
or arc as a source of heat followed by an afterburner using
controlled flame combustion and which is not listed as an
industrial furnace," the plasma arc/afterburner portion of the
process train would meet the definition of an industrial furnace.
The process train would be conditionally exempt from the Boiler
and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule if it met the exemption
criteria in §266.100(c) pertaining to levels of recoverable
metals, heating value, and concentration of toxic organic
compounds in the hazardous waste feed. Such exempt metals
recovery facilities are not subject to RCRA permit requirements
for combustion air emissions.
If the plasma arc/afterburner portion of the process train
does not meet the above criteria, the entire process train would
-------
be subject to the incinerator standards of Subpart 0, Part 264.
This is because the devices (e.g., reverberatory furnace and
plasma arc device) share a common afterburner and stack and the
plasma arc device is burning or processing hazardous waste.
Given that the reverberatory furnace portion of the process train
is conditionally exempt from the BIF rule, the incinerator
standards would be the only applicable standards.
Permitting Priority for the Device. The permitting
priorities of the draft Waste Minimization and Combustion
Strategy, issued in May 1993, relate to Regional and State
efforts to work on permit applications submitted by RCRA
facilities that combust hazardous industrial process wastes. To
the extent that a combustion facility handles only remediation
wastes (under either RCRA or Superfund), the priorities under the
draft Strategy are not applicable. In addition, in a memorandum
of May 9, 1994, Assistant Administrator Elliott Laws clarified
that the Agency's shift of RCRA permit priorities did not mean
that incineration should not be considered in assessing Superfund
remedies. For further information on Superfund issues, please
contact John Smith, Chief, Design and Construction Management
Branch, Hazardous Site Control Division, at (703) 603-8830.
I hope that tnis information will be helpful. If your staff
have questions or would like to further discuss the issues, they
may contact Mr. H. Scott Rauenzahn at 703-308-8477.
Attachments (2)
cc:
M. Straus
S. Silver-man
S. Sasseville
P. Borst
B. Holloway
S. Rauenzahn
-------
9432 - DEFINITIONS
Part 260 Subpart B
ATKl/l 104/13 kp
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
F iCi OF
E Vc-TGE
OSWER Directive I 9432.00-1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Totally Enclosed Treatment
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director 'w"" ""* KV
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)1' '' -
TO: David Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
5HS-JCK-13
This is the regulatory clarification you requested on
December 30, 1985 for the application of the totally enclosed
treatment facility exemption to a tank treating emission control
dusts at a scrap metal recycler. The system you describe is not
totally enclosed because of the reasons given below.
Your description of the Grede foundry indicates that it
heats scrap in a cupola. Emissions from the cupola rise into a
hood which is connected to a baghouse via ducts. Ms. Randi Kim
of your staff pointed out that hazardous waste is not generated
prior to the baghouse unit, and the hood is not directly connected
to the cupola. The emission control sludge captured in the
baghouse is EP toxic for lead, and possibly chromium, according
to Jim Roberts of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Grede Foundries proposes to directly connect a mixing tank to the
baghouse by pipeline where the dust will be rendered nonhazardous
by mixing with nonhazardous foundry waste sands and dusts contain-
ing bentonite clay. Since the mixing tank does not exist, we
cannot determine whether the tank can technically prevent release
of hazardous waste into the environment during treatment through
use of traps, recycle lines, etc. Therefore, the central issue
you raise is whether the mixing tank can be considered directly
connected to the industrial production process, satisfying one
condition of a totally enclosed treatment facility as defined in
S260.10.
The definition in $260.10 of totally enclosed treatment
facilities specifies that the treatment must be directly connected
to an industrial production process. In your foundry example,
-------
the cupola is part of the industrial production process, since it
produces reusable metal; and the baghouse is part of the waste
treatment process, since the sludge is not associated with product
or raw materials, i.e., the sludge is disposed of, not recovered
for further recycling. Therefore, the treatment that occurs
downstream of the baghouse cannot qualify for a totally enclosed
treatment exemption, since the cupola is open to the air before
the hood collects the dust.
Although our preliminary information indicates that adsorption
to clay can be an acceptable treatment method, you should pursue
the question of whether the specific clay adsorption process pro-
posed for this facility will provide the effective treatment that
would allow it to be permitted as a treatment facility. Carlton
Wiles, ORD/Cincinnati, FTS 684-7871, may be able to provide you
with further guidance on clay adsoption treatment standards that
should be incorporated into the treatment permit to assure effective
treatment.
With alternate management practices, the emission control
sludge would not be defined as a solid waste, and, therefore, would
not be a RCRA hazardous waste. If the fines were returned to the
cupola for metal recovery, the entire process would be viewed as
closed loop recycling, and the baghouse sludge would not be con-
sidered to be a solid waste according to 5261.2(e)(1)(iii). If the
sludge were reclaimed elsewhere, it also would not be considered
to be a solid waste, according to S261.2(c)(3). Sludges being
reclaimed are not considered to be solid waste unless specifically
listed by EPA, and this particular sludge is not so listed.
Alternatively, the system could be engineered differently.
By connecting the hood directly to the cupola, the system could
then meet the criteria for being directly connected to an
industrial production process. The system may then qualify
as a totally enclosed treatment system if the treatment met
the technical standards for being closed to the environment.
Since mixing the baghouse dust with bentonite clay as
described would require a RCRA permit for treatment, Grede
Foundries may wish to pursue one of these other approaches that
are not regulated under RCRA. According to data from the 1981
mail survey, many waste streams of K061 and K069 sludge are
recycled both on and off site, so Grede may find that recycling
is a cost effective management strategy. If you have any ques-
tions about this matter, you can contact Irene Horner of my staff
at FTS 382-2550.
cc: Solid Waste Branch Chiefs
Regions I-IV and VI-X
Jim Roberts, Michigan DNR
-------
9432.1980(01)
December 30, 1980
Lawrence W. Beirlein, Esq.
Council for Safe Transportation
of Hazardous Articles
910 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Dear Mr. Beirlein:
This is in response to your letter of December 8, 1980,
requesting written clarification of whether puncturing, crushing
or shredding of aerosol cans prior to disposal is a treatment
process subject to our RCRA hazardous waste management
regulations.
As you know, we clarified our regulations as they pertain to
containers which hold or have held hazardous wastes in amendments
published in 45 Federal Register 78524-78529, November 25, 1980.
In those amendments, we clearly indicated that our regulations
are directed at controlling the management of hazardous wastes or
hazardous waste residues in non-empty containers as opposed to
controlling the management of the containers per se.
Accordingly, with respect to aerosol cans, our regulations are
confined to regulation of the contents of the cans, not the cans
themselves.
Based on this and the definition of "treatment" in §260.10
of our regulations, the puncturing, crushing or shredding of
non-empty aerosol cans which contain hazardous wastes does not
constitute hazardous waste treatment. Treatment is defined as
"any method, technique or process, . . . designed to change the
physical, chemical or biological character or composition of any
hazardous waste . . . . " Although puncturing, crushing or
shredding of an aerosol can changes the physical character of the
can, the can is not the hazardous waste. The materials in the
can are the hazardous waste and the puncturing, crushing or
shredding of the can does not change the physical, chemical or
biological character or composition of these materials.
Accordingly, the puncturing, crushing or shredding of such
aerosol cans does not require a RCRA permit or does not need to
comply with other requirements of our hazardous waste management
regulations.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Although this is beyond your request, I hasten to point out
that the materials removed from aerosol cans that are punctured,
crushed or shredded and the residues remaining on such cans, in
some cases, may be subject to our regulations. Let me discuss
several situations where this may be true.
The first set of situations involve aerosol cans which hold
commercial chemical products listed in §261.33 (e) and (f) of our
regulations. Where these chemicals are removed from aerosol cans
when they are punctured, crushed or shredded, they are subject to
our regulations if they are discarded or intended to be
discarded; (if they are recovered for re-packaging and beneficial
use or recovered for other beneficial uses or legitimate
recycling or reclamation, which is their normal manner of use
they are not solid wastes and therefore not subject to our
regulations. If the removed chemicals are kept segregated from
the punctured, crushed or shredded cans, the regulated management
of those wastes would not involve management of the cans (except
see discussion below relative to §261.33(e) chemicals). If the
removed chemicals are not kept segregated from the punctured,
crushed or segregated cans, one has a "mixture" of chemicals and
cans (see §261.3(a)(1)(ii)) and this mixture is subject to our
regulations. Finally, even if the removed chemicals are kept
segregated from the cans but the chemicals are §261.33(e)
chemicals, then the residue on the punctured, crushed or shredded
cans (and, for all practical purposes, the cans themselves) are
subject to our regulations until they are triple-rinsed or
equivalently decontaminated (see §261.7(b)(3) at 45 Federal
Register 78529, November 25, 1980).
The other type of situation is where the cans hold products
which are not listed in §261.33(e) or (f) but which are to be
discarded (therefore are solid waste) and exhibit one or more of
the characteristics of hazardous waste (therefore are hazardous
waste). If those waste products are kept segregated from the
punctured, crushed or shredded cans, then, as above, their
regulated management would not involve management of the cans.
If segregation is not accomplished, then the mixture of these
products and the punctured, crushed or shredded cans would have
to be managed as a hazardous waste if the mixture also exhibits
one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste. Of
course, if the product removed from the punctured, crushed or
shredded cans is not to be discarded but, instead, is to be
beneficially used or legitimately recycled or reclaimed, then our
regulations do not apply.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9432.1981(01)
'-. -*«'•
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
W ASH INGTON. C.t. 20-46C
OFFICI Of SOLID vrASTZ
JUN 28 i9S|
OFFICE OF WATER
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Chris Howell
Chemical Processors, Inc.
5501 Airport Way south
Seattle, WA 98108
Dear Mr. Howell:
I am in receipt of your letter of June 1, 1981 to Mr.
Ken Schuster regarding your request for a working definition
of a "liquid;" waste.
As you are aware, the Agency is actively working to
develop improved laboratory procedures for defining both
"ignitable" and "liquid." In the interim you may employ the
following working definition of a "liquid" when
evaluating wastes:
A liquid is any material that will pass through a 0.45
micron filter at a pressure differential of 75 psi. If
the material to be evaluated consists of 2 or more phases
then the phases should be separated by centrif ugation or
other means prior to evaluating whether any of the phases
meet the above definition. "Free liquids" as defined in
§260.10(a] (25) are a subset of this broader class of liquids.
Any waste OB phases of a waste found to meet the above
definition of a "liquid" should then be evaluated for ignitability
using the procedures in $261.21. All such wastes which contain
or consist of liquids which have a flash point below 60*C are
to be considered as ignitable wastes.
I hope this response serves to answer your question. If
you would like further information please feel free to give
me a call at (202) 755-9187.
David Friedman
Manager
Waste Analysis Program
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
-------
I tl-irik this covers all of the situations tr.at nay be encountered
1 hope this is helpful to you.
Si ncerely yours,
Tiary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid v.'aste
bcc: Filomena Chau w/incoming
Jack Lehaan
Alan Corson
Dotz Darrah
Regional A&HX Division Directors, £?A. Region I, 1I1-X
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMHARY 9432.1982(01)
AUGUST 82
(2)
Resolution of Difficult Questions - RCRA
Question: The definition of "existing portion" (40 CF* 250.10) re*-?rs to
"original Part A permit application." Does this mean the
first Part A sub-nit ted (before Noveoi&er 19, 1980, for most
facilities) or the last amended Part A submitted dj"in; intsri-
status?
Resolution: The term "original »art A" means the first ^art A submitted v/hi
fulfilled the requirements for intarim status.
Source: Fred Lindsey, OSW
Research: Karen Gale
-------
9432.1983(01)
February 18, 1983
Mr. Duane W. Marshall
Regulatory Affairs Program Manager
NCASI
260 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Dear Duane:
The subject of what is and what is not a Totally Enclosed
Treatment Facility has come up a number of times since we
discussed the issue in July 1980. In the course of answering
these questions, we prepared the enclosed Regulatory
Clarification, which we now send to everyone that asks. It
treats the subject generally, but I think it answers your
questions.
If I can provide any further clarification please let me
know.
Sincerely yours,
John P. Lehman
Director
Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
Enclosure
bcc: Fred Lindsey
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
TOTALLY ENCLOSED TREATMENT FACILITY
Regulatory Clarification
I. Issue; From questions asked since promulgation of the
regulations on May 19, 1980, it is clear that the definition and
practical application of the term "totally enclosed treatment
facility" require clarification.
II. Discussion; The definition appears in §260.10(a) as
follows:
Totally enclosed treatment facility means a facility for the
treatment of hazardous waste which is directly connected to
an industrial production process and which is constructed
and operated in a manner which prevents the release of any
hazardous waste or any constituent thereof into the
environment during treatment. An example is a pipe in which
waste acid is neutralized.
A facility meeting this definition is exempted from the
requirements of Parts 264 and 265 (See §§264.l(g)(5) and
265.1(c)(9)) and, by extension, the owner or operator of that
facility need not notify nor seek a permit for that process. The
purpose of this provision is to remove from active regulation
those treatment processes which occur in close proximity to the
industrial process which generates the waste and which are
constructed in such a way that there is little or no potential
for escape of pollutants. Such facilities pose negligible risk
to human health and the environment.
The part of the definition which has generated the most
uncertainty is the meaning of "totally enclosed." The Agency
intends that, a "totally enclosed" treatment facility be one which
is completely contained on all sides and poses little or no
potential for escape of waste to the environment even during
periods of process upset. The facility must be constructed so
that no predictable potential for overflows, spills, gaseous
emissions, etc., can result from malfunction of pumps, valves,
etc., associated with the totally enclosed treatment or from a
malfunction in the industrial process to which it is connected.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
Natural calamities or acts of sabotage or war (earthquakes,
tornadoes, bombing, etc.) are not considered predictable,
however.
As a practical matter, the definition limits "totally
enclosed treatment facilities" to pipelines, tanks, and to other
chemical, physical, and biological treatment operations which are
carried out in tank-like equipment (e.g., stills, distillation
columns, or pressure vessels) and which are constructed and
operated to prevent discharge of potentially hazardous material
to the environment. This requires consideration of the three
primary avenues of escape: leakage, spills, and emissions.
To prevent leaking, the tank, pipe, etc., must be made of
impermeable materials. The Agency is using the term impermeable
in the practical sense to mean no transmission of contained
materials in quantities which would be visibly apparent.
Further, as with any other treatment process, totally enclosed
treatment facilities are subject to natural deterioration
(corrosion, etc.) which could ultimately result in leaks. To
meet the requirement in the definition that treatment be
conducted ". . . in a manner which prevents the release of any
hazardous waste or any constituent thereof into the environment
. . . ." the Agency believes that an owner or operator claiming
the exemption generally will have to conduct inspections or other
discovery activities to detect deterioration and carry out
maintenance activities sufficient to remedy it. A tank or pipe
which leaks is not a totally enclosed facility. As a result,
leaks must be prevented from totally enclosed facilities or the
facility is in violation of the regulations.
A totally enclosed facility must be enclosed on all sides.
A tank or similar equipment must have a cover which would
eliminate gaseous emissions and spills. However, many tanks
incorporate vents and relief valves for either operating or
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
emergency reasons. Such vents must be designed to prevent
overflows of liquids and emissions of harmful gases and aerosols,
where such events might occur through normal operation, equipment
failure, or process upset. This can often be accomplished by the
use of traps, recycle lines, and sorption columns of various
designs to prevent spills and gaseous emissions. If effectively
protected by such devices, a vented tank would qualify as a
totally enclosed treatment facility.
When considering protective devices for tank vents, the
question arises as to whether the protective device is itself
adequate. The test involves a judgment as to whether the
overflow or gaseous emission passing through the vent will be
prevented from reaching the environment. For example, an open
catchment basin for overflows is not satisfactory if the
hazardous constituents in the waste may be emitted to the air.
Similarly, it may also not be satisfactory if it is only large
enough to hold the tank overflow for a brief period before it
also overflows. However, even in this situation, alarm systems
could be installed to ensure that the capacity of the catchment
basin is not exceeded. Where air emissions from vents or relief
valves are concerned, if the waste is non-volatile or the
emi'ssions cannot contain gases or aerosols which could be
hazardous in the atmosphere, then no protective devices are
necessary. An example might be a pressure relief valve on a tank
containing non-volatile wastes. Where potentially harmful
emissions could occur, then positive steps must be taken. For
example, the vent could be connected to an incinerator or process
kiln. Alternately, a sorption column might be suitable if
emission rates are low, the efficiency of the column approaches
100 percent, and alarms or other safeguards are available so that
the upset causing the emission will be rectified before the
capacity of the column is exceeded. Scrubbers will normally not
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
be sufficient because of their tendency to malfunction and
efficiencies typically do not approach 100 percent.
Tanks sometimes have floating roofs. To be eligible as a
totally enclosed facility, such tanks should be constructed so
that the roof has a sliding seal on the side which is designed to
prevent gaseous emissions and protect against possible overflow.
The part of the definition requiring that totally enclosed
treatment facilities be "directly connected to an industrial
production process" also generates some uncertainty. As long as
the process is integrally connected via pipe to the production
process, there is no potential for the waste to be lost. The
term "industrial production process" was meant to include only
those processes which produce a product, an intermediate, a
byproduct, or a material which is used back in the production
process. Thus, a totally enclosed treatment operation,
integrally connected downstream from a wastewater treatment
lagoon would not be eligible for the exemption because the
process to which it is connected is not an "industrial production
process." Neither would any totally enclosed treatment process
at an off-site hazardous waste management facility qualify,
unless it were integrally connected via pipeline to the
generator's production process. Obviously, a waste transported
by truck or rail is not integrally connected to the production
process.
Hazardous waste treatment is often conducted in a series of
unit operations, each connected by pipe to the other. As long as
one end of a treatment train is integrally connected to a
production process, and each unit operation is integrally
connected to the other, all qualify for the exemption if they
meet the requirement of being "totally enclosed." If one unit
operation is not "totally enclosed" or is not "integrally
connected," then only unit operations upstream from that unit
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
would qualify for the exemption. The unit and downstream process
would require a permit.
The device connecting the totally enclosed treatment
facility to the generating process will normally be a pipe.
However, some pipes (e.g., sewers) are constructed with manholes,
vents, sumps, and other openings. Pipes with such openings may
qualify as totally enclosed only if there is no potential for
emissions or overflow of liquids during periods of process upset,
or if equipment (sorption columns, catchment basins, etc.) has
been installed to prevent escape of hazardous waste or any
potentially hazardous constituent thereof to the environment.
This exemption for totally enclosed treatment facilities
applies only to the facility itself. The effluent from that
facility may still be regulated. If the waste entering the
totally enclosed treatment facility is listed in Subpart D of
Part 261, then the effluent from the facility is automatically a
hazardous waste and must be treated as such, unless it is
"delisted" in accordance with §§260.20 and 260.22. If, on the
other hand, the waste entering the totally enclosed treatment
facility is hazardous because it meets one of the characteristics
described in Subpart C of Part 261, then the effluent waste is a
regulated hazardous waste only if the effluent meets one of the
characteristics. Since the totally enclosed treatment facility
is exempted from the regulatory requirements, it is only the
effluents from such processes which are of interest to the
Agency. Thus, whether the waste in a totally enclosed treatment
facility must be considered towards the 1000 kg/month small
quantity generator limit, depends on whether it is a regulated
hazardous waste as it exits the totally enclosed treatment
facility.
Finally, it is important to note that if the effluents from
a totally enclosed treatment facility are discharged to a surface
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
water body (lake or stream) or to a publicly owned treatment
works or sewer line connected thereto, then these wastes are not
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste controls at all but are,
instead, subject to the Clean Water Act and regulations
promulgated thereunder (See 45 FR 76075).
III. Resolution; In sum, a "totally enclosed treatment facility"
must:
(a) Be completely contained on all sides.
(b) Pose negligible potential for escape of constituents to
the environment except through natural calamities or
acts of sabotage or war.
(c) Be connected directly by pipeline or similar totally
enclosed device to an industrial production process
which produces a product, byproduct, intermediate, or a
material which is used back in the process.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
3432.1983(02)
Rer»»»nt Court !>eci<»ion on RC*A Ipplicability to
r"acilitl«ta
John S* inner, Director
Oftice of Solid *ast« (w-4-563)
•"•;: ".azar^ous '-"j*te Division Oirectora, tj.a.}ions I-x
In * recent ••teciaion, Snvimnrutntal r>t»?r.so fur-ri v. La^'f. j».yrf
71* ?".2d 331, th» United States Ccurt of Appeals, «»ourtft Circuit,
d«cl*r»d th«t » person in control of a »ite wh»r« druwo«d
h*x*rdoM» wastes are held !• enyaged in •storage" of haiarious
waste under ACRA even tAougn all the wastes were placed at the
site t>e?or« .k>ve*sber 19, 19COJJ The defendant *»»rt argued •>«• w«s
not covered by the 3CRA regulations &ecauae ha hart not placed
•*ny vantee in vtora^e after the date tfto regulations went inf?>
effect. ~TK« court, citing the definition of storage in *n CFR
263.10, hoa.o met the fact th«»t no vr*st«« had rcon ^l^ca-i in
storage after VovemOer 19, 1990, *»aa "iaeiaterial* becauae the
had continued to store wastes deposited before that
This decision supports previous guidance we nave issuac on
this sunject (attached). It is particularly significant because
it was delivered by a court which has traditionally taken a
narrnw view of E?A*s authority. Please note this decision and
ensure that both technical staff and Regional Counsel are aware
of It.
•kttachwents
cci SK Braocn Chiefs
Permits Contact*
Mark Greenwood
WH-563tC*iller:CK:r*.S243Dx382-4692:ll/25/83z»liller's disk tS
-------
9432.1984(01)
January 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determination of Operator at the DOE Oak Ridge Facility
FROM: Bruce R. Weddle, Acting Director
Permits and State Programs Division (WH-563)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
I am writing in response to your letter of December 30
regarding who should be the operator in the pending permit for
the DOE facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. My staff has been in
contact with your staff and other HQ offices concerning the
issues in this case. It is my understanding that the Office of
General Counsel has requested copies of the permit and related
documents and has asked your Office of Regional Counsel to delay
any decisions in this matter until OGC has reviewed these
documents. You should also be advised that the generic issue of
contractors serving as RCRA permittees has been raised in the
negotiations between EPA and DOE Headquarters. We will let you
know of any developments in these negotiations and we urge you to
keep us advised of developments in the Oak Ridge case.
I have two general comments at this time regarding the Oak
Ridge operator issue.
First, the decision as to which party should be the operator
in the permit should be made by the Regional Office, based on
application of the definition of "operator" in §260.10. As
general guidance in such determinations, I suggest that you
consider the role of the contractor in making major decisions at
the facility. If the contractor has considerable autonomy to
make such decisions without DOE involvement, then the contractor
could be considered the operator. If on the other hand, DOE
retains responsibility for major decisions, then DOE could be
considered the operator. Obviously, there will be cases where
the contractor's responsibility is less precisely defined; in
those cases, the Region should exercise judgement given the
factual situation. (OGC may have additional guidance in this
area following their review of the Oak Ridge situation. In
particular, OGC will examine the contract language and site
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
management practices at Oak Ridge in respect to the §260.10
definition.)
Second, your letter states that the Region may deny the DOE
permit if the disagreement with DOE is not resolved. I suggest
that you consider, instead, making a determination as to who is
the "operator" and issuing the permit. (This assumes that the
application demonstrates compliance with RCRA and is signed by
the proper owner and operator.) If the permittee objects to
permit conditions, he may appeal those conditions. But I'm not
sure whether there are grounds to deny the permit and I doubt
that such an action would help resolve the larger questions.
(Again, OGC may have some suggestions in this regard as well.)
Please let me know if we can provide additional assistance
on this issue.
cc: Gene Lucero
Peter Guerrero
Terry Grogan
Elizabeth Cotswoth
Susan Schmedes (OGC)
Tony Baney (OWPE)
Sandy Williams (OPA)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9432.1984(03)
SUBJECT: P«r«1t Policy for Oecanning and Crushing Operations
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residual* Management Branch, Region IV
•»
e This •etoranduii Is 1n response to jrour April 5, 1944,
« request Tor a headquarters policy Interpretation on permitting
a of hazardous waste dacannlnj and crushing operations.
u.
S Based on our understanding of the process at Shulton, Inc.,
^•the toiletry crashing operation clearly meets the definition of
""treataent* as specified In §264.10. It is therefore subject to
-------
-2-
w a s designed jlnpl/ to a^jrftgate the wastes Into
larger containers. The wastes w-r« not rendered
non-nazardous or less hazardous, ana any change 1n
tna wastes' cnaract«r1 sties (such as a posslole enan-je
1n concentration) «as 1n this Instance trjly incidental
Changes 1n a xaste's characteristics cannot be
to be Incidental simply t>«c*use tne; occur In «
or aeca.idny process*
Please lee Be know If you have any further questions
tnls Issue.
cc: tJ. Meddle
A. Undse/
P. Guerrero
£. Costworth
A. Corson
-------
9432.1934(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 84
A.
1. C*n i t*nkl1ke portable filter press u$e^ i« < vtstevater trwt*ent facility be
excluded fron regulation 1f the f11t«r press oeets «T1 of tn« 260. U> criteria
uftoer V«stewater tre«t»ent unit* despite the fict It is not • st«tion«ry a^
Yes; the filter press "O^d be txclodec fro* re^ilitien b/ 26S.l(c)(lU)
26*. l(g) 16} is I viStewater trtitaent unit.
-------
9432.1984(05)
SUEJECT: Definition of Treatment! Application to
Great Lakes Carbon Corp.
FROM: John K. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Janes Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
EPA Region IV
We have reviewed and interpreted the definition of treatment
as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, Subpart B - Definitions. The defini-
tion is made up of two parts: the change in the waste's character
Affected by treatment and the purpose of the change. Based on this
definition/ the process proposed by Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
(GLCC) docs not constitute treatment. GLCC's plan to add water to
the cyanide contained in dissolvable plastic bags will change the
physical character of the cyanide waste. However, the purpose of
this chance is to facilitate disposal. The change will not make
the waste safer to dispose. Sone of those purposes listed in the
definition, that is to neutralize? to recover energy or material
resources; to render such waste non-hazardous or less hazardous,
safer to transoort, store, or dispose; or amenable for recovery,
amenable for storage, or reduced in volume, apply to the process
proposed by CLCC.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Thomas Baugh of
the Waste Treatment Branch at PTS 382-2550.
-------
9432.1984(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 84
4. Ui« JOV-. reflation5 octine an "^'jlicr* as a "...f creation c*f*Me of y
* si^ifiemnt awcunt of crouncVBter to well* cr *7Tin5s"(S260.10>. Per th»
of thfc JOA proyran, has '•l^nlftcant awxmt* cr 'significant yield*
ciafimd?
Siynificant yielC ti*s ncc D***n •Asi^rMn^ t> diacr*t»
can VAT/ fraa location to location. Slgni£lc&nt yUld i* o*p«nOent« in port,
on geologic «nd hyCrolcxjic ccntfiticns. For ii>stancet one location n*y Ksv*
lixjntiant Buridco *rij i^cunJwatsr r«^tource« vith uyipermast geologic strata
yieliln; only very nil «ncuntx. Vtechcr location va/ tovo similar upper
straU cut viuiout *ucn rich rcscurcee. Dvcisions en the '•ignif icanct" of
the yield from these sLnilar strata mst be nade in light of such regional
considerations, becjua* of this variability, tha A;cnCj has net established
a niairxn »i?nificant yield Jt^ur*. Sere B»A Rations have taunt that 20
gallons per oay (gpd) to be appropriate. Other togions have used local
oefiniticna or ranc«s (*«g., >*50 cpd). A disoAsion of significant yield
U in tte July 26, l?8i, ferttral Register (47 _ra 32289).
Sourcet BurrcU Vincent (2u2)
Olton (202) 3&2-4494
LBvlo»an
-------
9432.1984(07)
SUBJECT i feequest for Guidance/Clarification of Wastewater
Treatment unit Definition
If HOB > Johe E. skinner, Uirsctor
Office of Solid wast* (WB-S62)
TOt JaMS H. ftcarbrough, Chief
kesiduals Management Branch
Wast* Management Division
fi.P.A. Ration XV
Your memo of December lit 1984 ia ona ot aavaral rayuaata for
guidanca that ObW haa racaivad from tha Aegiona ainea tha waatawatar
traatmtnt unit axaaption waa proemlgatad on Movaab*rl7#
Tha ea»a on which you raquaatad guidanca involves tanka
a tor ing hasardoua waatavatara that ara than truckad aeroaa tha
Dapartaant of £nargy oak fcidya r a Bar vat ion to a traatoant facility
tnat na& an h^btb pen&it. You aakad what her a diract »achanicai
connaetion batwaan tha componanta ot tha treatnant facility wara
nacesaary for tha tanks to be part of the waatawatar treatment
facility.
For tha purpoaaa of thia a)xa«ptionv a waatawatar treatment
unit ia defined in 40 CFK §260*10 aai
(1) * tank,
(2) which is part of a waatawatar treatment facility aubject
to regulation undar either fraction 402 or Section 307 (t>)
of tha Clean water Act, and
(3) which receivea and traata or atoraa an influent waate-
watar that ia a hazardous waste or which generates,
accumulates, traata, or atoras a waatawatar treatment
aludga that ia a hazardous waata.
In providing guidance on iaplenentation of this rule, wa have
bean basing our interpretations on tha intent of tha exemption aa
wall as on tha wording ot tha regulation.
-------
You acknowledge that the DOC reservation i» a "facility**
and we have followed thi» interpretation In accepting their Part A
RCRA application. Because there ia no requirement that component*
of the waste water unite in a facility be connected, there i« no
reason why water-water could not be piped, trucked, or otherwise
conveyed fron one waterwater unit to another* Therefore), the
vastevater tanks in question are part of a waste water treatment
unit, exe»pt under 40 CPK f 2*4. Kg) (4).
Further, this office has acknowledged that if wa«te water is
stored and treated in a tank at one facility prior to shipment to
a POTW, the tank is exswpt under 40 CFR f 264. Kg ){ 6) (see the
attached ae
If you have any questions, please call Donald White
(382-7917) of vy staff.
Attachment
-------
5432.1985(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 85
Generator Determnaticn
5. While en maneuvers, a U.S. Naval vessel generates various hazardous wastes en
board, such as spent listed solvents and reactive wastes. These wastes art
placed in containers while still on the vessel. The vessel decks at a shipyard
and the wastes are unloaded from the ship and placed on the pier. The owner/
operator (o/o) of the shipyard stores the wastes for up to 90 days without a
storage permit and then nanifests the waste for shipment off-site. Is the naval
vessel or the shipyard operator the generator of the waste,? If the shipyard
operator is considered the generator, is he entitled to the 90 day accumulation
tin per §262.34?
The naval vessel is considered the site where the waste is generated.
Language in the October 30, I960, Federal Register (45 FR 72024) states that
in certain cases a waste is not generated* until it is renoved frcro a product
or raw naterial transport vessel. This naval vessel is not a product or raw
material transport vessel; it is the site where a process produces a hazar-
dous waste and is the generator according to the definition in §260.10. The
shipyard operator is not the generator and is not authorized to store wastes
for up to 90 days without a permit.
Sourcet Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217
-------
9432.1985(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 85
Free Liquid*
1. Section 3004(c){3) of RCRA as amended by the HnyanVnifi and Solid Waste
Araendmsnt* of 1984 states that "Effective twelve norths after the date
of enactment.. .the placement of any liquid which is not a hnT.nnV>ii
waste in a landfill for which a permit is required under Section
3005 (c)...is prohibited." There is no mention of "free liquids" in
this prohibition. How is EPA going to define "any liquid"?
EPA believes that Congress intended the tern "Liquid" in Section
3004(c)(3) to encompass free Liquids (as defined in §260.10) as
well as liquids. The legislative history to Section 3004(c)
indicates that Congress meant EPA to develop a uiiform definition of
"liquid" and to prescribe a test to determine when a waste contains
liquids and free liquids. See S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong., 2d
Sess. 22 (1983). In addition, the legislative history shows that
Congress generally used the term "liquid" to include both liquids
and free liquids.
Hence, the Agency intends to use the paint filter test for the purpose
of determining whether a raterial is a liquid under Section 3004(c)(3).
The paint filter test is an appropriate test method to determine the
presence of free liquids. The April 30, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR
18370} contains and discusses the final rule which requires the use of
the paint filter test. The paint filter test will be the new method
9095 as set cut in "Update II to SW-846," (Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Wastes).
Source: Paul Cassioy (202) 382-4682
-------
9432.1985(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUS 3 0 IS55
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTi ANO IMIROENCV RESPONSE
Mr. John Quarles
Morgan, Lewi* 6 BocXius
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear John:
Thia is in response to your letter of June 25, 1985, requesting
clarification as to whether above-ground portions of landfills
in which waste is placed only within the lateral boundaries of the
unit are considered to be "existing units" under the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.
Section 3015 of HSWA requires new units, lateral expansions
of existing units, and replacements of existing units, to comply
with the minimum technological requirements set out in Section
3004(o). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has
interpreted Section 3015 to provide that for a unit to qualify
as an existing unit, it must have received waste by November 8,
1984, and must also have been fully "operational" by that date.
In order to be considered operational, the unit must have been
constructed to comply with all federal, State, and local require-
ments, including licenses and permits, in effect prior to
November 8, 1984, so that as of that date there was no legal
impediment to the operation of the unit. Sec 50 Fed. Reg. 28707
(July 15, 1985).
Your June 25, 1985, letter suggests that while under some
circumstances an above-ground area must be classified as a new
unit, such an area may be exempt from the new requirements if
it is part of an existing unit. We agree that the statute provides
for such a distinction.
The boundaries of an existing unit are limited by the
specifications in operating or closure plans, permits, etc.,
that were applicable on November 8, 1984, that describe a final
elevation or maximum capacity of the unit. The elevation or
capacity limitation will restrict the maximum allowable height
of the existing unit. If a State permit, for example, placed an
interim restriction on the height of the unit, only the height
-------
allowed in the permit on November 8, 1984, is included in the
existing unit. Additional placement of waste would constitute &
new unit.
An above-ground area must also be considered a new unit if
a new or modified State or local permit would be required prior
to receipt of waste in that area after November 8, 1984. We
believe that such areas do not qualify as existing units nor as
portions of existing units. This is because such vertical
expansions do not meet the existing unit criterion of being
"operational" on November 8, 1984, since there was a legal
impediment to the operation of the unit on that date.
On the other hand, an above-ground portion will be considered
part of an existing landfill unit if (1) the owner or operator,
prior to November 8, 1984, had been granted the legal authority
to expand vertically, i.e., all required permits and licenses
for the vertical expansion had been obtained by that date, and
(2) no further State or local approval is needed for such vertical
expansion after November 8, 1984. Placement of waste vertically
in such existing landfill units, including vertical expansions
that involve additional construction of berms, liners, leachate
collection systems, or other physical structures or appurtenances,
constitute portions of existing units provided that the additional
waste is placed only above waste placed within the lateral boundaries
of the existing landfill unit; i.e., there must be no lateral
placement of waste. If required construction features added
after November 8, 1984, would result in expanded lateral placement
of waste (i.e., would result in a lateral expansion), Section
3015 would require that this expanded area be in compliance with
the new minimum technological requirements.
We will very shortly clarify to our Regional Offices that
the minimum technological requirements are applicable to above-
ground landfill areas if such areas constitute new units, as
described above.
We have not yet completed a detailed review of the information
we have received regarding your client's facility in Deer Park,
Texas. In fact, we have not yet received from you all of the
information I requested in my letter of August 9, 1985. Specifi-
cally, as requested in my previous letter, we need drawings
that clearly identify which portions of the unit were constructed
and where the liner and leachate collection system were located
on November 8, 1984. In addition, it is possible that we will
need even more information1 regarding this unit before a final
determination can be made. Hence, we express no opinion here
about whether your client's unit would qualify as an existing
unit under the definition and guidance set out above.
-------
I hope that the information contained herein is helpful
to you, and look forward to receiving the information we are
requesting regarding your client's facility.
Sincerely your*,
f JTW- f\'^nt tt «UAJ
/ohn H. Skinner
director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9432.1985(05)
Definition of Existing Portion
3. The definition of "existing portion" in Title 40 CFR 5260.10 refers to the land
surface area of an existing waste management unit included in the original Part A
permit application on which wastes have been placed prior to the issuance of a
pennit. If a landfill unit has waste placed over fifty percent of the surface area
of such unit, is the whole mit considered the "existing portion?"
The whole unit is not considered the "existing portion." Only the fifty percent
covered surface area would meet the definition of "existing portion." Hence, at
permit issuance/ the non-covered fifty percent portion would have to have a
single liner as required by $264.301. if the uncovered area was also covered
with waste prior to pennit issuance, the whole unit would then meet the
definition of "existing portion."
Tne Hazardous and Solid tfeste Anendments (HSWA), in effect, limit the appli-
cability of the "existing portion" concept to those units that are "existing
units* under HSWA. This is because units that are not "existing units* under
HSWA must meet the minimum technological requirements of HSWA (i.e., landfills
and surface impoundments that are not existing units must have double liner
and leachate collection systems, and waste piles that are not existing units
must have single liner and leachate collection systems). See the guidance
entitled "Craft Guidance on Implementation of the Minimum Technological Require-
ments of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1964", dated May 24, 1985.
Source: Les Otte (202) 382-4654
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9432.1935(07)
9 I98S~~
Mr. Lewis D. Walker
Deputy for Environment, Safety and
Occupational Health
OASA (I&L)
Room 2E613
Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20310-0103
Dear Mr. Walker:
My staff and I have reviewed the Technical Document dated
27 June 1985, which was submitted by the U.S. Army Chemical
Agent/Munitions System (CAMDS) Directorate, to consider the
CAMDS site at Tooele Army Depot in Tooele, Utah as a "totally
enclosed treatment facility" and thereby exempted from RCRA
Subtitle C requirements. The substance of this document was
presented to technical, policy, and legal EPA staff at a meetini
on September 5, 1985, by several Department of Defense (DoD)
personnel.
A "totally enclosed treatment facility" under RCRA is
defined in 40 C.F,R. §260.10 as:
... a facility for the treatment of hazardous waste which
is directly connected to an industrial production process
and which prevents the release of any hazardous waste or
any constituent thereof into the environment during treat-
ment. An example is a pipe in which waste acid is neutra-
lized.
The CAMDS facility does not meet this definition for two
reasons. First, the objective of CAMDS is to destroy obsolete
chemical munitions; this activity constitutes treatment as
defined in $260.10 and is not directly connected to an industrial
production process. Second/ this treatment involves incineration
of hazardous waste, thus releasing emissions of hazardous con-
stituents to the environment. These emissions (e.g., byproducts
of the combustion process during normal operation and during
upset conditions before the wastefeed is shut off) are inherent
in the normal operation of a hazardous waste incinerator. Even
a highly efficient incinerator will not destroy 100 percent of
all constituents of the hazardous wastes that are fed into it.
The regulatory exclusion of a totally enclosed treatment facility
pertains only to treatme/it that prevents releases of both hazardous
wastes and their constituents.
-------
- 2 -
V.e realize ttet lot ray soon be- rantiated to corfletelv
uefaLroy 90 percent of the r.ilitary stockpile of lethal cherical
ciucr.ts and runitions fcy September 30, 1994 (h.f. 1P72, 131
Cong. Pec., No. C7, June 26, 1965). Conseourntly, Pen intern's
to use the CAhCS facility to develop and demonstrate the incin-
eration technology to accomplish this proposed statutory objective.
In view of the structural modifications ana/or operating channes
necessary to frovido DoD and Connresc with information about tlif
effectiveness of incineration to demilitarize cherical agcnte
antf munitions at the CAMPS facility, we reconr.enrt that the U.s.
Amy apf.ly tor a research, development, and denonstration (PPfrP.)
pernit urrier 4C C.l-.K. 5270.ti5; a full PCRA incinerator pen-it
issued under 40 C.P.P.. Part 2€4, Suhpart C would not provide
flexibility in modifying the design and operation of the facility.
All intended rodifications to the facility rust be identified
in the RDtD permit. However, unlike a Subpart 0 permit, a trial
burn for each Modification ic not recuired to demonstrate corpliarce
with $2(>4 requirenents since tkiis would be counter to the intent
of an PD&O perrit. You should note, however, that before the
facility pay be operated outside the conaitions spocitiec' in the
RbfcD pern it (i.e., structural or operational noc!if icaticnc) the
F.D&D porcdt rsust be re-drafted to reflect the portitications
re^uirtd and must be made available for public notice and connent
tor 45 days (5270.41). Therefore, I recommend that attention be
given to planning the project so that it is not delayed for this
reason.
RD&D perr-its are lir-ited to one year of operation ( 3€ 5 <*ey«i
of actual operation treatinn hazardous wastes), ray be renewed
three tinea, and nust sjtecify the type arxl Quantities of hazardous
waste intended for treatment (£270.€5(«) (1) and (2)). The- Concrest
and EPA intend to linit these Quantities of hazardous waste to
the Dininur necessary to deronstrate the feasibility of the
incinerators. In order to expedite the review and issuance of
the KL'iD perr.it, the FPA Regional office can tailor the PCPA
pcrrit application and procedural requirements of 40 C.F.r.
Farts 124 and 270 (except for the public participation procedures
and tinancitl assurance roauirencnts> to the research objectives
of the CAfiDS facility (5270.65(b)).
Until the RDtD pemit is issued, th« CAMPS facility can
continue to operate under interim status, proviclinn it continue?
to operate accordinc; to the requirencnts of F270.71. Durinn the
KD&D testing, CAhDS could apply tor a full *:CPA incinerator
l>emit if you intend to continue? usinq the incinerators to de*-il-
itarize stockpiles of chemical agents and munitions follovir.cj
the t*»rt« of the Rl>*D perrit; in this c«s««, date fror the fpff
activity pay be subritttd in lieu of a trial burn (oee enclosure
1, Rfcscarcii Plan *J**).
-------
- 3 -
To assist the Regional Office, we reviewed the information
in the Technical Document and made a preliminary determination
about the additional type of information necessary to prepare a
complete RDiD application (see enclosure 1). We also described
the type of performance data, which would be necessary in lieu
of conducting a trial burn, thereby accelerating the permitting
of sinilar hazardous waste incinerators based upon the RD&D
demonstrations. Also, we are enclosing a copy of the draft
Guidance Manual for Research, Development, and Demonstration
Permits, dated October 3,1985, to assist you in preparing an
RD&C application (see enclosure 2).
The Agency is encouraging the development and demonstration
of new and alternative technologies and processes to treat and
minimize hazardous wastes. He recognize the critical need for
DoD to demilitarize chemical agent munitions, particularly in
view of the limited technical data on processes and technologies
and the lack of facilities to treat these wastes.
you should contact Mr. Larry Wapensky at (303) 293-1662,
Chief, RCRA Permits Section, EPA-Region VIII about processing
the RD&D application.
Sincerely,
Harcia C. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
cct Bruce Vied die
Peter Guerrero
Truett DeGeare
Art Glazer
Nancy Pom.erleau
Robin Anderson
Dov Weitman (LE-132S)
Ken Gray (LE-132S)
jack Lehman
Warren Bull (A-104)
Larry Wapensky, Region VIII
Dale D. Parker, Ph.D., State of Utah
Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
-------
9432.1985(08)
SUtJLCT: Reicholds Cher.icals in Elizabeth, rj
FKO.ii Robin Anderson (WE-563)
Penoit* Branch
TOi John Broqard
Region II
A* you requested, i have reviewed the heat recovery unit
for Keicholo Chemicals in Elisabeth, New Jersey, to determine if
it should be classified as a boiler and, therby, exenpt from
fcCKA regulations under 40 CPP. 261.6 based on energy recovery.
The applicant has requested that a variance bo crsntet! under
40 CFJ. S 26C.32 to classify the unit as a boiler* The request
is primarily based on the efficiency of the heat.recovery unit
(i.e., €5% heat recovery), the fact that 100 percent of the
them A! energy generated is used throughout tho year, and because
the applicant claims the system provides better destruction of
hazardous constituents than boilers as defined under 5 2£0.1G.
Although the intent of the operation appears to be laqit irate
eneroy recovery under $261.6, the boiler variance cannot be
granted because the heat recovery unit* which is the Dean Eneroy
Recovery Systemr is an add-on device. Further, the the clas-
sification of such a unit would set a precedent which may he
contrary to EPA regulations to be proposed in June 1996. The
cor-bust ion systep. is properly classed as an incinerator, and rust
be permittee! as such under f»CRA Subpart C to ensure the adequate
treatment of the hazardous waste. The definition of a "boiler*
under 5 260.10 requires the energy recovery syster to be of
integral design to the conbustion chamber and specifically
excluoes a unit in which tho ccebustion chamber and the recovery
chanber is joined by ducts or connections carryinn flue nas.
The variance procedures should not b* used to evace a restrictien
definitely stated* The procedure was aeant to apply to deviccr
not fully considered by the definition and, therefore, such
variances should be few.
-------
-2-
With regard to the destruction efficiency of a "boiler* as
defined under S 260.10^.,the Agency agrees that gone boilers may
pose a hazard when burning certain hazardous wastes, and is
developing regulations for boilers. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendment of 1904, Section 3004(q), requires the Agency to
develop standards for the burning of hazardous waste as a tuel
within two years of enactment. As part of this activity the
Agency has proposed regulations (50 PR 1684-1724, January 11,
1985) to provide administrative control of hazardous waste burned
in boilers. The final rule/ to be published shortly in the
Federal Register, will prohibit the burning of hazardous waste
in non-industrial boilers (e.g., boilers used in a residential,
commercial, and institutional setting) unless such activity was
permitted as a hazardous waste incinerator under RCRA. Other
regulations are presently being developed which would regulate
the burning of hazardous waste in industrial boilers and industrial
furnaces regardless of the purpose of the activity.
The Reichold system was also reviewed by Marc Turneon of the
Waste Treatment Branch and he is in agreement that the system can-
not be classified as a boiler under RCRA for the reasons presented
above. Please call me on FTS 382-4498 if further clarrification
of this issue is needed.
cc: Peter Guerrero
Da via Sussraan
Art Glazer
Karc Turgeon
Incinerator Permit Writers Work Group
-------
9432.1985(10)
DEC 30 "985
^rank 7. Pox, Jr.
, pav, Pelvis f, Pooue
230C r.TV Center
Pallas, Texas 75201
ne«r Mr. Fox:
In vour letter of Hecenher 13, 1985, you reouested our
oninion as to whether the Lubrizol combustion unit at Painesville,
Ohio i? of inteoral desinn under 40 CFP 260.10.
After reviewino the enaineerino drawinos, which you provided,
our staff has concluded that the combuwtor is a rotary bed furnace
with secondary combustion to which a waste heat boiler has been
attached. It appears that the entire unit was desioned at- one
tine, and that it incorporates some uniau«» desinn features, post
particularly the use of firebrick linino in the secondary com-
bustion chamber. It does appear that the unit was desinned to
burn a slurry iraterial with, hich ash content.
However, the Painesville desian does not ™eet the intenral
desion standard aiven in the holler definition, and does not
fall under the fluidized bed or process heater exemptions to the
intenral desian criterion. .cn«cifically, we consider the boiler
section connected by a ductibcufurnace outside the meantno of
the "inteoral d*»ipn* definition. Thus, we consider the unit an
incinerator. We believe your arauwent that the secondary combus-
tion chamber (labeled "flue" in the blueprints) is not * duct if
accepted would also allow commercial rotary viins with heat
recovery boilers to b« classed as boilers, defeatino the main
purpose of the definition.
-------
we a]*o believe the variance procedure unc«er 260.32 i* not
Appropriate for furnaces clucte^ to heat recovery boilers.
Please call »r. Pobert Holloway or Mr. rare Turaeon at
(202) 382-7914 if vou have any further ouestions on this natter,
Sincerely,
John P. Lehman
Tirector
Waste Management and
Fconomics Division
(WH-565)
cc: Peaion V
Waste Manaoenent Division
-------
Ino jr^otdt-'--I
iJOj M i.r-way 70 ?;ast
•'-.)t Springs, Arkansas 71901
Dear Mr. Philipp:
In your letter of December 5, 1995 you reauested that the
Agency identify the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) status of sludge dryers that are part of a "conventional
treattrent ^vstem" not regulated by RCRA. You questioned whether
addim a sludge dryer to a wastewater treatment unit exempted
from RCRA oermitting will jeonardize the exemption. The RCRA-
Sunerfund Hotline correctly identified sludge drying for you as a
treatment orocess accordina to the definition of treatment in
40 CFR 5260.10. However, when sludge dryers meet the definition
of wastewater treatment units, they qualify for the wastewater
treatment exemption of S52M. 1 (g) { 6), 265. He) (10) , and
270.l(c)(2)(v). In your case, adding a sluuge dryer to treat
sludge generated by a treatment system operating under a wastewater
treatment exemption does not subject the treatment system to RCRA
permitting.
As you know, sludge dryers must meet the three criteria in
tha definition of wastewater treatment unit in order to be
part of a wastewater treatment exclusion. First, the information
you sent shows that your sludge dryer qualifies as a tank as
defined in $260,10; that is, it is, designed to contain hazardous
waste and is constructed primarily of nonearthen materials that
provide structural support. Furthermore, the Agency has clarified
the definition of tank—for this exemption--to include unit
operations such as presses, filters, sumps, and Many other types
of processing equipment. (See the attached memorandum dated
July 31, 1981, frore John Lehman to Region I.) In addition,
the preamble of the November 17, 1980, proposed rule (45 F_R
76077-76078) clarified the definition of a wastewater treatnent
unit as follows:
This definition.. .covers. . .the sludoe digesters,
thickeners, dryers and other sludge processing tanks...
in which hazardous wastewater treatment sludge is
treated; and any...tanks used for the storage of
such sludeie.
-------
Second, the sluclv}e tiryer treats or stores a wastewater
treatment sludgo which is a hazardous waste as defined in 5261.3
(i.e., the sludge itself is a listed waste, derived fron treatment
of a listed waste, or is hazardous on tho basis of characteristics
identified in $261 Subpart C). This neans that the treatment of
sludges generated froiu wastewater treatment units is also exempt
frcn regulation under the RCRA treatment standards.
Tanks (here a sludge dryer) that do not themselves have any
discharge subject to regulation under Sections 402 or 307(b) of
the Clean Water Act, but that are part of the wa*t«vater treatment
system, qualify for the exemption if other tanks in the treatment
train have discharges that are subject to these Clean Water Act
provisions. So the third condition, being part of a wastewater
treatment unit subject to regulation under Section 402 or 307(b)
of the Clean i?ater Act, can be met by sludge dryers in certain
circumstances. However, as t'he November 17, 1980 preamble stated
(45 F£ 76077), even the proposed regulations...."may not provide
adecuate environmental protection where treatment of the hazardous
wastewater tends to result in the escape of hazardous waste
constituents into the atmosphere (e.g., the treatment of highly
toxic volatile wastes in ooen tanks)." Unless the Administrator
promulgates regulations covering wastewater treatment unite,
wastewater treatment tanks that qualify for exemption under
current RCRA standards may volatilize their contents and retain
the exemption.
Sludge dryers may be used as part of a program to meet the
waste minimization requirements of Section 3002(b) of RCRA without
requiring permitting if the above conditions are met. Of course,
although exempted from permitting requirements in the wastewater
treatment units, any hazardous waste sludge that is removed from
the tanks is subject to applicable regulations under $§260-266,
such as manifesting off site, permitted storage after 90 days,
and so on. If you have any additional questions regarding this
exemption for wastewater treatment units, please do not hesitate
to call Irene Homer at 202-382-7917.
Sincerely yours,
o'- Portor
•\5- if t Tit A-i-nnir, t-.rator
^ruce'V&dcile,' PS'Pij ' cc i £ft'"'fte r?6^ r
jyene J,ucero, QV.'Pt Nancy Pomerloau
Marx Green'.vdod , OGC Tina Parker
Hazardous i.aste Division •Directors, Ken Gray
Regions I-x
-------
9432. 1986(02)
SUBJECT: University of Foutb A.]ahar»a Meat Recovery Unit
FPOMt Jack W.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
TOj Thomas Devine
Director, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division
Pen ion IV
This is in reference to a November 22, 1985, memorandum from
Janes H. Scarbrouqh to J. Winston Porter requesting comments on i
petition to classify a heat recovery unit at the University of
South Alabama as a boiler.
We understand from your meno and conversations with your
staff that the University plans to build a solid waste combustion
unit equipped with a heat recovery boiler. The device would also
burn hazardous wastes at a maximum rate of less than 4 percent on
a heat input basis. recovered steam would b« used in a hospital
laundry at the University.
This device cannot be classified as a boiler because it fails
the fundamental and objective criterion for a boiler — that the
combustion chamber and heat recovery unit must be of intecral
design. The variance procedure provided by 40 CPR 260.32 is
intended to consider classifying as boiler* devices not antici-
pated during development of the rule*. The definition of a
boiler and the, variance procedure criteria, however, were
structured specifically to classifv incinerators with waste
heat recovery boilers as incinerators. I ax not aware of any
characteristics of this cane that indicate that this is a type
of design not anticipated by the Fnvironwental Protection Aoency
(EPA) when it adopted the basic definition of boiler and variance
procedure en January 4, 19R5 (see SO pp 561-662).
It is irmortant to be able to clearly disMnnulsh between
incinerators and boilers because they are suMect to different
standards. Owner* and operators of hazardous wast« incinerators
are subject to nemit requirement* under ?ubnart 0 of °arts 2M
-------
and 265. The burninn of hazardous waste In industrial boilers
and industrial furnaces is currently exempt frop reoulation.
Permit standards to control emissions frnr* these Devices are
under development, however, and are scheduled to be proposed
in June 1986. Even though we plan to irortel the boiler and
industrial furnace standards Generally after the incinerator
standards, it still may be necessary to distinguish between
incinerators, boilers, and industrial furnaces because standard!
or permit procedures may be somewhat different (e.g., we are
considerino an automatic waiver of trial burn? for boilers
operated under specified conditions that would ensure 99.99%
destruction and removal efficiency of toxic orasnics).
In addition to being a clear, unambiguous teat to distinguish
between boilers and incinerators r the inteoral design criterion
has environmental sionif icance. Devices where the combustion
chamber and heat recovery unit are of integral rteslen recover
eneray more efficiently. Thus, such devices are more likely to
be operated for the primary purpose of energy recovery and, in
turn, more likely to be operated and maintained to achieve peak
combustion (and destruction) efficiency (see 50 PP 626).
I should also point out that the final rule establishing
administrative controls on blendino and burning hazardous
waste and used oil fuels published in the Federal Register on
November 29, 1985, prohibits the burninc of hazardous waste fuels
in nonindustrial boilers (copy attached). Even if the University's
combustion unit were of inteoral desion and otherwise determined
to be a boiler, it would be considered a nonindustrial boiler
under that rule. Thus, hazardous waste could not be burned in
the device, unless the University complied with an exception to
the prohibition provided by that rule for nonindustrial boiler
owners and operators who comply with the hazardous waste incin-
erator standards under Subpart 0 of Parts 264 or 265. When the
technical, permit standards for boilers and industrial furnaces
are ultimately promulgated , any nonindustrial boilers burnino
hazardous waste under the interim status incinerator standards of
Part 265 would become subject to the standards for boilers. We
expert that few nonindustrial boiler owners and operators will
elort- to continue (or benin) burning hazardous waste fuels under
Ap » fA'isI note, VCMJ rrf*" v.anf to coppjfipr whpt-.*->i»r *
stv??t-ee th?r arp jnrir?Klr,
f*, an^ M'. *?*• cr>rt"?in po rr ir«? ^n j f i
If VP'' '•' ~\T r-i:r<~fcione r\r f-r>n-- c.r> f- c r\p ;> r '•• ^ t' t- v.n er: •-> n j r t ~ ,
eiB <~ j v-r! :'<•>• f ] 1 r-1-'?'.' rr ".ire Ti:rT»<"-n r> c~\~\ ""t .';" /' — 7n 1 ^ .
..- t- »• - r-V — r. pt-
-------
9432.1986(03)
se?», Inc.
South ?tr*eir
Pavnhan, Massachusetts 027K7
Dear Mr. Punke:
We have considered your Hecenber 1", 19P5, reouest for
determination as to the reoulatory status of your oreenhouse
boilers. V'e aaree that boilers used in Greenhouse operations
are "industrial" boilers within the meaninn of the Hov«n»h«r 29,
19P5, EPA used oil fuel rules. The main factor influencinn this
determination is that the enerov is used in the process of pro-
ducina a product, in this case plants. Greenhouse operations
are thus considered more like manufacturing facilities than non-
industrial conwercial, institutional, or residential facilities.
Sincerely,
John P.
Director
Man*a«?ment and
Economics Division (wi'-565)
cct Hazardous Waste Division
Directors, Peoions I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9432.1986(04)
2 11986
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY r
-------
9432.1986(05)
FEB 5 1986
Vice Admiral Peter J. Rotz
Chief, Office of Marine Ec.viror.Bent
ar.d Systems
United States Coast Guard
2100 2nd St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20593
Dear Vice Admiral Rotz:
We have been asked bv members of your staff to clarify the
applicability of EPA's regulations under the Resource Conservation.
and Recovery Act (RCRA) to operational wastes from ships. The
Coast Guard's Reception Facility Requirements for Waste Materials,
Retained O& Board, issued under Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 (50 FR
36768, September 9, 1985), have raised a number of questions regarding
the status of ships and terminals/ports ur.der the RCRA regulations.
In particular, we have been asked to determine who is the generator
of oily waste that is produced on ships and required under thf
Coast Guard's September 9, 1985 regulations to be discharged to
reception facilities at ports and terminals.
Ue have determined that, as a general matter, for any oil?
waste that is produced in product or raw material vessel xinits,
*uch as those used for bulk shipment of oil, both the ship and, In
son>e circumstances, the operator of the central facility involved
in removing the waste from the ship would be considered hazardous
waste generators. For other types of oily waste, such as bilge
water in vessel eneine roows contaminated with engine lubricant
drippings or solvents, only the ship would be deemed to be the
hazardous waste gi-nerator.
1. Generator requirements
The RCRA regulations define a generator as any person, by
site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste identified or
listed in 40 CFP Part 261 or who*** act first causes a hazardous
waste to become subject to regulation. 40 CFR $260.10. Any
person who generates a solid waste must determine if that waste
is hazardous, and if so, rust receive an EPA identification (in)
number before treating, storing, transporting or disposing, of th«*
waste. If the generator plans to move the waste off-site for
treatment, storage or disposal, he must comply with certain
requirements in Part 262, including, preparing an FPA manifest,
narkir.p the waste, keeptn?. record* and filing reports. Ir. addl-
-------
- 2 -
to 90 days without a ptrtsit If he cowplles with the requirements
of S262.34(a)(1-4).
2. Types of watt*; anblect to regulation
The oily wastes subject to Coast Guard regulation under
MARPOL Annex I generally are produced In two ways. The first it
through bulk shipnent of oil, whereby sludges and sedlaents that
settle out in the oil storage tank or unit mint be periodically
removed. Oil tankers also need to periodically dispose of oily
ballast water and tank cleaning water. The second type of waste
is produced fron the use of oil as a fuel and lubricant in a
ship's propulsion and auxiliary svsten. Bilge water that accumulates
in engine rooes often contains high concentrations of oil fron
lubricant drippir.es and other routine losses. The bilge water
nay also be contavinated with other types of wastes. Both types
of waste are solid wastes under 1261.2.
Whether these wastes art* hazardous wastes would be deter-
alned under 1261.3. In general, the waste would have to be
either (1) listed in Subpart I> of Part 261; (2) identified in
Subpart C of Part 261 (e.g.. exhibits ignitabllity characteris-
tic); (3) a oixture of solid waste and a listed hazardous waste;
or (4) is derived froo treating a 1luted hazardous waste. Under
current EPA regulations, used oil la not listed as a hazardous
waste,*_/ and therefore, would have to meet (2), (3) or (4) above.
We do riot anticipate nany situations in which one of these criteria
would he vet, with the possible exception of contamination of bilge
water with spent solvents. (1261.31) However, even this possi-
bility can be minimized if the bilge waters are sexregatd front
other wastes generated on the ship.**/
*/ EPA*a recent proposal to Hat uaed oil as a hazardous waste,
"~ if finalized, will change Ita current status under the RCRA
regulationa. See 50 Fed. Reg. 49212 (November 29, 1985).
**/ Under EPA'a spent solvent Hating, since a solvent is consi-
dered "spent" when It has been used and la no longer fit
for use without being reclaimed or reprocessed, It is likely that
solvents dripping fron nachinery and collecting In bilge water
would not cause the wastewater to be hazardous. See 50 Fed. Reg.
53315. 53316 (December 31, 1985).
-------
- 3 -
3. Regulation, of oily waste ur.der RCRA
The two types of oilv waste fron ship* - - waste produced
lr» product transport units and waste produced ID the propulsion and
auxiliary systems - - are treated differently under the RCRA regula-
tions. Under 1261.4(c), a hazardous waste generated In a produce
or rav material transport vessel is exempt from regulation until it
exits the unit in which it was generated or unless it remains in
the unit wore than 90 days after the unit ceases to be operated for
storage or transportation of the product or rav materials. These
wastes are sludges and residues produced in tanks or holds that
carry products or rav materials, where the products or raw materials
are not in themselves hazardous wastes. See 45 ?ed. Reg. 72024,
72026-27 (October 30, 1980).
A« a result of this exemption, parties who remove the waste
fron the ship at a central facility by either emptying the pro-
duct-holding unit or cleaning the holding tank are deemed to bf
generators under 40 CFR 1260.10 because their actions cause the
hazardous waste to become sublect to regulation. In addition, tthe
actions of both the operator and owner of the vessel and the owner of
the product or rav material result ii» production of the hazardous
waste. Thus, these parties, and any others that fit the generator
definition, are lointly and severally liable as generators. See
JLd. at 72026.
The Agency looks primarily to the central facility operated
to remove sediments and residues to perfom the generator duties,
since it is the party best able to perform such generator duties as
determining whether the waste Is hazardous. Where the wastes are
not removed at a central facility, however, the Agency looks to the
operator of the vessel to perform the generator duties. Id. at
72027. ""
Engine-related wastes are treated quite differently in that
they are regulated fron the moment they are produced. Since the
operation of the ship's propulsion system produces the oily wastes,
the ship's .owner and/or operator are generators. The facility
involved in removing this waste from the ahip is not a generator
because it It not causing the waste to become subject to regulation
- - this vaste is already subject to regulation when produced in
the ship* The facility way be a transporter (Part 263) or a treat-
ment storage or disposal (TSD) facility (Parts 264-265), depending
upon the actions It takes.
The Coast Guard's requirement that certain ports and terminals
be certified to have available adequate reception facilities for
ships' oily wastes does not necessarily determine the role of the
-------
- A -
port or terminal In the RCRA regulatory eeheoe.V For exawple, a
port or terminal that has available an independent vaste hauler who
transfers engine roow vaste directly into a tank truck do*-* not
appear to fit the definition of venerator, transporter or TSD
facility. The vaste hauler, or whoever is engaged in the offnite
(i.e., off the ship) transportation of the waste, would be dewed
the transporter.
Of course. if the manifested waste la atored for any period
of tine in tanks or containers at the port or terminal, or if the
vaste la removed to and stored In a barge, both the port and harge
storing, the waste would be deemed TSD facilities subject to the
requirements of Parts 270. 264 and 265. If whoever is transporting
the manifested waste from the ship storea the waute in containers
meeting the requirements of 1262.30 at a transfer facility, such as a
loading dock, the waste nay be atored for 10 days without being
8ub1«»ct to regulation under Parts 270, 264 and 265. See 40
CFR 1263.12.
The ship, as the generator, is also a TSD facility to
the extent that it is storing hazardous waste on board. Under
1262.34, a generator nay accumulate hazardous waste on site for ^0
days or less without having a permit provided certain requirements
are net. EPA is currently finalizing a proposed rerulation thaci
would extend this accumulation period for generators who generate
between 100 - 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. See 50
Fed. Reg. 31278 (August 1, 1985).
The Agency believes that the application of the RCRA regula-
tions in this way will be workable for the ships and reception
facilities auhlect to Coast Guard regulations. In situations where
ships' owners or operators are unable to perform the generator
duties, ships' agents that are.available at ports or terminals to
handle fueling and other necessary functions, such as carrying out
Custores requirements, way perform these duties on behalf of the ship.
The Agency would expect the shipping, company or agent handling the.
required manifesting and record keeping functions to retain records
either at ita U.S. business headquarters or at the local agent's
office located near the port or terminal where the ships have their
waste removed.
V Similarly, potential llahlllty of parties under the
Comprehensive Environmental Reaponae, Conpennation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) is not necessarily determined
by RCRA responsibilities. For example, ui*d*r CERCLA J107,
persona who arrange for transportation, disposal or treatment
of hazardous substances are liable fox certain costs, so
that parties who are act "generators" under RCRA nay nonetheless
have certain CF.RCLA liabilities.
-------
- 5 -
Also, any parties liable for performing generator duties way
designate aroonp themselves the person who will actually carry out
those functions. For example, where both the ship and a central
waste removal facility are deetsed to be generators, they «ay mutually
aeree that the central facility will perfora the generator duties.
We hope that this has been responsive to the Coast Guard'a
concerns regarding the interaction between the MARPOL and RCRA
regulations. Please don't hesitate to contact »e or Bruce Weddle
of B»y staff at 382-4746 if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Marcia E. Williams
MarcU Uillians
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9432.1986(06)
6B96
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Ridgway M. Hall, Jr., Esq.
Crowell & Moring
1100 Connecticut Ave, N.W.
Washington/ D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Hall:
This is in response to your letter of August 2, 1985, and
our meeting with you and your client, VerTech, on September 13,
1985, asking our opinion on whether the VerTech wet-air oxidation
system could be considered a totally enclosed treatment system
and thus exempt from the regulatory requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C. You provided
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the generic plans
for a wet air oxidation process that could be directly connected*
to a hazardous waste generator's process equipment. Since the
meeting in September, Jack Binning and Gerry Rappe provided
additional details on the nature of the gaseous phase and above
ground treatment units in their process in order to support your
contention that the process could be considered a totally enclosed.
treatment facility.
After reviewing the information provided on the process
blueprints, written descriptions of the treatment process,,- and
data on treatment of a synthetic waste stream, it is our opinion
that the VerTech process is not totally enclosed under RCRA. The
definition in §260.10 is t
"Totally enclosed treatment facility" means a facility for
the treatment of hazardous waste which is directly connected
to an industrial production process and which is constructed
and operated in a manner which prevents the release of any
hazardous waste or any constituent thereof.into the environ-
ment during treatment. An example is a pipe in which waste
acid is neutralized (45 PR 33076).
The May 19, 1980, Federal Register elaborated on the intent
of the totally enclosed exclusion:
Commenters pointed out that in some production processes,
wastes (particularly acid and alkaline solutions) are treated
in-pipe, often resulting in a non-hazardous discharge.
-------
EPA agrees that to classify "totally enclosed
treatment systems," such as pipes, as hazardous waste
treatment facilities...would not make a great deal of
sense. These facilities by definition do not release
wastes or waste constituents into the environment....
The key characteristic of such a facility is that
it does not release any hazardous waste or constituent
into the environment daring treatment. Thus, if a
facility leaks, spills, or discharges wastes or waste
constituents into the air during treatment, it is not
a "totally enclosed treatment facility" within the
meaning of these regulations (45 FR 33218).
A review of the regulation and preamble demonstrates that
the totally enclosed treatment exemption was intended to exclude
from regulation a very narrow subset of treatment facilities.
The regulation provides only one examplet neutralization in
pipes. The preamble emphasizes that a facility that discharges
wastes or waste constituents to the air during treatment cannot
be considered totally enclosed. Your wet-air oxidation unit,
like many other types of thermal treatment units (defined in
40 CFR 260.10), does emit constituents to the air during treat-
ment. The totally enclosed treatment exemption was not intended
to exclude such units.
The enclosed regulatory clarification, prepared in July 1961,
in response to an inquiry from Travenol Labs, limits totally
enclosed treatment "to pipelines, tanks, and to other chemical,
physical, and biological treatment operations which are carried
out in tank-like equipment...." While the clarification does
recognize some situations in which minor releases to the air
would not preclude eligibility for the exclusion, continuoqs
gaseous by-products emitted during treatment represent an open
system that interacts significantly with the environment. In our
opinion, extension of the exclusion to thermal treatment units
would be inappropriate and unjustified by the rationale for the
exclusion as expressed in the preamble language quoted above. We
believe that thermal treatment units, like incinerators, should
be subject to regulatory control to assure that they are designed,
maintained, and operated at all times in a manner that protects
human health and the environment.
The Agency does not have 40 CFR 264 Subpart P standards to
establish a permit for VezTech's thermal treatment unit. There
are, however, other types of standards that might be used to
permit an underground wet-air oxidation unit and the associated
aboveground treatment processes.
Section 270.65 research, development, and demonstration
permits allow short-term, limited operation for processes that
have no applicable permitting standards* These RO&D permits
-------
are currently being issued for innovative technologies and would
allow experimental operation of wet-air oxidation with actual
RCRA wastes. A copy of the draft guidance manual for RD & D
permits is being sent to you under separate cover.
Part 264 Subpart X Miscellaneous facilities regulations
are currently undergoing accelerated rulemaking development.
Currently, promulgation is anticipated in December 1986. Sub-
part X will provide EPA with permitting standards that could be
applied to thermal treatment processes.
You also may be required to meet the requirements for
treatment tanks. The tank regulations proposed on June 26, 1985,
50 FR 26444, would allow treatment in underground tanks that
cannot be entered for inspection, and, based on our preliminary
review, the VerTech process may meet the proposed standards for
secondary containment. These proposed tank regulations are
scheduled for promulgation in June 1986. Presently, tank regula-
tions do not allow permitting of an underground tank that cannot
be entered for inspection.
In any case, thermal treatment that occurs one mile
underground presents unique permitting requirements not specified
for any RCRA unit. Section 3005(c)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR
270.65(a)(3) allow EPA or the State to add terms and conditions
to permits when necessary to"protect human health or the environ-
ment. Therefore, when a permit is issued under a particular
subpart of 40 CFR Part 264, additional permitting standards may
applyi such as the operating conditions of a thermal unit and
conditions from the Safe Drinking Water Act covering aspects of
construction and operation of injection wells (e.g., sealing,
cementing, location, pressures, size and grade of casing, log,
and reporting). The underground injection standards that may
apply can be found in 40 CFR 146.12(b) (1 )-(7), §146.12(d) (2),
§146.12(e), §146.13(b)(l)=T4), §146.13(c) (1 ) fc (2), and §146.14.
Specific standards will be specified during the permitting process.
I appreciate your patience while we addressed the difficult
policy issues created by your request. EPA welcomes the opportunity
to work with you to develop wet air oxidation as an environmentally
acceptable alternative to incineration and other types of chemical/
physical and biological wastewater treatment systems.
Sincerely yours, .
II
^Assistant Admini
Enclosure
-------
April 30 1986 9432.1986(08)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Standards Applicable to Pipelines
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director, Office of Solid Waste
TO: Barry Seraydarian, Director, Toxics and Waste
Management Division (T-l)
This is a follow-up to my interim response of March 19
(attached) concerning standards applicable to transportation by
pipeline.
Since my interim response, Carolyn Barley has been in
contact with Mostafa Badmand of your staff to discuss the
questions you raised in your memorandum of February 21.
Specifically, you ask whether transportation of hazardous waste
by pipeline is acceptable under RCRA when the definition of
transportation contained in 40 CFR 260.10 includes only "the
movement of hazardous waste by air, rail, highway, or water."
The fact that the definition of transportation does not
include pipeline as a mode for the transportation of hazardous
waste does not mean that hazardous wastes via pipeline is not
acceptable under RCRA. Rather, because the definition of
transportation does not include pipeline transport, the
provisions of 40 CFR §263 do not apply to the transportation of
hazardous waste by pipeline.
While the §263 regulations do not apply to the transport of
hazardous waste by pipeline, there are other provisions under
RCRA and CERCLA which may apply. For example, a release of
hazardous waste from a pipeline which is not immediately cleaned
up could constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to
health or the environment under RCRA §7006, and, therefore, be
subject to a §7003 action. Such a release may also be reportable
under §103 (a) of CERCLA. The generator or owner/operator of the
pipeline could be liable under §107 of CERCLA for clean-up costs
and damages to natural resources, and may also be subject to a
§106 administrative order to clean up the release.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
If you have other concerns or questions regarding
transportation by pipeline, please call Carolyn Barley on 8-382-
2217.
Attachment
cc: Nostafa Radmand
cc: OSW
PSPD
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
9432.1986(10)
iJot'inition ot 'Byproduct "aterial
r.ent Division
IV
In response to your -lemorandu"1 of ^arch 12, 19iJ6, we nave
outlined below how you an<1 the State of south Carolina can proceed
with rx»n*ittini and/or enforcement actions leading to issu.ince of
d *Cf-A permit .at the savannah River i'lant (SRP).
Universe of r.ixed V'aate
HPA has seen and reviewed some of the waste stream booklet*
prepared by CCR facilities. V/e reviewed tne one for iiRP several
yjars *qo, hut we understand that it was since revised. Ihe
booklets do not provide -lefinitive lists ot" wastes that arr ant4
are not reculated under RCP.A. They merely provide a startirn
point for negotiating with the facility to detemine which
wastes are regulated under PCKA.
The definition of 'byproduct material* in the Atonic Knerqy
^ct (A£A) oo*s not explicitly resolve the question of which wastes
*re, in their entirety » byproduct material, and are thus exenot
Lrore RCRA, and which are mixtures of byproduct and hazardous
waste and *r« thus regulated under KCRA. The definition of
?.-y product in 10 CPR 20.3 which you referenced in your ^onorancun
is merely a restatement of the statutory definition and, thus,
-iocs not provld* definitive guidance to determine which Byproduct
are_c»gulated and which are exclude*!.
FOE recently proposed a revised definition of byproduct
-Material (November 1, 1985, 50 n? 45736). The proposal rtid not
i»s«>t with favorable cubllc cornent* and it is unlikely that thev
vill tinalize the rule in the near future. The only way states
-ill >.>« able to judqe «nich waste streams at any LOfc facility
should ne regulated is to -work dirnctlv with the facility to
rako case-by-case uecisions hased on the ASA definition.
-------
- 2 -
How-jver, EPA considers all inland waste.- streams to oe 3Ui
-.v.-ral regulation jn*r»it application for all waste units r j-u
under State lav. Based on that information, the :>tat«* should
.•rocked to t-roceat and issue a RCRA pernit covering all KCRA-r.-cu
latcd units at tnu facility. Units containing taixad wastes (or
ausVoct.d oi containing nixed wastes) are currently not covered
under th« authorized RCRA program in Couth Carolina. liowcvar/
u tnt Ltat« rugulatas mixed wastes under wtatc law, units
containing such wastes may also be addressed wituin the State
Tt>m State should obtain security clearances, where
necessary, anu us« its full rang* of ra 13 another unit requiring a RCRA permit at the facility.
* V;\areform, in order to obtain authorization Tor corrective
action, states must obtain authorization .or their definition
oir solid wast2, which may not exclude fixed waste.
-------
AS net so! earlier, * rivc«-i -aste unit is rot a
unit in *n author I ze-l '«r«it°. Th*» rpt'ori, th^ro ~.ust t;* Jt least
oof- ncn-riixed, hazardous *-iste unit i "i lar ly , rPA ->a-/ Lssus an ori-jr jn-i«;-r jjOOS(h) re«"ui r ino
:-->r i tor i nr; , investigation ot releases and corrective action, t>ut
t'Tr» or'Jer can aroly to -^t«i«i wa^te units only if there ia on? or
.-ore unit cuoject to interi.Tt status roqui recent* at the «site.
fo Ssfrftiflc i/nest ion«?
In rcsponso to the t.hroe Bullets and the three numbered
itt^'.s un page 2 of your ^enoranclura, w» have the followino
answers:
• It you suspect that Part d's have not been submitted
Cor all «CXA units, EJP* and/or the State should taic«
ina«diat» enforce-nant Action, iou and the Stata should
.^eterreine who should appropriately take enforcement
action. If there ar* mixed waste units in question,
oPA cannot enforce subnission of the k'art 3's in an
authorized itate. while tPA cannot issue penalties to
anotnttr Federal aqancy, the dispute resolution process
in the revised federal Facility Compliance
may b« used.
of the Part B submitted by SRP nay provide you
an«i/or the State with sufficient information to *ak«
such a deterraination4 However, if it does not, then
EPA flnd/or the State should recuire SR**, through enforce-
ment action, to -naKe such a deternination through
sampling and analysis or whatever other method (e.c.,
application of knowledge of waste generation process)
may be appropriate.
• As stated earlier* the booklets only provide a starting
point for negotiations. 2 PA HO will not be reviewing
or approving the individual facility booklets.
1. The My 10 letter to COS did not delegate any authority.
it n««d not be withdrawn.
2. The XEA definition of byproduct is the only appropriate
and legally enforceable definition that can be used.
*ou should use that definition to make case-bycaae
decisions, as described on page 2 of this memorandum.
3. There is no documentation available of the EPA review
of the SRP waste stream booklet.
-------
I ,-iote this sur ticiently clarifies your *nd tne state's
current authorities witfi rennect to permitting and enforcement
action* you night take at t>kP. We will continue to work with
/on to resolve any rerrainip.o issues, and would ar>oreci st%
.einu kPjit inforneu about tne procreaa you and tne state of
;Tjth Carolina ar« maXinu in resolving thwse issues *ith £PP.
cc: .Jir> ic-'arUrou-rin, Ferion IV
Diehard Cs^pDell/ i'lenion IV
Joe t rotHtwan» CGC
Tony Baney, OV-HE
Pt-ter Guerrero, usw
sriov Division Directors, Keqions I-III, v-X (with inco^ino)
ilCRA Branch Chiefs, K^alons I-III, V-X (with incoming)
bcc: Henry Elsen, Regional Counsel (613),
Region X (with incoming)
State Programs Branch
-------
9432.1986(12)
JUL 2 8 1936
Kr, Ronald 0. Conte
Operations Coordinator
Fatroswill Chealcals. Inc.
2523 Hogadore load
Akron, Ohio 44312
[tear Mr. Cone*:
I an responding to your letter of June 27. 1986, which
requested clarification of thi definition of sever*! tan* in
40 CFR 270.2.
TVu- term* "holding" and "taaperary period" are not
explicitly defined in the »CKA regulation*. Holding in context
of tht-se reeulatiooa Beans containaent. Storage, aa defined
in RCRA. neons "the eon t« insert ot hazardous watte, either on a
temporary basis or tc'r a period of yearn, in such a nanner as
not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste." The t«-rr.
disposal (the opposite of storage or containment) is defined
in KUKA (and in the kCKA regulations) as "the citchatff , . . .
leaking, or placing or any waste into or on any lard... so thac
such. . .vsste. . ,nsy enter the environ»«»nc . " Tht- types ot
"holding" devices (i.e. containers, tank*, aurtace iapoundamts,
and waste piiea) are d^rined in the regulations.
The tens Hte«ix>rary period", although not explicitly
is indirectly liwltrd in th* regulations by the* closure
plan and financial responsibility requirement*. These require
tan tacility owner/oparstor to specify up tront the operating
period (closure tlR«) and the ••xiausi an ova t of waste In storage
at any tine and at closure* This dafinaa tlia extent ot the
"temporary period" and • to rag* activity. At closure, the
waste siust a* rsjaove>d trcai all eterage •ni^s.
All hsuraous waste storage units. Including storage units
at recycling facilities, ar« regulated by the tCIA rules vnisas
exempted in-Part 261* 264, or 265. Iteva associated with
storage unita that ara used to transfer hasardous waste, sucb
as pipes, funnels or hoses, ara regulated as part of the storage
unit.
-------
- 2 -
I understand that you recently met with staff in EPA's
Region V to discuss these definitions as well as the applic-
ability of the requirements in 40 CFR Parts 264, 265 and 270
to your facility. Since implementation of our regulations is
the responsibility of our Regional offices I urge yop to continue
working with Region V. However, if you need additon/al help
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Y.J. Kim, Region V
Lisa Pierard, Region V
COszman:WH-563:5-256:382-2210:7/15/86
Disk Os *6/Index 26
-------
AUG 6
Honorable Matthew J. Rinaldo
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr* Rinaldos
Thank you for your July 1, 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent Mr. Paul DeCosimo. Mr. DeCosimo requests an
interpretation as to whether he would be considered a co-
generator of hazardous waste as a result of recycling solvent
at a generator's site using a mobile treatment technology.
Based on the information provided by Mr* DeCosimor we do not
believe that he would be considered a co-generator for
regulatory purposes under most circumstances.
A generator is defined in Section 260.10 of the hazardous
waste regulations as, "...any person, by site, whose act or
process produces hazardous wast* identified or listed in Part
261 of this chapter or whose act first causes a hazardous
waste to become subject to regulation.* Since the spent
solvent is presumably already a hazardous waste prior to Mr.
DeCosimo coming onto the generator's site, and since the
solvent is likely to have been accumulated prior to being
recycled, the hazardous spent solvent would already have been
subject to regulation under the accumulation provisions of
Part 262 of the hazardous waste regulations. Thus, none of
the actions taken by Mr. DeCosimo would appear, in the limited
circumstances described in his letter, to cause him to become
subject to BCRA liability as a RCRA hazardous waste generator.
Mr. DeCosimo should, of course, be aware that if he
transports a hazardous waste off of the generation site, he
would be considered a hazardous waste transporter subject to
regulation.
If you have any further questions, please call Bob
Axelrad at (202) 382-5218.
Sincerely,
'yVWJ. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
L. r*ufck.riON AGENCY
9432. 1986(14
?:s. Guzann M. L'nger
i-adiation Safety Officer
Merrell Cow Research Institute
9550 N. Sicnsville Road
P.O. Box 68470
Indianapolis, IN 46268 - 0420
Dear Ma . Linger :
This is in response to your letter of August IS in which you
proposed to incinerate on-site a waste that is both a by-product
material and hazardous.
After reviewing the information presented in your letfter, EPA
has concluded that the waste stream in question would be considered
a radioactive mixed waste (see enclosed Federal Register notice,
which sets forth EPA's interpretation of this term and RCRA'.s
jurisdiction over it). As the Federal Register notice discusses,
in the past/ EPA has not made authority to regulate the hazardous
components of radioactive mixeds waste a prerequisite to a State
obtaining authorization to run the Federal RCRA program. The
notice changes this, buy requiring States to pick up this piece
of RCRA if they wish to become, or remain, authorized. Since the
currently authorized Indiana program does not include authorization
for mixed wastes, these wastes are not now subject to the RCRA
regulations in Indiana, and RCRA approval is not required for your
proposed incineration.
However, you are still subject to whatever regulations the
State of Indiana may have adopted pursuant to State law that are
applicable to the hazardous components of radioactive mixed wastes.
Therefore, I recommend that you work closely with the State of
Indiana to discuss the appropriate management of these waste streams
under Indiana lav. You should contact:
Mr. David Lamm, Assistant Commissioner
for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
105 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
(317) 243-5026
Once the State receives authorization under RCRA for radioactive
mixed wastes, you will then also be subject to the RCRA regulations.
-------
It jcu have any acMitior.al i-.'J^sticns ^leace feel frc^ r.lso t
cor.tact oin Miciiael, Ctatc i'-roarar.s i-ranc.1., CJi'ice cf Lcii^ '. ast.»:,
lr. (-::) ^32-2231.
:'-arcia L.
Director
Office of Solid V.'aste
cc: -Jii: , .ichael
iaviU Lanm
Ldvi-j btrinchan
-------
j< AI cj cnriKUHwcKf AL PRO fcC T
9432.1986(15)
rcc 2 2 1986
Mr. Frederick H. Swed, Jr.
RMT, Inc.
Suite 124
1406 East Washington Ave.
Madison, Wisconsin 53703-3009
Dear Mr. Swedt
Than* you for your letter of November 10 requesting guidance
on application of the totally enclosed treatment exemption to the
treatment prior to disposal of baghoue* dust, generated in the
foundry industry. Your letter addressed a generic case in which-
an emission control baghouse system and the treatment equipment
are directly connected to a cupola furnace through a closed system
of ducts. The Agency does not. believe that the totally enclosed
treatment exemption applies to the system you describe, subject
to the conditions described below.
As you stated, totally enclosed treatment is defined in 40 CFR
260.10 as (1) being directly connected to an industrial production
process and (2) constructed and operated to prevent the release of
hazardous waste and any constituent thereof into the environment
during treatment. In addition, the regulatory Interpretive letter
issued July 27, 1981'to Travenol Laboratories (RIL 34) further
clarified what constituted totally enclosed treatment.
In the March 25, 1986 letter frost Region 5 to Grede Foundries,
EPA found that the specific configuration of the Grede baghouse
did not qualify as totally enclosed because the hood collecting
emissions was not directly connected to the cupola, only to the
baghouse. As part of that determination, EPA stated that
a foundry cupola qualifies as an industrial production process,
but that the baghouse is an air pollution control device
associated with waste treatment prior to disposal.
However, our answer to Grede may have been misleading.
Connecting the ductwork to the cupola only fulfills half af the
totally enclosed treatment requirement. The question remains
as to whether a system that Includes a baghouse qualifies as
totally enclosed treatment. Since baghouses do not remove 100%
of the hazardous constituents, treatment downstream of a
baahouse is nofe cart of a totally •ngloa«n§ treflf.fff^
-------
rou suggested that the baghouse is part of the production
process because the cupola cannot be operated without the baghouse.
While your system might require modification in order to operate
without the baghouse, I do not believe that the baghouse is
inherently necessary to the operation of a cupola furnace. In
fact, prior to the development of air quality standards, cupolas
typically operated without baghouses. Baghouses limit emissions
from units subject to Clean Air Act standards. Therefore,
the Agency still maintains that the baghouse is not part of a
production process, but is associated with waste treatment.
You asked whether adding the treatment reagents prior to the
baghouse would qualify as totally enclosed treatment. Since we
agree that the point of hazardous waste generation is typically
the bottom of the baghouse hoppers, any processing that occurs
prior to that point would not be treatment subject to RCRA
requirements.
You are also correct in stating that even if a production
unit is open to the atmosphere/ the unit downstream could still
qualify as totally enclosed. As stated in a preamble to the
§261.4(c) amendment, "Except for surface impoundments and non-
operating units, EPA did not intend to regulate...manufacturing
process units in which hazardous wastes are generated." (45 FR
72025, October 30, 1980) In your case, however, the production
unit is the cupola, not the baghouse, so treatment that occurs
downstream of the baghouse is not totally enclosed treatment.
In summary, although production units may not necessarily
prevent releases of constituents to the environment, units
downstream may still qualify for the totally enclosed treatment
exemption. However, while cupolas are production units, bag-
houses are not considered to be production processes. Further-
more, baghouses release hazardous waste or constituents thereof
to the environment during normal operation as a waste management
method. Therefore, dust treatment downstream of a baghouse system
directly connected to a cupola does not perform totally enclosed
treatment under the Federal program. In addition to this Federal
determination, of course/ the States would have to be consulted
for State hazardous waste and air quality standards that apply to
these systems. I apologize for any inconvenience that arose from
your reading of th« EPA letter to Grede Foundries.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chief, Region V
bcc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-IV, VI-X
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Irene Homer, WTB
-------
9432.1986(16)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
13. 3DAT for Wastewater
Best Derronst-rate^ Available Technology (3ZAT) for solvent 'wastes
includes thrae -waste treatabiLity groups (spent solvent wastawaters,
•vastswaters frcm the pharrraceutical industry and other solvent
•wastes). How are wastewaters defined?
EPA has established a separate treatability group for spent
solvent wastewaters. Wastewaters are -ie fined as sol vent-water
mixtures contairung total organic cartoon (TOC) of one percent
or less [5i FR 40609].
-------
9432.1987(01)
m IT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT; Total Enclosed Treatment and the Steel Industry
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TOt Janes H. Scarbrough
Chief, Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
I have reviewed your memorandum of February 4, 1987, regarding
our guidance to RMT, Inc., advising that its baghouse dust treat-
ment system does not meet the requirement of a totally enclosed
treatment system. It is unfortunate that Region IV apparently has
reviewed a similar facility in Alabama and reached the opposite
conclusion* Although I understand your reasoning in that decision,
I cannot concur with it. I believe this interpretation would
unnecessarily broaden the exemption and create new problems in
the definition of what constitutes a treatment unit.
The concept of a totally enclosed treatment unit in 40 CFR
§260.10 was designed to prevent the need for a permit for treatment
that occurred in pipes exiting a process unit. As a result, this
definition made clear that the treatment units must be connected
directly to an industrial production process. By not adhering
strictly to this principle, your interpretation would broaden
the universe of exempt units beyond what was intended for this
exemption.
As you note in your memo, the baghouse is not part of the
production process. Therefore, as stated in my December 22, 1986,
letter to RMT, the dust fixation system cannot be considered
directly connected to the process because the baghouse is open to
the environment. Although listed waste is not generated until the
emission control dust is collected in the baghouse hopper, this
does not change thn fact that there is an opening between the
production unit and the fixation system. I recognize that this
-------
means that any treatment provided downstream of « baghouse cannot
be totally enclosed treatment. To find otherwise, however, would
require us to find that the baghouse is a process unit. I think
this would hopelessly confuse the definition of treatment units
and process units and complicate enforcement by introducing how
a unit is used into the definition.
Therefore, I believe that despite its possible environmental
advantages, this unit should not be exempted frost permitting as a
totally enclosed treatment unit. Based on your extensive involve*
•ent in the design and construction of this system, Z expect per-
mitting will not create an unreasonable barrier to the use of the
closed fixation technology on baghouee dusts. Expedited permit
review would seem appropriate.
I also would note that treatment in 90-day accumulation
units is currently exempt from permitting. Management within 90
days could make this issue moot for the Alabama facility at this
time.
-------
9432.1987(02)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT.- Regulatory Classification of Three and
Four-Sided, Floored Structures, OSW-185
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director//!/
Office of Solid Waste
TO; Karl Brecier, Acting Director
Region V Solid Waste Branch (5HS-JCK-13}
Thank you for your patience in waiting for our response to—
your memorandum of April 23, 1986, requesting guidance on how
nine examples of threa and four-sided, floored structures should
be regulated -- as tanks or waste piles. Aw you noted, the
ramifications of these decisions are significant since tanks and
waste piles are subject to different regulatory standards. For
example, waste piles are subject to the land disposal restrictions
and have lost interim status unless the November 7, 1986, certifi-
cation deadlines were met.
We have been having a great deal of trouble and have spent a
great deal of tine in an effort to develop a methodology that could
be used to identify these various odd-shaped units. We believe
that such an approach is necessary to ensure that similar units
located throughout the country can be classified on a consistent
basis by Regional and State permitting authorities. Unfortunately,
there is a great deal of overlap with respect to the definitions
of "tank" and "pile" found at 40 CFR 260.10. This overlap can
create a problem when it is necessary to identify certain specific
units sues] as> those described in the attachment to your memo. We
conclude* that the only viable long-term solution is a regulatory
"fix" thaJ- will be described in detail below.
For the short term, on the advice of our Office of General
Counsel and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, we would
advise that individual units be identified identically to the
applicant's Part A designation unless the unit clearly cannot be
-------
a specific type of unit (e.g., flowing liquid* cannot be managed
in pile*; primarily earthen units cannot be tanks). If permitting
or closure requirements are deemed inadequate, we would use the
corrective action (assuming fhere is a permitted unit at the
facility) and omnibus authorities to impose additional require-
ments, as necessary, to protect human health and the environment.
The advantage of this approach is that it provides the most
legally defensible position in view of the ambiguities of the
various regulatory definitions. The disadvantages include our
inability to use omnibus authorities for 90-day accumulation and
wastewater treatment tan)cs that do not require RCRA permits, and
our inability to apply corrective action requirements to these
same units at facilities with no other permitted units.
As explained above, our long-term strategy for dealing with
these units would be to make regulatory changes as needed. In
that regard, we are considering a regulatory fix that we would
pursue as expeditiously as possible. This approach involves
reviewing the various definitions found in 40 CPR 260.10 including
those for (a) tanks, (b) piles, and (c) surface impoundments, and
miscellaneous units under Subpart X. While various definitions
tend to overlap (for example, both tanks and piles can accept solid,
non-flowing waste), we are able to make certain distinctions. For
example, the definition of tank states that tanks contain materials;
the definition of a pile states that a pile is a noncontaineriged
accumulation of solid, non-flowing hazardous waste.
Therefore, our approach to classifying these units would be
to focus on the terms "contain" and "noncontainerited.M The
methodology that we have developed to classify these units is to
first review the regulatory definitions. In general, this enables
one to distinguish tanks and piles from surface impoundments and
Subpart Q or Subpart X units. However, there is considerable
overlap in the definition of tank and pile. Where either defini-
tion might apply, we would ask the question — Is containerization
a function of the structure or is it a function of the waste
itself? If the waste is contained within the unit by virtue of
the fact that it is a cohesive solid, the unit is a pile. If the
unit would contain any waste, including a free-flowing liquid, it
is a tank.
We woold describe this approach in a Federal Register notice
and, in tfeir isJM notice, would propose to amend the regulatory
definition-of pile and tank, as required, so that this methodology
could be employed nationally. For your information, we are pro-
viding an attachment that classifiee each of the nine units based
on our use of the proposed methodology.
-------
We welcome your input in critiquing our long-term strategy.
Additionally, if you would lifce to discuss this matter in more
detail, pleaae have your staff contact either Bob Del linger, Bob
April, or Bill Kline of ray staff at (202) 382-7917.
Attachment
cc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-IV, VI-X
Lloyd Guerci, RCRA Enforcement
Matt Hale, Permits Branch
Robert Tonetti, Land Disposal Branch
Mark Greenwood, Office of General Counsel
-------
ATTACHMENT I
Proposed Long-Term Approach Applied
to Nine Specific Units
Unit 1 is a four-sided structure used to store dry waste on
a floor that slopes towards the part of the building that has
three doors designed to admit front-end loaders and dump trucks.
The building floor is not designed to contain the waste (that is,
if the material being stored in the structure were a liquid, it
could escape). Although the company has designated the unit as a
90-day storage tank, our methodology would classify this unit as
a waste pile with some wind dispersion control.
Unit 2 is a four-sided structure with windows and a 20-foot
opening partially closed with a 3-foot removable steel barrier.
Tiiis unit was originally identified on Part A o£ the permit
application as a storage waste pile, and Region V correctly
denied a subsequent request to redesignate the unit as a tank.
Applying our methodology, we would classify this unit as a waste
pile. If the waste were a liquid, it could escape; tthus, only
the characteristics of the waste allow it to be contained.
The structure is not designed to contain waste.
According to a consent order between the State and the
company. Unit 3, when built, will either treat reactive waste
in gondolas or in free form on the floor by adding water to the
unit. If the unit treats reactive waste in gondolas, the unit
serves as a $264.175 containment system for containers and should
be subject to the Subpart I container regulation. If the wastes
are treated in free form on the floor, the unit cannot be a waste
pile since the unit will be flooded with water, with the water
contained during waste treatment. Therefore/ the unit is a tank
when waste is managed on the floor in such a manner that all the
waste is kept within the unit. However, if the waste is mounded
higher than the retaining sides or highest level of the floor,
then the unit would be subject to the Subpart X regulation, pro-
posed on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40726). Specifically, applying
our methodology, Unit 3 could be operated, at times, as a container
area, a tank* or a miscellaneous unit. While operating ae a
particular type of unit, the specific unit standards would apply;
thus the pejnit would contain standards for each operating mode
for which tie* unit would be used. To do this, the most stringent
design and-Operating standards that would apply in each of these
situations would be incorporated into the permit. For example
this unit would eventually have to be closed under the most
stringent closure requirements applicable to any of its operating
modes. Should the permittee maintain that the unit is always
operated as a tank, it could be permitted as such. In a case
where the height of the waste was found to exceed the height of
-------
tha walls, the Region would have a choice of enforcement action*.
The Region would either enforce against an improperly operated
tank (no freeboard) or a false permit application.
Unit 4 was initially a four-walled concrete tank that flooded
a reactive watte with water to render the waste nonreactive.
ilowever, one wall has been removed, and the fourth aide is now
berried with sand while the unit is inundated with water to render
a reactive waste nonreactive. After treatment, the berm is
broken/ and the liquid flows into a drain in a concrete slab also
bermed with sand. Since the sand berra is not stationary when
emptying the unit, the unit is not a tank. Although the waste
is nonflowing when covered with water, the unit is not a pile
uecause piles are not designed to contain liquids. Therefore,
using our approach, we would classify tha unit as an interim
status Subpart Q unit, which will eventually be permitted under
the Subpart X standards.
Unit 5 is designed to solidify sludges that contain free
liquids, from the limited amount of information available about
the unbuilt unit, the unit would have a roof, 3 walla, a sloping
floor, and a leak detection system. Applying our methodology,
this unit would be classified as a tank or a pile depending on
its operating node. If wastes are always kept lower than the
floor and wall height, the unit would be a tank. However, if the
waste is managed in such a manner that the waste* pile up above
the floor and wall height, the unit would be a pile. The contain-
ment that is provided in the latter case would partially be a
function of the waste being managed, not solely of the design of
the structure.
Unit 6 mixes noncontainerired wastewater treatment sludges
with lime when the sludge contains free liquids. The floor of
the unit slopes towards catch basins which collect the liquids
that separate from the piles. Applying our methodology, Unit 6
would be a waste pile. The unit is managed so that waste exceeds
the height of the retaining walls. If this waste were a liquid,
it could escape the unit. Therefore, we would argue that the
structure is not designed to contain waste; the properties of the
material allow it to be contained in this unit.
In Unit 7, hazardous waste sludges and nonhazardous wastes
would be mixed with sand and coal ash to eliminate free liquids.
The proposed unit has a run-off control drainage system that is
designed to-collect liquids draining into floor drains from the
waste pile. This design has a 12-inch reinforced floor over a
6-rail polyethylene sheet, a leak detection system, and a 10-inch
reinforced concrete slab underneath. Under our proposed approach,
this unit would be a waste-pile. Liquids are controlled by drains,
not contained. As with Units 1, 2, and 6, the structure is not
-------
designed to contain the waste, in that slope of the floor is not
sufficient to qualify as the fourth aide of a four-sided tank.
Unit 8, which is to be closed, contains EP toxic metal dust
that has been premised in a cement truck with another waste to
control fugutive dusts. A front-end loader mixes in foundry sand
(which contains clays) to render the waste nonhazardous. The
unit is concrete, below grade, and has three concrete walls with
metal wall extensions that rise eight feet above the sloping floor.
Applying our methodology, this unit could either be a tank or a
pile depending on how wastes are managed. If waste is never
piled up higher than the highest floor level, it would be a tank.
However, if waste is piled higher than the level of the concrete
wall, it would be a pile.
Unit 9 managed listed and characteristic waste in solid, semi-
solid, aiid liquid form in a below grade, three-walled structure
with a sloped concrete floor and a pump-out sump at the bottom.
According to the dimensions of the unit, utilizing the maximum
capacity of the unit would fill the unit over to thfc top of the
sloping floor. Therefore, under our proposed methodology, it
would not be a tank. Although the unit handled liquid waste, the
unit would be closed as a waste pile if the waste wae kept solid
and nonflowing. Otherwise, the unit would need to close a* a
miscellaneous unit.
In summary, applying our methodology, Unite 1, 2, 6, and 7
appear to be waste piles; Unit 4 is a Subpart Q treatment unit.
Depending on the mode of operation. Unit 3 would either be a con-
tainment system for containers, a Subpart X miscelleneous unit,
or a tank. Units 5 and 8 would be either tanks or piles, depending
on how wastes are managed, and Unit 9 would either be a waste
pile or a miscellaneous unit.
-------
9432. 1937(03)
Htf
Mr. Anthony Sasson
Technical Assistance and
Engineering Section
Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43266-1049
Dear Mr. Sassont
Your letter of January 7, 1987, requested an opinion from
this office on the regulatory status of evaporators used to remove
water from hazardous wastes. First, you asked whether evapora-
tion would be considered treatment, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10.
Second, you asked whether, if evaporation ia considered to be
treatment, an evaporator would be eligible for an exclusion from
permitting under the generator 90-day accumulation exclusion or
the totally enclosed treatment exclusion.
You are specifically concerned about the "Nordale Fluid
Eliminator," a device that in one circumstance would be used to
remove water from aqueous waste that ia hazardous because of
its metal content. We consider that this unit is a treatment
unit because it meets the definition of "treatment" contained
in 40 CFR |260.10; i.e., it reduces the volume of the waste.
Additionally, for the reasons described below, the Hordale
units do not appear to meet the criteria established for totally
encloeed treatment*
A totally encloeed treatment facility is defined in
40 CFR $260.10 as a facility that is "...directly connected to
an industrial production process and...which is constructed and
operated in a manner which prevents the release of any hazardous
waste or any constituent thereof into the environment during
treatment." As operated, the Nordale unit discharges vapor
directly into the environment. Since neither the definition
contained in 40 CFR §260.10 nor the preamble (45 ££.33218)
distinguishes between hazardous and nonhazardous constituents
in the hazardous waste, a totally enclosed treatment system can
not release any constituents into the environment. Although the
: 1MI 0 -
-------
evaporation could release volatile organic* as well as water
vapor into the environment. Therefore, we believe the Hordala
unit* do not neat the criteria of totally enclosed treatment.
With regard to the 90-day accumulation exclusion* generators
who accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less in a
tank do not need a permit if they meet the requirements of 40 CFR
$262.34. This policy is stated in the preamble to the small
quantity generator regulation* that were promulgated on May 24,
1986, (51 FR 10168). The "Nordale Fluid Eliminator" meets the
definition of a thermal treatment unit in that it is a device*
that "uses elevated temperatures as the primary mean* to change)
the chemical, physical/ or biological character of the hazardous
waste" (see 40 CFR $260.10). However/ our review of the manufac-
turer's literature leads us to the conclusion that this specific
evaporative unit also meets the definition of "tank" as that
term is used in 40 CPB $262.34. Therefore, generators could
remove water from hazardous wastes using the Mordale units
without obtaining a RCRA permit provided they comply with the
provisions of 40 CFR $262.34.
I want to make you aware of the fact that the Agency is
currently developing regulations that would apply to air emissions
from treatment, storage, and disposal -facilities. The first
phase of this rulemaking effort was published in proposed form on
February 5, 1987, (see enclosed 52 PR 3748). Additionally, we are
considering modifying the 90-day accumulation standards as dis-
cussed in an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared
in the Federal Register on July 14, 198J. (see enclosed 51 PR
25487). Thus, in the future, we would regulate air emissions
from evaporative equipment if we were to determine that emissions
from these units posed an unacceptable risk to human health and
the environment.
If you would like to discuss this matter in more detail,
please contact Robert Dellinger, Chief of the Waste Treatment
Branch, at (202) 382-7917.
Sincerely,
Harcia S. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Ha»t<
Matt Bale
-------
9432.1987(05)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY Sin
JUNE 87
5. Mobile Wastewater Treatment Units
Vfestewater treatment units, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, are excluded
from the perrutting requirements per §270. 1 (c) (2)(v) . In order for a
unit to meet the "wastewater treat-Tent" exclusion, it must meet the
three criteria set in §260.10.
(1) It must be part of a wastewater treatment facility that is
subject to §402 or §307 (b) of the Clean Water Act:
(2) It must receive and treat or store a wastewater or wastewater
treavnent sludge that is a hazardous waste, or generate and
accumulate a hazardous wastewater treatment sludge, and
(3) It .-rust be a tank as defined in §260.10.
r treatment units, by definition, must be tanks. A tank is
defined in §260.10 as "a statutory device, designed to contain an
accumulation of hazardous 'waste which is constructed primarily of
non-earthen materials... which provide structural support."
A potential application of mobile treatment unit technology is for a
mobile treatment unit to be used for wastewater treatment (e.g.,
dewaterinc sludges). Is it possible for a mobile tre.at.T-.ent unit to
be a tank as defined in §260.10?
Yes. A mobile treatment unit could be a tank as defined in §260.10.
Although §260.10 defines a tank as "a stationary device", EPA has
3e*.emuned that a mobile tank could be a "tank" provided that it
is intended to be stationary 'when in operation and that it meets
the definition of a tank in all other respects (See 52 FR 20919).
In additon, EPA proposed regulations in the June 3, 1987 Federal
Register (52 FR 20914] for permitting of mobile treat-ment units
(tfRJs) that are subject to RCRA. According to the proposed rule,
MTU would obtain a state-wide technical permit and a site specific
permit that would allow it to operate. EPA is also requesting
contents on the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council's suggestion
to exclude certain "low risk" treatment units, such as evaporation
or dewatering units, from the permitting process.
Source: Robin Anderson (202) 382-4498
Research: Jennifer B. Planer".
-------
UNITED STATES EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOf 9432.19o7( 06 )
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Marc R. Wolman, P.E.
EnerGroup, Inc.
The Thomas Block
116 Commercial Street
Portland, Maine 04101
Dear Mr. Wolman:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 19, 1987,
in which you request an opinion on the regulatory status of a
hypothetical waste treatment facility. Since the premises you
provided in your example stipulate that the facility neither
receives nor generates hazardous waste, none of the RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste rules would apply (i.e., the hazardous
waste rules only apply to the management of "hazardous waste").
However, if the facility was subject to the hazardous waste
rules, incineration would not be considered "tdtally enclosed
treatment" because some emissions would inevitably be released to
the environment. (In your example, the incineration is of
nonhazardous waste, so the point is moot.) You should also note
that EPA does have RCRA Subtitle D guidelines for solid waste
incinerators at 40 CFR Part 240; these guidelines are implemented
through State regulations.
If you have any further que'stions in this area, please call
Mike Petruska at (202) 475-6676.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Jtl f 7 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
9432.1987(07)
Major Jesse Cnbe11on
U.S. Army Material Command
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333-0001
Dear Major CabeLlon:
This letter is in response to your request to Sonya Stelraack
concerning connirmation of the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) policy on Reactivation (popping) furnaces. As we have
stated verbally and in past correspondence (copies enclosed) to
the Department of Defense and Region VII, EPA classifies popping
furnaces as incinerators.
Under 40 CFR 260.10, "incinerator" is defined as "any enclosed
device using controlled flame combustion that neither meets the
criteria for classification as a boiler nor is listed as an
industrial furnace." Popping furnaces meet the definition of
incinerator because the process that occurs in the enclosed unit
is controlled flame combustion. The reaction which occurs is
initiated by controlled flame heating and the resulting detonation
products are combusted.
Existing units are thus subject to the 1989 statutory deadline
for permitting of incinerators. Section 3005(c)(2)(C) of HSWA
states that interim status shall terminate on November 19, 1989,
for incinerators which have not been permitted, and for which a
permit application was not submitted by November 19, 1986.
According to information provided by your office, there are two
popping furnaces (Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Missouri
and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in Oklahoma) for which Part
D applications have not been submitted, and which plan to burn
only munitions classified as non-hazardous. These facilities
should be in touch with their permitting authorities regarding
closure requirements associated with the cessation of hazardous
waste burning.
-------
I trust that you will disseminate this information to
the appropriate personnel, at the popping furnace facilities.
Sonya Stelmack will continue to work with you and the Regional
offices to define the permitting approach for popping furnaces-
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Sonya at
(202) 382-4500.
Sincerely,
Bruce Weddle
Director
Permits and State Programs Division
Enclosures
cc: Incinerator Permit Writers' Workgroup
Connie Nakaliar^, Utah Department of Health
Suzanne Uudzinski
Liz Cotsworth
Jim Michael
Chris Grundler
-------
i' .r-. ..uncv •--ained its reasoning in the definition of
solid WB r>'>!:•• ? i.ng. In the preamble to the April 4, 1983
proposed aaendmoucs to the recycling provisions at 48 FR 1448 we
statea: "Second, we wish to clarify that materials being burned
in incinerators or other thermal treatment devices, other than
boilers and industrial furnaces, are considered to be abandoned
by being burned or incinerated under §261.2(a) (1)(ii ), whether or
not energy or material recovery also occurs... In our vi«w, any
such burning (other than in boilers and industrial furnaces) is
waste destruction subject to regulation under either Subpart 0 of
Part 264 or Subpart O and P of Part 265." In the preamble to the
January 4, 1985 final rule at 50 FR 625, we reiterated that
incinerators are built to destroy hazardous wastes, and so are
normally used for this purpose.
Therefore, the unit at the Drew Metalex facility is subject
to RCRA regulation as an incinerator, which is defined at §260.10
as "any enclosed device using controlled flame combustion that
neither meets the criteria for classification as a boiler nor is
listed as an industrial furnace." The Drew Metalex Corporation
does have the option of petitioning to have their unit listed as
an industrial furnace under §260.10. That rule establishes out
criteria under which thermal combustion devices classified as
incinerators could be reclassified after agency rulemaking.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact n«
at FTS 382-4500.
cc: Bruce Weddle
Susan Bromm
Suzanne RudzinsXi
Matt Straus
Bob Holloway
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Incinerator Permit Writer's Workgroup
-------
UN. STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECV r< AGENCY
9432.1987(08}
ALJG 3 :-"
;:r. 'Jic Olsen, Liales .".anager
Fenton Company, Inc.
16J8 N. Beckley
Lancaster, Texas 75134
Dear Mr. Olsen:
Than* you for your letter of June 30, 1987, in which
you requested information on the regulatory status of sludge
dehydration equipment which is part of a wastewater treatment
facility.
Your understanding of the requirements contained in
40 Cr'R 270.l(c) (2) (v) is correct. Sludge dehydration equipment
that is part of a wastewater treatment system is excluded from
the need to obtain a RCRA permit provided the equipment meets
the definition of wastewater treatment unit as defined in
40 CFR 2b0.10, and actually is used to evaporate water from
the sludge.
It is important to note that the exclusion provided by
$270.1(c)(2)(v) does not apply to conventional incinerators.
Such devices are subject to Subpart 0 of Parts 264 or 265 even
when part of a wastewater system.
I oust caution you that various States hatfe requirements
that are different from the Federal standards. Under their own
authorities, States can establish requirements that are more
stringent than the Federal requirements. In this instance, the
owner or operator is required to comply with the more restrictive
requirements. Thus, I encourage you to contact an appropriate
State official to determine what the requirements will be for a
specific unit.
-------
If you have any further questions regarding the Federal
requirements, please contact Mary Cunningham of my staff at
(202) 382-7935.
Si ncerely,
Marcia E. Willians
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Mary Cunningham
Steven Silvernan, Esq.
bcc: R. Holloway
B. Weddle
S. Rudrinski
R. Dellinger
M. Hale
G. Garland
D. Perla
-------
August 19, 1987 9432.1987(09)
Mr. R.J. Barnhart, Ph.D.
Technical Manager
American and Chemicals, Inc.
Buddy Lawrence Drive
P.O. Box 4912
Corpus Christi, CA 73469
Dear Mr. Barnhart:
This letter is in response to your July 12, 1987 inquiry
regarding the status of the K006 wastes and the on-site disposal
unit containing these wastes at your Corpus Christi facility. As
mentioned in your letter, these wastes received a temporary
exclusion on May 25, 1982. Based on our evaluation of the
information submitted in support of your petition, however, the
temporary exclusion for this waste was revoked and a final
exclusion denied on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 41320-41321) with an
effective date of May 14, 1987.
The State of Texas has been authorized by EPA to administer
and enforce a hazardous waste management program pursuant to
Section 3006 of WCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6926. In light of the State's
authority, the future status of this disposal unit should be
determined by the Texas Water Commission. This will ensure that
the use of the unit will be commensurate with ongoing and planned
waste management requirements at the facility. In a similar
manner, if this unit is to close in the future, all closure
requirements should be determined by the Commission.
I hope this explanation has addressed all of your concerns
regarding the status of your petitioned wastes and the on-site
disposal wait in which they are contained. Should you have any
further questions concerning the Federal regulatory compliance
for the petitioned waste, please feel free to contact Suzanne
Rudzinski of the Office of Solid Waste at (202)382-4206.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Allyn Davis, Region VI Div. Dir.
Lee Haze, Region VI Delisting Contact
Sam Becker, Region VI RCRA Enforcement Contact
Randy Brown, Region VI RCRA Branch Chief
Bill Honker, Region VI Permits Section
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTk AGI
3432.1987(10)
AJ6 28 1987
Mr. Marc F. Wolman, P.E.
ENER GPOUP, Inc.
The Thomas Block
116 Commercial St.
Portland, Maine 04101
Dear Mr. Wolman:
Thi» letter is in response to your letter dated July 9, 1987
sent to Mike Petruska, Office of Solid Waste. Your questions
concern the applicability of the totally enclosed treatment
exemption for your ash treatment facility and the applicability
of other RCRA regulations for your facility. Your letter addresses
a hypothetical waste treatment facility that includes incineration
for purpose of energy recovery. The ash from the incinerator is
nixed with a non-hazardous reagent, which you state substantially
reduces metal leachability and EP toxicity levels. You also
state that the reagent addition vessel and mixing apparatus
prevent releases of any hazardous material into the environment.
The Agency does not believe that the totally enclosed treatment
exemption applies to the system you describe, for the reasons
explained below.
The definition of a totally enclosed treatment is defined in
40 CFR 260.10 as (1) being directly connected to an industrial
production process and (2) constructed and operated in a iranner
which prevents the release of any hazardous waste or any constituent
thereof into the environment during treatment. For your information,
I have enclosed the. regulatory clarification of a totally enclosed
treatment facility issued by EPA in 1981.
In your hypothetical waste treatment process, you state that
the incinerator is considered an industrial process. The Acency
disagrees with your interpretation and instead, considers the
incinerator as a waste treatrent process. Therefore, the ash
f.rerttrer.t cannof qualify as a totally enclosed treatment facility
because (1) it is not connected to an industrial process anc (?)
the incir.erat.cr stack is open to the air which would inevitably
"•:leas.c SCTP r.azaic'C'US ccr.s t. i t uter.t-1. to the env ii. cnr-ent .
-------
As you have requested, the other applicable RCRA regulation
that would apply to your facility is the snail quantity generators
rule (40 CFR 261.5). This rule allows generators of 100-1000
Kg/month to accumulate waste on-site in tanks or containers
for up to 18C days (or 270 days if they must ship their waste over
200 rciles for treatment or disposal). Generators of more than
1000 kg/nonth only are allowed to accumulate waste in tanks or
containers for up to 90 days. In either case, the Generator
would be exerpt from the permitting process for treatment that
occurs in the accumulation tank (see 51 FR 10146).
In summary, your hypothetical treatment facility would not
meet the totally enclosed treatment facility exemption because the
incinerator is not considered an industrial process. Therefore,
the ash system is not connected to an industrial process but
connected to a waste treatment process that produces a hazardous
material as a residual. However, some flexibility with respect
to permitting your treatment system nay exist if it can be described
as treatment in an accumulation tank as described in the preamble to
the small quantity generators rule. If you should have any
questions or clarification, please contact Monica Chatmon of my
staff at (202) 475-7236.
Sincerely,
James Berlow, Chief
Treatment Technology Section
cci Robert Dellinger
Robert April
Michael Petruska
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUM) 9432.1987(11)
SEPTEMBER 87
4. Treatment of Infectious Waste
There is growing national concern over proper infectious
waste management. What are some of the treatment
methods currently used for infectious wastes?
Although RCRA section 1004 includes wastes with
infectious characteristics in the definition of
hazardous waste, there are presently no Federal
regulations for management of infectious waste
under RCRA Subtitle C. Instead, regulation of
infectious waste has been left up to the States'
discretion. EPA has, however, issued a guidance
manual entitled EPA Guidance for Infectious Waste
Management (May 1986), available through NTIS
(publication number PB-86-199130) which describes
numerous methods for effective treatment of
infectious waste. Many treatment methods employ
some form of heat or chemical sterilization.
Stean sterilization uses steam at a temperature
high enough to kill infectious agents in
combination with pressurization in a vessel such as
a steam sterilizer, autoclave, or retort. Steam
sterilization is an effective treatment method for
low-density wastes such as plastics. A method that
can be used for most types of infectious waste is
incineration. Incineration converts combustible
wastes into a noncombustible ash while combustion
gases are vented to the atmosphere. A third type
of heat-related treatment is thermal inactivation.
For liquid wastes, thermal inactivation heats the
waste at a set temperature for a designated period
of time. Solids may be chemically inactivated by
heating them in an oven, typically at 320 degrees
to 380 degrees Fahrenheit for two to four hours.
Chemical treatment methods include gas vapor
sterilization and chemical disinfection. In
gas/vapor sterilization, the infectious waste is
fumigated with a gaseous or vaporized chemical such
as ethylene oxide or formaldehyde. Chemical
disinfection
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC
9432.1987(12)
Mr. Richard A. Uhlar
International Chemical Workers Union
1655 West Market Street
Akron, OH 44313
Dear Mr. Uhlar,
Thank you for your letter of September 17 regarding the
definitions of "owner" and "operator" under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Recovery Act
(CERCLA). You have asked whether your members can share in any
liability for RCRA or CERCLA violations that occur at a plant.
Although RCRA does not contain a statutory definition of
"owner" or "operator," the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Section
260.10 state the following:
"operator" means the person responsible for the
overall operation of the facility.
"owner" means the person who owns a facility or part
of a facility.
Section 101(20)(A) of CERCLA provides:
"[0]wner or operator" means ... in the case of an
onshore facility or offshore facility, any person
owning or operating such facility .... Such term
does not include a person, who, without participating
in the management of a facility, holds indicia of
ownership primarily to protect his security interest
in the . . . facility.
It is' clear that one must hold an ownership interest in a
facility in order to fall within the definition of "owner"
under either RCRA or CERCLA. With regard to the definition of
"operator," the courts have consistently held under either
statute that this term requires some degree of participation in
the management of the facility or authority to make decisions
regarding the handlina or disposal of hazardous substances.
-------
- 2 -
Therefore, nor.-r-.anagement workers or a plan:: would typically
not fall under the definition of an "owner" or an "operator"
under either statute.
You should be aware, however, that the civil enforcement
provisions of RCRA section 3008(a), which is the basic permit
enforcement authority, extend to all persons. Nonetheless, to
date, there have been no civil enforcement actions taken under
RCRA (or CERCLA) against employees below the level of corporate
officer or manager. Of course, individual employees may be
criminally prosecuted for knowing violations of RCRA under
Section 3008(d) and (e).
Finally, depending on applicable state law, an employer may
also "pass through" civil liability to employees by including
indemnification provisions in employment contracts. In such a
case, the employer's right to indemnification or contribution
would not be governed by RCRA or CERCLA.
I trust this information is responsive to your inquiry. If
you have additional questions, feel free to contact Anna Thode
in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring at
(202-475-8212) or Frank McAlister in the Office of Solid Waste
at (202-382-2223).
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9432.1987(12a)
NOV
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Office of Solid Waste Activities for Persistent Marine
Debris
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director^/
Office of Solid Waste pj
TO: Cynthia Dougherty, Deputy Director
Office of Marine Estuarine Protection (WH-556F)
The Office of Solid Waste has no activities or programs
that relate directly or indirectly to persistent marine debris.
However, we would like to stay abreast of any activities that
may be pursued with respect to such material because of the
impact or interrelationship with our ongoing program for
effective management of solid waste. Please add Michael Flynn
(WH-565) as your contact point for this office; he may be
reached at 382-4489.
Under the definitions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)—and the regulations developed in response
to it—the term "disposal" includes deposition of solid waste
into or on any land or water, Thus, debris deposited on or into
rivers or continental waters of the United states is subject to
control under RCRA. To date we have taken regulatory action
only on those wastes that we have defined as hazardous; some
guidance-type regulations have been issued for non-hazardous
wastes. We are developing additional control approaches for
non-hazardous waste and welcome any information or options you
may offer. As part of that developing program for non-hazardous
waste we did conduct a study of the municipal waste stream. A
copy of the report is attached.
Please let Mike know if you need anything else. We look
forward to participation in your program.
Attachment
cc: Jeffrey Denit, OSW
-------
(
9432.1987(13)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
NOV I 0 .?"
OFFICE OF
• OLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Elihu I. Leifer, Esq.
Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Counts
1125 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 801
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Leifer:
Thank you for your letter of October 19, 1987, in which you
requested guidance and a clarification of our position regarding
the regulatory status of the spent pickle liquor to be generated
at the USS/POSCO facility at their plant in Pittsburg,
California. Since we have been involved, the Agency has
reviewed information provided by both the contra Costa Building
and Construction Trades Council and USS/POSCO. This information
was provided to assist us in reaching a decision as to whether
the spent pickle liquor at the POSCO facility was considered a
hazardous waste and subject to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste rules. We regret that we
could not provide an answer before the council's October 20
meeting.
While we appreciate and understand your desire to resolve
this matter as soon as possible, the Court of Appeals decision
in American Mining Congress v. EPA. 824 F.2d 1177 (D.C. Cir.
1987), has complicated our decision. In particular, the court
held that EPA's authority over hazardous waste recycling
activities is limited to those activities that, in some sense,
involve discard. In addition, the court indicated that EPA has
no authority under Subtitle C of RCRA regarding those activities
involving the recycling of hazardous secondary materials that
are recycled in on-going, manufacturing-type processes. The
activity to be conducted at the USS/POSCO facility in Pittsburg,
California, may involve such type of recycling. The Agency
intends to deal with questions regarding the scope of the
court's opinion by issuing federal Register notices interpreting
the opinion and clarifying which portions of the existing rules
must be amended. Because these issues affect the entire
regulated community, and not just individual facilities, we
believe that use of rulemaking procedures is a fairer and more
appropriate way of proceeding. As we have indicated previously,
we expect to publish these notices within the next one to three
months. However, we will provide an update in three to four
weeks.
-------
In the meantime, we have reviewed the available information
to determine whether the spent pickle liquor generated at the
USS/POSCO facility is abandoned by being incinerated. We
believe the spent pickle liquor is being processed in an
industrial furnace to produce the usable products hydrogen
chloride and ferrous oxide. Therefore, the spent pickle liquor
is not being incinerated. We consider the reclamation furnace
to be an industrial furnace under the expansive definition of
"smelting, melting, and refining" furnaces designated as
industrial furnaces under 40 CFR 260.10. Specifically, we
believe the furnace is an integral component of the finishing
process. We also believe that the finishing process is an
extension of the smelting, melting, and refining process because
it processes on-site intermediary products produced by those
operations. The pickle liquor recovery unit is an integral
component of the finishing operation because the feedstock,
pickle liquor, is generated on-site by the finishing process,
and one or more products produced by the recovery unit are
reintroduced into the smelting, melting, or refining (or
finishing) processes.
We believe that an expansive definition of smelting,
melting, and refining furnaces is justified. The recovery unit
clearly meets the criteria for designation as an industrial
furnace. It produces usable products — hydrogen chloride and
ferrous oxide. The unit is not used to destroy a waste by
incinerating organic compounds. In addition, in 1985, when EPA
changed the definition of an incinerator from a test based on
the primary purpose of the combustion device (i.e., use for
destruction of wastes) to a test based on the physical
characteristics of the device (i.e., enclosed device using
controlled flame combustion but not meeting the definition of a
boiler or industrial furnace), the Agency stated that "this
change is essentially a clarification of the existing rules
which should nave little effect on the number or identity of
units already subject to [regulation as incinerators]". (See 50
FR 617 (January 4, 1985).) Given that the primary purpose of
the recovery unit is not to destroy waste but, rather, to
produce products, the Agency did not intend to regulate the unit
as an incinerator. This unit is not used to destroy abandoned
materials, but rather to recover usable products.
-------
In closing, I want to assure you that we are closely
examining the issue at USS/POSCO and will do our best to get an
answer to you as soon as possible on EPA's authority to regulate
the spent pickle liquor.
§incerely,,-
",-h .
K^/f i
J. "Wlrifetoh Portter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9432.1938(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB I I 1988
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY BESPONS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretatj,
FRCM: Marcia E. Williams,
Office of Solid
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Chief' (5HS-13)
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
As requested by Chevron Chemical Company, a meeting was held on October 23,
1987 with Chevron representatives and members of my staff to discuss the possi-
bilities for reversing an earlier interpretation made by the Agency that a still
bottom waste generated at their polystyrene production facility in Marietta,
Ohio, is a F005 hazardous waste. (See attached memo EPA/OSW to EPA Region V,
September 1, 1987).
During the meeting, the Chevron attendee* agreed to forward our office
additional information that would support their opinion that theii1 waste is a
process waste contaminated with toluene (4%) and does not meet, the definition
of a spent solvent (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F005).
After careful review of the information that has since been forwarded,
our Office agrees the waste is not the F005 hazardous waste as was interpreted
earlier. Chevron uses toluene as both a solvent (i.e., to solubilize small
quantities of additives) and a feedstock (i.e., a chain transfer agent) in
their process. The primary purpose of the toluene, however, is to control the
rate of reaction as a chain transfer agent. During the reaction, polymer chain
growth proceeds until it is stopped by some event such as an encounter between
two "growing" ends of a chain resulting in mutual termination or utilization of
a readily removable group from another molecule (chain transfer agent). Every
toluene molecule utilized in this chain transfer activity then becomes a "seed"
and an inherent part for the growth of a new polymer chain, and, as a result, is
partially consumed. The excess toluene is recovered for reuse in the process.
Chevron claims that years of research indicate that toluene is used in lieu of
other chemical agents because it is the ideal chain transfer agent for their
process and is safer to use.
-------
A similar issue was reviewed by the Agency several years ago. In that
case, toluene/ methanol, and m-cresol (cannon solvents) were used as reactants
in the production of pesticide products. The quantities of these materials fed
into the process were of such excess, that large amounts of the chemicals did
not react 'and had to be removed from the process as waste. The Agency concluded
that these wastes were not the listed spent solvent wastes because toluene,
methanol, and m-cresol were used as chemical reactants in the production process.
(See attached letter EPA/OSW to R. Scott, Mabay Chemical Corp., May 24, 1985).
Based on the similarities of the use of toluene in Chevron's process and
the process cited above, in addition to the additional information received
from Chevron; our Office has determined that the recovered toluene is not an
F005 hazardous spent solvent waste. Therefore, the still bottoms that are
generated from this process are also not an F005 waste.
Please advise Chevron of our interpretation and make them aware that as
the generator of this waste, they are responsible for determining whether the
still bottoms exhibit any RCRA hazardous characteristics (e.g., corrosivity,
toxicity, reactivity, or ignitability 7 see 40 CFR 261.21-24). Also, you
should investigate whether this waste is regulated by the state, which may
have more stringent regulations. Finally, careful handling of the still
bottom waste is advised because of Superfund liability that exists for wastes
containing CERCLA hazardous constituents.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if you wish to discuss
the matter further, please contact Ed Abrams, FTS 382-4787, of my staff.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9432> 1988< 02)
FEBRUARY 88
Identification Numbers
Corporation A owns a large site. Corporation B, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Corporation A, is a permitted treatment
facility on the site. Corporation B has an identification
number associated with this site activity. Corporation C,
another wholly owned subsidiary of Corporation A, is also
located on this site and will be generating hazardous waste.
Should Corporation C use the identification number which is
associated with the site, although a different Corporation,
or is Corporation C required to obtain its own identification
number?
Section 262.12 requires a generator to have an EPA
identification number before treating, storing,
disposing of, transporting, or offering for
transportation, hazardous waste. The definition of
generator, in Section 260.10 is keyed to both person and
site: "any person by site whose act or process produces
hazardous waste...". The definition of person in
Section 260.10 is "an individual, trust, firm, joint
stock company, Federal agency, corporation (including a
government corporation), partnership, association,
State, municipality, commission, political subdivision
of a State, or any interstate body." The definition of
individual generation site in 40 CFR Section 260.10 is
"the contiguous site at or on which one or more
hazardous wastes are generated." An individual
generation site, such as a large manufacturing plant,
nay have one or more sources of hazardous waste but is
considered a single or individual generation site, if
the site or property is contiguous.
In this situation Corporation B and Corporation C are
two distinct entities (i.e., persons). They must each
apply for a separate EPA identification number. Even
though identification numbers are usually site-
specific, where different people conduct different
regulated activities on a site, a person conducting each
regulated activity must obtain an EPA identification
number. This does not preclude an EPA Regional office
or State from issuing the same number to two persons.
Source: Diane Regas (202) 382-7706
Research: Craig Campbell
-------
9432.1988(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 88
1. Definition of Tank/Definition of Mastewater Treatment Dnit
A facility includes a wastewater treatment unit that meets
the definition in Section 260.10 and the Section
264.1(g)(6) exclusion. Piped directly to the wastewater
treatment unit is a tank on wheels that is used to collect
an EP toxic wastewater treatment sludge. When the wheeled
tank is full it is disconnected from the piping and towed
to the generator's 90-day accumulation area where the
sludge is emptied into the generator's accumulation tanks
and/or containers. The wheeled tank is then moved back to
the wastewater treatment unit and reconnected. Does this
wheeled tank meet the definition of a tank or a container?
If it is a tank, would it also be covered by the wastewater
treatment unit exemption?
The wheeled tank would meet the definition of a tank
under Section 260.10 because it is stationary during
operation. Devices that are typically used as part of
the storage/treatment system and that are directly
connected by piping to the wastewater treatment system
are regarded as being stationary units. If the
wheeled tank is used to accumulate a wastewater
treatment sludge as part of a wastewater treatment
facility, it would fall within the definition of a
wastewater treatment unit per Section 260.10 and would
be included in the Section 264.Kg) 16) exemption.
Source: Carrie Wehling (202) 382-7706
William Kline (202) 382-7924
Research: Randall Eicber
-------
9432.1988(34)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPC
Kurt E. Whitman, Project Coordinator
SWInc.
P.O. Box B
Saukville, WI 53080
Dear Mr. Whitman:
This is in response to your July 1, 1988 letter requesting
clarification on EPA's current interpretation on whether the
depressurization of aerosol cans on-site would be considered
treatment, requiring a RCRA permit. You also requested
pertinent information on Ril #43 and on whether or not it has
been rescinded. I am enclosing per your request a copy of Ril
#43 and the 1985 memorandum which I believe is the one you are
requesting.
You revealed in a July 26, 1988 telephone conversation with
Doreen Sterling of my staff that your main interest in this
issue was to determine the requirements for disposal of a wide
variety of aerosol cans located at a number of Department of
Defense facilities throughout the country.
The Agency is aware that conflicting interpretations have
been given by the EPA Regional Offices, EPA Office of Solid
Waste, and the RCRA Hotline regarding whether certain aerosol
can disposal methods constitute treatment and whether or not a
permit is required for this activity. The Agency is currently
evaluating this problem and may decide to issue more specific
guidance in the future if it is warranted. It is our policy,
however, to refer issues of this nature to the Region in which
the facility is located since they are normally best able to
make a case-by-case determination on whether: (l) the waste in
question is hazardous according to our regulations and
(2) treatment is occurring.
-------
- 2 -
According to our regulations, cans are hazardous if: (1)
they contain a commercial chemical product on the 40 CFR
261.33(e) or (f) lists or exhibit one or more of the hazardous
waste charactreistics, and are not empty as defined under Sec.
261.7; and/or (2) they exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste identified in Part 261, Subpart C.
Treatment, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, means any method,
technique, or process, including neutralization/ designed to
change the physical, chemical, or biological character or
composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such
waste, or so as to recover energy or material resources from the
waste, or so as to render such waste nonhazardous, or less
hazardous; safer to transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable
for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume.
It should be noted that if any of the aerosol cans are
included as part of household waste (i.e., from military
housing), those cans are exempt from RCRA Subtitle C under
Section 261.4(b)(l).
If you have any further questions, you may contact Doreen
Sterling of my staff at 202-475-6775.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY Q
OCTOBER 88
3. Definition of Wastewater Treatment Unit
On September 2, 1988 (53 FR 34079), EPA published a clarification concerning the
scope of the wastewater treatment unit exemption (see 40 CFR Section
264.1 (g)(6)). One aspect of this clarification concerned whether or not a tank
system is "dedicated" to an on-site wastewater treatment facility. Specifically,
EPA stated, ".. .if a tank system, in addition to be being used in conjunction with
an on-site wastewater treatment facility, is used on a routine or occasional basis
to store or treat a hazardous wastewater prior to shipment off-site .for treatment,
storage or disposal, it is not covered by this exemption [emphasis added]."
Hazardous waste tanks which are part of wastewater treatment facilities
sometimes have waste removed from them for off-site disposal. Examples of
this situation include hazardous waste accumulation tanks (dedicated to on-site
wastewater treatment facilities) which must occasionally be cleaned out, and also
those tanks which produce (on a routine basis) filter cakes or sludge residues as
part of the wastewater treatment process. Does the removal of these wastes from
tanks for off-site disposal preclude these tanks from qualifying for the wastewater
treatment unit exemption?
EPA stated that the wastewater treatment unit exemption applies to "any tank
system that manages hazardous wastewater and is dedicated for use with an
on-site wastewater treatment facility" (53 FR 34080). The removal of waste-
water treatment sludges or tank bottoms for off-site disposal from tanks
should not disqualify these tanks from the exemption, provided that this
occurs as part of normal wastewater treatment activities. The removal and
off-site disposal of treatment sludges and tank bottoms are not necessarily
indications that the tanks in question are being used in a manner other than
for on-site wastewater treatment; on the contrary, the generation of tank
bottoms and filter cakes is a common process in wastewater treatment
operations. The definition of a wastewater treatment unit (Section 260.10, as
amended in 53 FR 34079) includes tanks which generate and accumulate
wastewater treatment sludges (either solid, semi-solid, or liquid) or tanks
which treat or store wastewater treatment sludges. The intent of the
September 2, 1988 notice was to clarify that the exemption does not apply to
those tanks that are used to store or treat a hazardous waste/wastewater prior
to shipment (either on a part-time or full-time basis) to off-site facilities rather
than manage it in an on-site wastewater treatment facility.
Source: William Kline (202)382-7917
Research: Ross Elliott
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
rT3 2 1988 9432.1988(06)
OFFICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Totally Enclosed Treatment System Proposal
from TDJ Group, Inc.
FROM: Joseph S. Carra, Director/
Waste Management Divi
TO: David A. Wagoner, Direafltor
Waste Management Division
EPA Region VII
This is in response to your memorandum to Marcia Williams,
which has been referred to my division for a response. I have
reviewed your request for a determination of the applicability of
the totally enclosed treatment (TET) exemption as it applies to the
process proposed for generic marketing by TDJ Group, Inc. TDJ
Group has claimed confidential business information for the
description of their treatment system. You have requested
clarification on three issues:
1. whether the TDJ Group's proposal meets the TET exemption;
2. guidance on what parts of the treatment train would be
considered TET; and
3. the location at which samples must be taken to demonstrate
the success of treatment.
The Agency defines a totally enclosed treatment system in CFR
§260.1 as a treatment system that:
1. must be connected to an industrial process; and
2. constructed and operated to prevent the release of
hazardous waste and any constituent thereof into the
environment during treatment.
-------
In your memorandum, you stated that the TDJ Group's proposal
is similiar to the proposal received by Region V for the Grede
Foundry. The differences between the TDJ proposal and the Grede
Foundry are the location of treatment and the method of collecting
emissions dust from the cupola. In the TDJ proposal, treatment
occurs between the cupola and the baghouse; while treatment occurs
after the baghouse at the Grede Foundry. In the TDJ proposal, the
flue dust from the cupola is connected to the treatment system via
ducts. In the Grede Foundry, the hood that collects the flue dust
was not connected to the cupola but to the baghouse. Because the
cupola was open to the environment, the Grede's Foundry treatment
system would not qualify for the exemption. In the OSWER directive
#9432.00-1, the Agency clarified to Region V that the cupola is
part of an industrial production process and that the baghouse is
part of a waste treatment process. Therefore, treatment downstream
of a baghouse would not qualify for the TET exemption.
The Agency also responded to a letter received by Mr. Swed of
RMT, Inc., dated December 22, 1986, requesting guidance on the
application of the TET exemption to the treatment prior to the
disposal of baghouse dust. In this letter, the Agency restated
that cupolas are part of an industrial process while baghouses are
part of a treatment process. Any totally enclosed processing that
occurs in the ducts directly connecting the cupola to the baghouse
would not be treatment subject to the RCRA permitting
requirements. However, the baghouse and any treatment downstream
of the baghouse would not qualify because the baghouse is open to
the environment. This should answer your first and second
questions.
Your third question refers to the location at which samples
must be taken to demonstrate the success of treatment. Because the
treatment system prior to the baghouse qualifies for the TET
exemption, the equipment is not subject to the RCRA permitting
process. The TDJ Group would have to show, through the design of
the treatment system, that the system is totally enclosed. That
is, there are no routine leakages of flue dust from the cupola
throughout the treatment system. No other sampling is necessary,
unless your office believes a sampling program is necessary to
assure that no releases occur.
Attached to your memorandum, you have included a detailed
description and drawing of the TDJ proposal. Based on our review
of the design of the system and our best engineering judgement, the
treatment system is totally enclosed because the flue dust from the
cupola is transferred through the treatment system via closed
ducts. Therefore, there appears to be no possibility of routine
releases of the dust to the environment.
-------
In summary, the treatment system prior to the baghouse would
o^ialify for the exemption, but the baghouse and treatment
downstream of the baghouse would not qualify for the exemption. In
order to determine the effectiveness of the treatment system
enclosure, the design of the system must show that the cupola and
the treatment train are sealed, thereby preventing routine releases
of constituents to the environment. Our review indicates that the
TDJ Group design appears to meet these requirements. If your staff
has any questions, they should contact Monica Chatmon of my staff
on FTS 475-7236.
cc: Marcia Williams
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
-------
9432.1989(01;
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMi
AUGUST 89
3. Clarification of Electroplating Listings
The background document which supported the listing of F006 initially
included electroless plating within the scope of the definition of
electroplating. However, the December 2, 1986 Federal Register (54 FR 43351)
clarified EPA's interpretation of the definition of electroplating as it pertained
to the FOO6 listing. The clarification stated that electroless plating was not
considered an electroplating process. Would electroless plating baths which
contain small concentrations of cyanide meet the F007 listing when disposed?
No. Although the December 2, 1986, clarification was written specifically
for the F006 listing, the definition of electroplating may be applied
analogously to the F007, F008 and F009 listings. Therefore, plating bath
solutions from electroless plating operations will not meet the F007 listing
when disposed. The bath would be regulated, however, if it exhibited one
or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste.
Source: David Topping (202) 382-7737
Research: Kent Morey
-------
9432.1989(02)
MAY / 6 1939 |
i
Mr. John R. Jacus
Bradley, Campbell & Carney
1717 Washington Avenue
Golden, Colorado 80401-1994
Dear Mr. Jacus:
This letter responds to your request of March 28, 1989 for
clarification of the definitions of "in existence" and "under
construction." You explained that you want to evaluate the
business risks associated with proceeding to install an
industrial boiler to burn hazardous waste prior to the effective
date of the final rule governing the burning of hazardous waste
in boilers and industrial furnaces. You further expressed your
desire to be "grandfathered" under existing RCRA regulations and
not subject to new regulations, and your belief that being "in
existence" on or before the effective date of the new
regulations would allow you to do so. You cited previous Agency
interpretations of "in existence" and "under construction" in
the Federal Register notices of January 9, 1981 (46 FR 2344) and
May 19, 1980 (45 FR 33324) and asked three specific questions
related to those interpretations. I have addressed your
specific questions below. However, in order to help you make an
informed decision, I must first clarify the effect of the new
regulations on existing boilers and furnaces burning hazardous
waste.
Currently, the burning of hazardous waste in boilers and
industrial furnaces is not regulated. When the proposed
regulations of May 6, 1987 become final, all boilers and
industrial furnaces not specifically excluded will become
subject to those regulations. Thus, non-excluded boilers and
industrial furnaces will be required to obtain a RCRA permit
before they-may continue to burn hazardous waste. However, as
is true for other operations that become newly subject to RCRA
permit requirements, the regulations allow for existing
facilities to obtain "interim status" if they satisfy certain
requirements (see §270.70). This allows continued operation
while the permit application is reviewed by the Agency. During
the period that the facility has interim status, it must comply
with the appropriate standards in 40 CFR Part 265. Once a final
RCRA permit is issued, it will impose standards pursuant to 40
CFR Part 264.
as
-------
One of the threshold requirements to be eligible to obtain
interim status, discussed in the regulations at 40 CFR
270.10(e), is that the facility be "in existence" on the date it
becomes subject to the regulations. Thus, the preamble
discussions in the proposed rule of May 6, 1987 on "in
existence" or "existing hazardous waste management units" relate
to the opportunity to obtain interim status, not, as your letter
suggests, to an opportunity to avoid new regulations. The
following discussion answers your questions as they relate to a
newly regulated facility's ability to obtain interim status
where EPA is administering the RCRA program. Authorized states
may have equivalent or more strigent regulations governing
qualification for interim status. Please also note that if a
boiler or industrial furnace is currently operating at a
multi-unit facility that itself already has interim status, 40
CFR §270.72 is applicable.
1. Under current Agency policy, is 10% of the total project-
cost the threshold for determining whether a potential loss due
to contract cancellation is "substantial"?
Yes. As EPA stated in the preamble of the May 19, 1980
regulation, if the amount an owner or operator must pay to
cancel construction agreements exceeds 10% of the "total project
cost," the loss would be deemed "substantial" within the meaning
of the regulatory definition of "in existence" (40 CFR
§260.10). The Agency reiterated that policy in the January 9
preamble, and has not changed it since that time. It should be
noted, as was discussed in the January 9 preamble, "total
project cost" refers to the total cost incurred for physical
construction of the project, and not to all costs that might be
associated with the project.
2. What constitutes a "continuous physical, on-site program of
construction"?
As was discussed in the May 19, 1980 preamble, the Agency
believes that owners and operators who have commenced facility
construction in good faith prior to the date they became subject
to regulations should be classified as existing. The preamble
also explained that a continuous on-site, physical construction
program means physical site preparation, and does not mean
design, non-physical, or non-site specific preparatory
activities. The scenario you describe in your letter, where
foundation work has started, and no substantial delays between
curing of the foundation and actual equipment installation are
built into the schedule, describes, on its face, a continuous,
on-site, physical construction program. However, it should be
noted that the decision as to whether a good faith construction
project has commenced is based on the facts of each case and
win be made by the Agency or the authorized State at the time
the facility applies for interim status.
-------
3. Does the term "all necessary Federal. State., and local
ore-construction approvals and permits" include county building
or Construction permits?
No. The Agency discussed this issue in the January 19, 1981
preamble. There, the Agency stated that the permits and
approvals required under paragraph (a) of the definition of
"existing facility" (40 CFR 260.10) are those required under
Federal, State, or local "hazardous waste control laws or
regulations." This preamble clarifies that the permits required
are limited to those issued under any law intended to control
the management of hazardous waste, including any laws designed
to regulate the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous
wastes or the siting of hazardous waste management facilities.
County building or construction permits would be included only
if they satisfy this condition, which usually they do not. As
the Agency also noted in the January 19 preamble, although the
Federal regulations do not require the facility to obtain such
local permits to have "commenced construction," the facility
remains responsible under State or local law for obtaining such
permits before actually beginning construction.
I hope this answers the questions you raised. If you have
any further questions on this matter, please contact Barbara
Foster at (202) 382-4751.
Sincerely,
Joseph Carra, Director
Permits and State Programs
Division
-------
9432.1989(03)
STATK ENV.ROHMEHTAL PROTECT** AGENCY
Honorable Bill Goodling
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Goodling:
Thank you for your May 9, 1989, letter referring the
communication from your constituent, Mr. Edward E. Shott of
Wellsville, Pennsylvania. Mr. Shott is interested in
reclaiming palladium, platinum, and other precious metals from
discarded automotive and electronic devices, and questions
whether there are EPA regulations applicable to such a
processing activity. Also Mr. Shott is interested in the
production of deuterium oxide (heavy water).
Regarding reclamation, more information is needed to
determine whether the materials in question are subject to
regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). If the material from discarded automotive
and electronic devices is scrap metal, the material meets the
definition of a solid waste? however, scrap metal that is
reclaimed is exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste
(assuming it meets the definition of a hazardous waste). If
the material is a spent material that does not meet the
definition of scrap metal (e.g., a circuit board that has
relatively small amounts of metals), it may be subject to RCRA
regulations.
In defining hazardous waste, EPA specifically listed
residuals from many types of industrial processes as hazardous
wastes and has identified characteristics that when met would
cause a waste to be considered a hazardous waste. Specific
state laws sometimes vary from Federal law, but must be at
least as stringent as Federal requirements. Thus, residuals
that would be produced in metal recovery may be subject to
state or Federal regulations.
The State'of Pennsylvania is authorized to administer the
Federal hazardous waste program. Thus, I strongly encourage
Mr. Shott to contact his State regulatory agency to determine
what, if any, regulations apply. In addition, Mr. Shott should
contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine the
regulations governing the production and distribution of heavy
water.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ThanK you for your interest in reclamation activities. If
I can be of further assistance, please let me know. If your
constituent, Mr. Shott, has any further questions, he should
contact either Robert Dellinger or Mitch Kidvell of my staff at
(202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
OS-305/DELLINGER/T. MCMANUS -382-4646/CSH/5-26-89
CONTROL # AL892312/DATE DUE: 5/30/89/DISK 25/NAME:GOODLING
-------
9432.1989(04)
f/u
i/tfr
JUL 2 0 iS89
Mr. Jeffrey A. Leed
Director - Waste Management
Exide Corporation
P. 0. Box 14205
Reading, PA 19612-4205
Dear Mr. Leed:
In response to your recent letter, while your understanding
is correct witri respect to 40 CFR 261.22 defining the
characteristic of corrosivity, your letter appears to indicate
that there is still some confusion over the RCRA definition of a
liquid.
The term liquid has three different definitions in the RCRA
program depending on the specific regulatory application. In
addition to the general definition used in the characteristics,
the other types of liquids include "free liquid" and "releasable
liquid". These other definitions of "liquid" find application in
the waste management standards dealing with land disposal.
Specifically, the regulations prohibit the landfilling of
containerized wastes containing "free liquids". Similiarly, the
amendments to RCRA passed in 1984, banned the use of absorbant
materials that would release liquids under the overburden
pressure present in a landfill (i.e., "releasable liquids).
The specific test procedures used in identifying the
different types of liquids are:
Liquid:
A "liquid." is the material (liquid phase) that is expressed
from the waste in step 2 of Method 1310 (the Extraction
Procedure) .
-------
-2-
Free Liquid:
A "free liquid" is the material that drips from the waste
using Method 9095 (the Paint Filter Test).
Releasable Liquid:
While we have not yet promulgated a specific test procedure
for defining when a waste contains "releasable liquid", a
draft procedure has been developed and proposed - The Liquid
Release Test - method 9096.
Therefore, the first question to answer when characterizing
a waste to determine if it exhibits the 40 CFR 261.22 (a) (2)
definition of a corrosive waste, is whether the waste is a
liquid. For this purpose the first definition, using step 2 of
Method 1310, is to be used.
I hope that this helps to clear up any misunderstanding with
respect to the hazardous waste identification characteristics.
If you have any additional questions relative to waste testing,
please contact my office at (202) 382-4761. For general
questions on the hazardous waste identification characteristics,
please call the Characteristics Section at (202) 382-4798.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman
Chief
Methods Section (OS-331)
cc: Devereaux Barnes
Reva Rubenstein
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FILE GOPK
ncn c .... 9432.1989(05)
Mr. Carl A. Evers
Vice President
Tricil Environmental Services
3055 Kettering Boulevard
Suite 400
Dayton, Ohio 45439-1900
Dear Mr. Evers:
I am writing in regard to your August 22, 1989 letter in
which you discuss your definition of a batch as it pertains to
the conditional testing requirements included as part of Tricil's
November 17, 1986 final exclusion. [Please note that we did not
receive an original copy of this letter; we were first made aware
of the letter through David Hefner's November 17, 1989 letter to
us.] Based on your definition of a batch, it is clear that
Tricil and the Agency interpret the term "batch" differently, and
as discussed further below, this situation must be corrected.
As stated in our July 31, 1989 letter, we believe a batch
should, at a minimum,, be confined to the sludge contained within
1 lugger box. Under Tricil's current practices, however, 4-4 1/2
lugger boxes are represented by only a single composite sample
We believe Tricil is over-compositing the waste samples from
individual lugger boxes, and thus, is not collecting and
analyzing samples which are representative of the waste. As also
noted in our July 31 letter, we assume that the lugger box is
filled gradually over a given time period; grab samples should be
taken from each of the periodic loads transferred to the lugger
box. All grab samples representing wastes transferred to a
single lugger box should then be composited to form a single
composite sample. This composite should then be subjected to the
appropriate conditional testing requirements. We suggest that
this same approach be used to collect batch samples at all three
of your facilities.
If you do not agree with our definition of a batch for
Tricil's treatment system, then we believe it is necessary to
meet with you to discuss the matter further. In particular,
under such circumstances we believe it may be necessary to reopen
Tric?iVs exclusi°n to include a significantly more precise
definition of a batch. As we mentioned in our July 31 letter,
any new proposal would also incorporate updating Tricil»s
conditional delisting limits. If you do agree with our definition
nf a v.-»+.^u—^-^wovor^ trhen trji-iflll.njt.try tkc «yyj.wwlllL,U '
»nd g^U^'a^hegi^ear'ana"^^^!^»i
LuuzjBa ciosea.
-------
Should you have any questions or require any additional
information regarding this matter, please contact Linda Cessar of
my staff at (202) 475-9828.
Sincerely,
/*/
Robert Kayser, chief
Variances Section
cc: Linda Cessar, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
-------
9432.1990(01}
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
V^il^/ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
6 199Q
sc
Mr. Robert D. Wyatt
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
Spear Street Tower
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
I am writing in response to your letter of January 6, 1990,
concerning trie uses of the terms "liquid" and "aqueous" in the
RCRA characteristic tests for ignitability and corrosivity.
This letter will describe the background on this issue as well as
our current position.
As a preliminary matter, I want to clarify that EPA has not
promulgated any rule establishing a mandatory test method for use
in determining whether a waste is "liquid" or "aqueous" for the
purposes of ignitability or corrosivity testing. The generator
of the waste may use any method for which he can provide
appropriate scientific or technical justification. The Agency
has in the past provided guidance indicating that it is generally
willing to accept test results from the use of Method 9095, the
"paint filter" test. As explained in more detail below, however,
the Agency is in the process of re-evaluating its general view of
the suitability of Method 9095 for characteristic testing.
Mr. Friedman's memorandum is one indication of this re-
evaluation.
When the Agency promulgated a rule requiring the use of
Method 9095 for completely different purposes in 1985, it
believed the method could also be used as a fast, inexpensive,
and reasonably accurate means of obtaining the liquid to be
evaluated in the ignitability and corrosivity tests. It believed
that material that passed through Method 9095's mesh filter would
also be a liquid under more stringent tests such as step 2 of
Method 1310 (the "extraction procedure" test). Consequently, the
preamble to the 1985 rule stated that Method 9095 "...may be used
to obtain the liquid portion of the waste for subsequent
evaluation under the ignitability or corrosivity tests." 50 FR
18370 (April 30, 1985).
Pruutd on Kt-
-------
Similarly, in 1986, the Agency published the proposed Third
Iditior. of SW-846. This dccur.er.r, vr.ich is quoted in your
letter, also endorsed the use cf Method 9095 for deterr.ining the
free liquid in the waste for purposes of the corrosivity test.
Subsequent experience with Method 9095 has raised concerns
about its suitability for identifying liquids for characteristic
testing. The Agency's concerns with Method 9095 are described in
the discussion for the Toxicity Characteristic proposal of
June 13, 1986 (51 FR 21681). In that notice, the Agency
discussed problems with using the paint filter test for hazardous
waste identification purposes. Especially serious was the fact
that, in some cases, whether and how much liquid separated out of
the waste depended on how the waste was poured into the filter.
Under the 50 psi pressure the Agency selected as representative
of a landfill environment and specified in the Toxicity
Characteristic, liquid which would not pass through the paint
filter might be released from a waste and cause environmental
damage. We believe that landfill disposal represents reasonable
worst-case mismanagement for both toxic and corrosive or
ignitable wastes. Consequently, the concerns about the test's
performance under landfill pressures are equally valid for these
additional characteristics. Also, certain particulate materials
are capable of passing through the paint filter, and using Method
9095 would lead to classification of these solids as liquids.
For these reasons, the Agency expects to announce in the
final rule revising the Toxicity Characteristic that Method 9095
is not appropriate for determining whether a liquid is present or
not for purposes of toxicity testing. The same reasoning applies
to the corrosivity characteristic, and we intend to provide
appropriate guidance in the preamble accompanying the final rule
adopting the changes in the proposed Third Edition of SW-846. We
also intend to revise the recommendation in the text of SW-846 in
our next update.
With respect to your quote from the 1980 background document
where we indicated we did not believe we needed to regulate solid
materials, that discussion was intended to deal with materials
which would "form an aqueous solution of high or low pH" (in
other words dissolve) rather than materials which contained and
could release liquids, which is the case here.
With respect to the issue of whether Mr. Friedman provided
testimony in the Hassayampa litigation, the aforementioned
memorandum was not addressed to any specific litigation. Rather,
it was in response to continuing questions that his office has
received on this matter and a desire on our part to reduce the
confusion. The cited regulation (40 CFR 2.401 et SSSO therefore
is not germane in this instance.
-------
In conclusion, there is currently no specific test for
liquids which the Agency mandates under regulation as part of the
corrosivity characteristic test. Mr. Friedman's
October 24, 1989, memorandum and this letter describe and explain
our Office's current thinking on this issue, which we intend to
include in future guidance and in the next update of the Third
Edition of SW-846. We regret any confusion that may have arisen.
If you have any questions on this issue, please contact
Alec McBride on 202-382-4761.
incs^ y^urs, {_
Sine
./ //!!
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Christina Kaneen
Alec McBride
David Friedman
-------
9432.1990(02
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
1990
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Christopher J. Jaekels
GSX Government Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 140
902 South Main Street
Saukville, WI 53080
Dear Mr. Jaekels:
This letter is in response to your January 22, 1990 request for
clarification of regulations applicable to bulking or containerizing.
compatible hazardous wastes for transportation. Specifically, you
requested EPA's concurrence on your interpretation of the
regulations: that bulking and containerizing practices do not
constitute fuel blending, and thus, do not require permitting.
Determinations of this type are made by authorized states and
EPA regional offices. In some cases authorized states have
promulgated applicable regulations that differ from Federal
regulations; hence, you should contact the authorized state
hazardous waste office. If you need information in an unauthorized
state, you may contact the appropriate EPA regional office.
However, for your information, this letter discusses in a
general fashion the federal regulations which may apply. First, it
is important to distinguish between bulking and containerizing
different hazardous wastes for the purpose of efficient
transportation and disposal from bulking and containerizing
different wastes to produce a hazardous waste fuel.
The bulking of characteristic hazardous waste shipments to
achieve efficient transportation may result in incidental reduction
of the hazards associated with that waste mixture. However, this
incidental reduction may not meet the definition of treatment (as
defined under 40 CFR Section 260.10) because it is not designed to
render the waste nonhazardous or less hazardous. Accordingly, such
activity may not require a RCRA permit. For a specific situation a
determination is made by the appropriate Regional office or
authorized state based on the particular circumstances, state
regulations, and policies.
-------
There is no definition for "fuel blending" in Federal
regulations. However, the March 16, 1983 Federal Register (48 FJJ
11157) discusses the Agency's current enforcement guidance for
blenders of hazardous waste fuel. In the preamble, the Agency
explains that "waste-derived fuel blenders are responsible for
ensuring that low-energy value hazardous waste are not blended into
fuels" (48 FR 11159). Therefore, bulking and containerizing of
hazardous wastes which are intended to be burned for energy recovery
(i.e., "fuel blending") are subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
Specifically, a RCRA permitted storage facility consolidating
compatible hazardous wastes for the purpose of burning for energy
recovery must ensure that the resulting hazardous waste fuel has
substantial heat value (i.e., 5,000 to 8,000 Btu) and that each
consolidated hazardous waste fuel constituent possesses substantial
heat value.
The Agency has clearly stated that the storage requirements of
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 apply to hazardous waste fuel blending
tanks. (See the April 13, 1987 Federal Register (52 ££ 11820).)
Therefore, unless the fuel blending operations are conducted in
units exempt from permitting requirements (e.g., a generator's
accumulation tank or container in compliance with standards for less
than 90 day storage), these units are subject to RCRA permitting
requirements under Federal regulations.
Again, we remind you that the final determination of the
regulations that apply at a particular facility is made by the
authorized states and EPA regions. Should you have additional
questions regarding this letter, please contact Emily Roth of my
staff at (202) 475-8551.
ranee,/Director
of Solid Waste
-------
9432.1990(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 1300
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Charles Winwood
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Inspection and Control
U.S. Customs Service
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20229
Dear Mr. Winwood:
Thank you for your letter of July 12, 1990 concerning the
current and future regulatory status of "empty" containers under
40 CFR 261.7.
Your statement is correct that this section allows, in some
cases, up to one inch of residue to remain in a container that
held certain hazardous wastes and be considered empty for
purposes of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations. However, the "one-inch" rule is only part of the
definition of an "empty container" in 261.7(b). This definition
has three parts and is dependent on the type of waste the
container held. In other words, how one determines whether a
container is empty depends on the material previously contained.
Enclosed with this letter for your review, and for the use of
your staff, is a discussion of the Agency's interpretation and
rationale for this important provision. The current rule was our
way of defining when a container no longer poses a serious
hazard, but we did not have definitive data to support the
conclusion.
I have asked Mike Petruska, Chief of the Waste
Characterization Branch, to contact your staff. His Branch is
responsible for generator and transporter issues, and I think it
appropriate for them to meet as this would allow us to understand
more fully your concerns and to discuss alternative regulatory
definitions to rectify this situation.
My understanding of your concern is that border inspections
of containers may unknowingly expose your agents to hazardous
waste through this regulatory definition. This is a legitimate
concern, and you should note that this situation may be rectified
through our work on the administration's Export Bill pursuant to
Frwud on RtcycUd Paptr
-------
the Basel Agreement. When it is finalized, it is anticipated
that it will subject hazardous waste that is currently exempt
from Subtitle c requirements (e.g.. "empty" containers) to the
provisions governing the import and export of hazardous waste.
My staff will continue working with your staff to ensure that
situations such as this are covered in the final bill.
In the interim, EPA will continue working with Customs on
training efforts such as the recently completed U.S. Customs/NEIC
training of 500 customs inspectors on the Mexican border.
Currently, we are discussing the feasibility of expanding this
effort to include joint training of U.S. and Canadian customs
officials with Environment Canada. Adequate training for
inspection procedures for hazardous waste shipments is probably
the best method of ensuring the continued safety of Customs
employees.
Thank you for your interest in this issue, I look forward to
continuing to work with the Customs Service on hazardous waste
issues. If I or my staff can be of any further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
'Sylvia K.
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
ENCLOSURE
The definition of "empty" containers in 40 CFR 261.7 has
three parts and is dependent on the type of waste the container
held. In other words, how one determines whether a container is
empty depends on the material previously contained.
The first part of the definition applies to containers which
held hazardous wastes other than compressed gases or acute
hazardous wastes. For such containers, the regulations provide
that an empty container is one from which all wastes have beeji
removed that can be removed using practices commonly employed to
remove materials from that type of container, (e.g., pouring,
pumping, aspirating), and that no more than 2.5 centimeters (one
inch) of residue remain on the bottom of the container or inner
liner (40 CFR 261.7(b)(1)(i) and (ii)). Additionally, in the
August 18, 1982 Federal Register, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) provides a weight alternative to this "one-inch"
rule. Specifically, the Agency allows 3 percent by weight of the
total capacity of the container to remain in containers that are
less than or equal to 110 gallons in size. For containers
greater than 110 gallons, an empty container is one from which
all residues have been removed by normal means, and no more than
0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container
remains in the container (40 CFR 261.7(b)(l)(iii)).
In the preamble to the August 18, 1982 Federal Register. EPA
discusses the incorrect substitution, by members of the regulated
community, of the word "or" for the word "and" at the end of
paragraph 261.7(b)(1)(i). This substitution would lead an
individual to believe that the practice of leaving one inch of
residue in a container qualifies the container as being "empty",
whether or not all of the waste has been removed to the extent
possible using methods commonly employed. The Agency
emphatically states that this is not the case. When the two
paragraphs are correctly read together, it is clear that one inch
of residue is an overriding constraint, to be utilized only if
all wastes cannot be removed by normal practices.
The second part of the definition covers containers which
have held hazardous wastes which are compressed gases. For these
containers to be considered empty under RCRA, the pressure inside
the container must approach atmospheric pressure.
The third part of the definition covers containers that have
held acute hazardous listed in 261.31, 261.32 or 261.33(e). For
such a container to meet the definition of "empty" under
261.7(b), the container must be triple rinsed with an appropriate
solvent, or in the case of a container with an inner liner, the
inner liner must be removed.
-------
The EPA discusses the rationale for the definition of "empty
container" in the preamble of the November 25, 1980 Federal
Register (45 PJg 78525). "EPA believes that, except where the
hazardous waste is an acutely hazardous material listed in
261.33(6), the small amount of hazardous waste residue that
remains in individual empty, unrinsed containers does not pose a
substantial hazard to human health or the environment." However,
EPA was still (and remains) somewhat concerned with unregulated
container residues.
This concern was illustrated later in the November preamble,
when the Agency set forth three options for regulation of the
residues in "empty" containers and solicited comments on these
options, as well as any data indicating that unregulated residues
may pose a substantial hazard to human health and the
environment. The three options were 1) to require triple rinsing
for all containers; 2) to regulate the residue when it is removed
from a container; and 3) to impose a limit on the amount of
unregulated residue. Of the three options presented, EPA
considered triple rinsing for all containers to offer the
greatest protection to human health and the environment. This
approach would ensure that the only container residues left
unregulated would be trace amounts remaining after triple rinsing
or an equivalent cleaning operation. Thus, if all containers
were required to be triple rinsed before they were considered
"empty" under RCRA, the potential for environmental and health
problems associated with these containers could be substantially
reduced.
The Agency addressed the comments received in response to
the November 25, 1980 solicitation in the August 18, 1982 Federal
Register. Most commenters found the triple rinsing option
undesirable and the Agency had no data to support the proposal of
the triple rinse option based on the comments received.
Accordingly, the Agency has continued to implement the "one-inch"
rule (or the 3 percent/0.3 percent alternative) under Federal
regulations.
It is also important to note that the shipment of empty
containers which have held hazardous wastes may be registered
under more stringent or additional State, local, or Federal
regulations. For example, under the Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulations, a container which has held a hazardous
material must be cleaned and purged of its contents before the
hazardous material label can be removed (49 CFR 173.29).
-------
,to n.,
9432.1991(01
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 2 7 1991
OF
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCY MfS'ONSE
Robert M. Scarberry
Chemical Waste Management
1155 Connecticut Avenue
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Bob:
In your letter of July 9, 1991, you request clarification of
the RCRA definition of "designated facility" with respect to the
treatability study exclusion, which was published on July 19,
1988 (53 FR 27290) . You also ask the Agency to reconsider
whether this exclusion is a HSWA requirement.
On January 23, 1990, EPA clarified the definition of
"designated facility" (see 55 FR 2342). This amendment to the
definition in §260.10 clarifies that EPA's regulations allow
waste shipments from a state where a waste is subject to the
hazardous waste regulations as a result of a listing
determination to a facility in a state where the waste is not yet
regulated as hazardous. In this situation, the designated
facility might not need to be permitted or under interim status,
provided that the receiving facility is allowed by the receiving
state to accept such waste.
In your letter, you describe a situation similar to the one
addressed in the January, 1990 clarification notice, regarding
the transportation and management of treatability study samples.
In your example, a treatability sample is transported from a
state which regulates the treatability sample as a hazardous
waste (because it does not have the exclusion), to a state that
has adopted the exclusion, and therefore does not regulate the
sample as a hazardous waste. You ask whether the hazardous wast*
manifest, which is required in the originating state, can specit,
a treatability study facility as the "designated facility" even
though it does not have a permit or interim status. Furthermore
the facilities vhich perform the treatability studies in some
cases do not have permits or interim status.
As an initial matter, you should be aware that the
interpretation of the definition of "designated facility" in an
authorized state is a matter of state law. An authorized stat«
may interpret the provisions of this regulation in a more
Printea.
-------
- 2 -
stringent manner. Therefore, any interpretation of the term
expressed in this letter reflects only EPA's interpretation of
the definition of "designated facility" and should be confirmed
with the appropriate state agency in the authorized state.
The primary reason for the January 23, 1990 amendments was
to state clearly that EPA interprets the manifest requirement and
the designated facility definition as not prohibiting the
shipment of hazardous wastes from states where the waste is
hazardous to authorized states where the wastes is not hazardous.
The clarifying amendment to the definition of "designated
facility" was to address one specific scenario to which this
interpretation applies. By adding the clarifying language
regarding newly listed wastes, EPA did not intend to preclude the
interstate waste shipment of wastes in similar situations. EPA
believes that the shipment of treatability samples is directly
analogous to the shipment of newly regulated wastes. In both
cases, protection of human health and the environment is somewhat
assured by the threat of potential future liability for the
generator and the receiving facility arising out of management of
the wastes and by federal and state standards that apply to the
receiving facility. EPA noted that Subtitle D standards would
apply to facilities receiving newly listed wastes; facilities
conducting treatability studies would have to comply with
§261.4(f). Finally, it is plainly apparent that this
interpretation is consistent with the purposes of the
treatability exemption. If you choose to follow this
interpretation, the generator should arrange for the designated
facility owner or operator to sign and return the manifest to the
generator, and forout of state transporters to sign and forward
the manifest to the designated facility. Although the receiving
state may not require the completion of the manifest loop, the
originating state would likely require the return of the
manifest.
You suggest that an alternative approach to address the
interstate shipment problem would be to determine that the
treatability study exclusion is a HSWA provision. In the course
of the rulemaking, the Agency determined that the exclusion was
not a "requirement or prohibition" pursuant to HSWA. We believe
that any reexamination of this matter would result in the sane
conclusion. Furthermore, a HSWA designation would not be a
panacea for the transportation of samples since even a HSWA
exclusion would not supersede an existing, more strigent state
requirement, and therefore would have no practical effect in
states where the treatability exclusion has not yet been adopted.
-------
-3-
If you have any further questions regarding this
clarification of the term "designated facility," please call
Wayne Roepe of my staff at (202) 260-2245.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9432.1993(01)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMEHGENCV RESPONSE
"-' 5 1993
Mr. Christopher G. Swanberg
Senior Vice President
Separation and Recovery Systems
1762 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, California 92714-4962
Dear Mr. Swanberg,
Thank you for your letter dated November 12,1992, concerning the use of the
Separation and Recovery Systems (SRS) SAREX Process for the recycling of petroleum
refinery oily wastes, and the status of this activity under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiries. We
appreciated the opportunity to meet with SRS personnel and Mr. Daniel Steinway (of
Anderson, Kill, Olick and Oshinsky) on October 23,1992, to discuss the issue in detail.
You specifically requested that EPA concur with you that the SAREX Process, operating
in the manner you described, meets the definition of "closed-loop" reclamation as
provided in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(8). You also requested that EPA concur that if the
SAREX Process was receiving listed hazardous wastes (e.g., K048 - KOS1), and met the
conditions delineated in §261.4(a)(8), then the secondary materials within the process
would no longer meet the definition of solid waste; and, residues exiting the SAREX
Process (exclusive of recovered petroleum1} would be subject to RCRA only if
exhibiting a characteristic of hazardous waste.
Based upon the information provided by SRS, Mr. Steinway, and a careful review
of the RCRA regulations, EPA does not agree that the SAREX Process meets the
definition of "closed-loop" reclamation as defined in §261.4(a)(8). We would
characterize the operation of the SAREX Process unit '(as described by you) as meeting
regard to wastewater effluent from the SAREX Process that is returned to the
refinery's wastewater treatment system, EPA policy has been that if the refinery can show
that the return water stream is chemically equivalent to the non-listed wastewater influent
to the wastewater treatment device that originally generated the listed waste, then the return
water stream is not derived-from hazardous waste. Return water that is "chemically
equivalent" is defined for purposes of this policy as water that does not contain significantly
higher levels of Appendix VTJI constituents and total suspended solids (TSS).
-------
the definition of recycling, and therefore would not require a RCRA permit under the
federal RCRA regulations (40 CFR 261.6(c)(l)); however, listed sludges and by-products
being reclaimed in the process would remain solid and hazardous wastes within the unit,
as would any non-reclaimed residues exiting the unit (see Footnote 1 concerning
wastewater). The rationale for this determination is described below.
One condition of the closed-loop exclusion is that the reclaimed material cannot
be used to produce a fuel, or to produce a prctfuct used in a manner constituting
disposal (§261.4(a)(8)(iv)). Because the oil recovered using the SAREX Process is being
returned to the refinery where it will be used to produce a fuel (or possibly to produce a
product applied to the land), the closed-loop exclusion does not apply.2
If the oil is returned to part of the refining process where non-fuel (or non-land
application) petroleum products are produced, it is possible that the SAREX Process
might be eligible for the closed-loop exclusion. However, the SAREX Process must still
be configured in a manner consistent with the other conditions of the closed-loop
exclusion. EPA promulgated the closed-loop exclusion as part of the revised hazardous
waste tank rules (51JER 25422; July 14,1986 Federal Register! Based upon comments
received during the development of that rule, EPA determined that there was a
substantial number of potentially regulated tanks engaged in "types of reclamation
operations [that] are best viewed as part of the production process, not as a distinct
waste management operation." 51 IE 25442. One of the conditions for the closed-loop
exclusion that reflects the Agency's desire that the reclamation be integral to the
production process is that "only tank storage is involved, and the entire process through
completion of reclamation is closed by being entirely connected with pipes or other
comparable enclosed means of conveyance" (§261.4(a)(8)(i)), Whether or not the
SAREX Process will receive listed sludges and by-products directly from the production
processes generating them, in a manner consistent with this provision, is a site-specific
determination. This is especially true because the SAREX Process is designed to be
installed at different refineries with potentially different configurations of production and
the generation of listed sludges and by-products.
As you maV know, the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force is presently revisiting
the existing regulations governing the definition of solid waste and the recycling of
hazardous secondary materials. The Task Force's goals include exploring ways to
simplify the current regulatory system, in order to better encourage safe recycling and
resource recovery. I can assure you that the issues and ideas presented by SRS and Mr.
Stcinway during the meeting on October 23, 1992, (e.g., performance standards for
^However, the recovered oil returned to the refining process is exempt from hazardous
waste regulations per 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vi), as are the fuels produced from such oil (see
§261.6(a)(3)(v) and (vii)).
-------
recycling processes, definition of hazardous waste fuel) will be taken into consideration
as the Task Force proceeds with its efforts. In addition, EPA is involved in an on-going
dialogue with interested parties as pan of the rulemaking process specifically related to
the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR), proposed on May 20, 1992 (57 FR
21450) and subsequently withdrawn on October 30, 1992 (57 £R 49280). Part of the
original proposed rule discussed concentration-based exemption criteria (CBEC),
whereby listed wastes would no longer be subject to Subtitle C requirements if treated to
below certain constituent concentration levels. We would encourage you to participate
in the on-gjing dialogue, specifically with regaid to the types of materials entering the
SAREX process, and the residuals generated.
If you have any questions, please contact Ross Elliott of my staff at (202) 260-
8551. Thank you for your interest in the safe recycling of hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
leffjry
Deputy Director
'Office of Solid Waste
cc: Mr. Daniel M. Steinway
-------
£ A
I 222.
%«.^
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9432.1993(02)
OCT 22 i99
SOLID WASTF AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Ms. Katy Wolf, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Institute for Research and Technical Assistance
1429 South Bundy Drive, Suite 6
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Deai Ms. Wolf:
Thank you for your letters datt March 26, 1992, and June 14, 1993, concerning
separator water and the use of evaporators at dry-cleaning facilities. I sincerely
apologize for not replying to your letters sooner. I hope that this response addresses the
concerns expressed in your letters.
In your March 26, 1^92 letter, you inquired about the regulate -v status under the
Resource Conservation ar Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1) the separator water generated
at dry cleaners, and 2) the use of various devices for filtering and/or evaptrating the
separator water. These issues were addressed in a letter dated June 2, 1993, from EPA
to Mr. William Fisher of the International Fabricare Institute (IFI), and you have
indica j you already have received a copy of that letter. In your June 14, 1993, letter,
you expressed concerns about EPA's discussion in the June 2 letter to Mr. Fisher
regarding the applicability of the wastewater treatment unit exemption under RCRA to
separator water evaporators.
The wastewater treatment irit exemption in 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6), originally
promulgated on November 17, 198c (45 PR 76074), is contingent upon the unit in
question meeting the three-part definition of wastewater treatment unit in 40 CFR
260.10. In our letter to Mr. Fisher of IFI, we explained that based upon the information
we had received from many different sources on the dry-cleaning industry, separator
water - jporators met the three-part definition of wastewater treatment unit. I believe
that y iave communicated well your concerns about the effect this interpretation will
have u. Ury cleaners, and possibly on other industrial sectors as well. The determination
discussed in the June 2, 1993, letter could be interpreted by some as having a broad
effect, as you have expressed in your letter and in conversations with my staff. However,
it is important to note that we only addressed the narrow issue of the applicability of
RCRA permitting to the specific types of units used in the dry-cleaning industry, based
upon the information we were presented. We also stated in the letter to Mr. Fisher thai
R«cycl»d/H»eyctable
-------
RCRA permits would not be required "provided the criteria for qualifying as a
wastewater treatment unit outlined in 40 CFR Section 260.10 are met." If, due to site-
specific circumstances, any of these criteria are not met the exemption does not apply.
For example, if certain hazardous wastes entering the unit are not wastewaters (as you
discussed), but concentrated wastes, the exemption does not apply. It is also important
to understand that \ve did not discuss specific process units from other industries, or units
processing other types of wastes.
We also did not intend to preclude the potential applicability of other
environmental statutes and regulations, both federal and Staie. As you know, EPA's
Office of Air and Radiation has promulgated a final rule governing perchloroethylene
emissions from dry-cleaning facilities (published September 22, 1993; 58 FR 49354).
That office is aware of the determination made by the Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
regarding tbe RCRA-permitting of evaporator units, and took this determination into
account during the rulemaking process.
I would like to point out that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 D.S.C. Section
6926), individual States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous
waste programs in lieu of the federal program. Please also note that under Section 3009
of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. If a State
agency authorized to implement the RCRA Subtitle C program does not recognize the
wastewater treatment unit exemption, or its interpretation of such a provision is more
stringent or broader in scope, the authority exists for the State to deal with that situation
directly.
Let me emphasize that the points you raised in your letter were given thorough
consideration during the evaluation and analysis of this issue. Given our understanding
of the facts presented, we feel that the interpretation outlined in the letter to Mr. Fisher
to be consistent with the current exemption for wastewater treatment units. Thank you
for your comments and input on this iss.ue, and I again apologize for the long delays in
responding to your letters.
Sincerely,
/eddle
Act(ijg/Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
! UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
•V WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9432.1994(01)
1 |994 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Shell Oil's Norco, Louisiana
Facility Ditch -System , i /
FROM: Frank McAlister, Chief c^fea-n^./* ^7U^U^
Assistance Branch (5303W)
TO: Bill Gallagher, Chief
Arkansas/Louisiana Section
RCRA Permits Branch, Region VI (6H-PL)
We have reviewed your November 22, 1993 facsimile requesting
assistance in determining the regulatory status of a wastevater/
stormwater ditch system at Shell Oil Company's Norco, Louisiana
manufacturing complex.
As we understand it, the0ditch system is composed of five
interconnected trenches/ditches that drain into an open-top in-
ground tank referred to as the Storm Water Impounding- Basin
(SWIB) Inlet Tank. Five pumps within the SWIB Inlet Tank lift
the wastewater/stormwater into the 22 acre Storm Water Impounding
Basin with subsequent flow into the 12 acre Aeration Basin.
4The ditch system was designated a hazardous waste management
unit*by Shell when the TC rule became effective on September 25,
1990 (See 55 FR 11798).' .Shell apparently would like to consider
the SWIB Inlet Tank either an excluded tank or sump under the
wastewater treatment unit exemption (See 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6)).
According to Shell, the unlined trench system would'then be
considered either ancillary equipment to an exdluded..tank or a
component of an excluded sump, £nd would, thereby, be "exempt from
RCRA permit regulations (e.g., liner and leak detection system
requirements).
Based on a review of Shell Oil's October 26 and December 15,
1993 submissions, and of the Agency's historical position on
ditch systems, Shell's general conclusion that a ditch system
could be construed to be ancillary equipment to a tank, or for
that matter troughs/trenches connected to a sump, is correct.
However, Shell's
-------
The error lies in the assumption that Norco's unlined
conveyance systems can be considered ancillary equipment to a
tank system. The following discussion supports the Agency's
position that ancillary equipment must be a device or devices
that are designed and operated not to leak, and that any device
designed to allow-leakage or discharge into, or on any land such
that hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the
environment constitutes disposal (see definition of "disposal,"
40 CFR 260.10).
First, in reviewing the definitions of "tank," "tank system"
(which includes ancillary equipment), and "wastewater treatment
unit," (40 CFR 260.10), as well as the "Applicability"
requirements of Subpart J of Parts 264 and 265, it, is evident
that tanks and -ank systems are used for treatment and storage —
not for .land disposal. Secondly, the kinds of devices
specifically noted as ancillary equipment (piping, fittings,
flanges and pumps) provide containment for the .purpose of
treatment or storage (or conveyance) in accordance with the above
mentioned general definitions. The fact that an entire tank
system including ancillary equipment must provide containment is
clearly illustrated by the regulations:
(a)...[The] owner or operators must determine that the
tank system is not leaking or .is unfit for use...
[The] owner or operator must obtain and keep on file nt
the facility a written assessment reviewed and
certified by an independent, qualified regist '.red
professional engineer... that attests'to the cank
system's integ'rity... At a minimum this assessment
must consider the following:
(5) Results of a leak test, internal inspection, or
other tank integrity examination such that:
(ii) For other than ron-enterable tanks and for
ancillary equipment, this a sessment must incJLude
either a leak test as described above, or other,
integrity examination... that addresses cracks, leak.
corrosion, and erosion...
(d) If, as' a result of the assessment conducted in
accordance with paragraph (a), a tank system is four i
to be leaking or Unfit for use, the owner or operate:
must comply with the .requirements of §264.J.96
(Emphasis added). 40 CFR 264.191.
We conclude, therefore, that in order for a device to be
defined as "ancillary equipment," it must be designed to preve--
leakage "or discharge. Since Shell has not demonstrated,, that t
ditch system meets the above criteria '(i.e., that'the ditch
system is not leaking, leak test, etc.),0 this system cannot be
considered ancillary equipment.
-------
Shell's second key argument that the conveyance system is
not or cannot be regulated is also in error. Shell's argument is
based partially on a 1983 EPA trip report written before the
development of a clear regulatory mechanism to address land
disposal of hazardous wastes in ways other than a narrow set of
traditional units such as surface impoundments and landfills.
However, even the 1983 trip report makes it clear that
"... Permit writers should evaluate the potential for these
ditches to leak into the subsoil.. If those ditches are conveying
hazardous-waste, such a discharge can be considered to be an act
of disposal, with a resulting requirement that the discharge bo
either cleaned- up or the area (ditch) be managed as a disposal
unit." (Emphasis added). Since in 1983 there were no "ditch"
regulations, permitting authorities- chose the management option
of treating ditches as impoundments for the purpose of addressing
discharges from ditches, particularly in those cases where waste
was impounded in drainage ditches by a weir or natural
depression. On December 10, 1987 the Agency published standards
for owners of miscellaneous uni-ts, i.e., those hazardous waste
management technologies an$ units not covered by the existing
regulations (51 FR 40726). These rules were published more than
six years ago to address circumstances similar to those which
appear to be occurring at Shell's facility in Norco, Louisiana.
Further, land disposal restrictions regulations define the
limited circumstances under which F037/038 wastes (which are
relevant to Shell) may continue to be disposed by broadly
defining land disposal to mean "... placement in or on the lar.
and includes, but not limited to, placement in a landfill,
surface impoundment..." (See 40 CFR 263.2(c), Emphasis added).
This definition recognizes, in concert with the Subpart X fina.
rule, that other forms of land disposal exist aside from those
traditionally practiced. Examples of other forms of land
disposal (i.e., placement into or on the land) are specified
within the context of the listing for F037/038 waste. These
include "ditches and other conveyances." You will notice that
ditches and conveyances 'are listed in the same context as, but
are separate from, tanks and sumps. (See 40 CFR 261.31)
Finally, Shell wrongly argues that the cdnveyance system
a Solid Waste Management Unit arid is, therefore, not regulated
Since the conveyance system received hazardous waste after
January 26, 1982, it is subject to full Part 264/265 regulatic
as a hazardous waste management unit.
In light of the regulatory requirements discussed above,
there appears to be two options for identifying the unit-spec;
Shell did not address this underlined portion of the 198
trip report in their December 16 letter.
-------
status of this ditch system as it currently stands. For the
purposes of permitting, one option is to .consider the ditch
system either a Subpart X disposal unit or a surface impoundment.
If .it is determined that the ditch system is a Subpart X land
disposal unit, relevant design and operation requirements from
conventional units that function in a similar manner, such as
surface impoundments, would .apply. The most obvious relevant
requirement in these standards is the liner/leak detection system
requirement. If it can be determined that waste is actually
being impounded (for example, in depressions in the drainage
system), then the ditch system should be considered a surface
impoundment, as originally designated by Shell in its Part A.
Alternatively, the ditch system could be retrofitted in
accordance with the tank regulations. If that were the case, the
ditch system would, in fact, be a part of a tank system (i.e.,
ancij.l-ary equipment) and, therefore, eligible for the wastewater
treatment unit exemption.
With regard to the Region's question of similar ditch
systems in other Regions, two systems seem to most closely fit
Shell's circumstances. The first similar ditch system was
operated at the Dow Chemical Company's Midland, Michigan
facility. In the mid - 1980's (prior to the final Subpart X
regulations) these ditches were designated surface impoundments
by Region 5. They were closed as such, and are now undergoing
post-closure care. The second similar ditch system was operated
at the Sun Oil Company's Marcus Hook Refinery in Marcus Hook,
Pennsylvania. Sun Oil recognized the need to retrofit the ditch
system, and is currently constructing a new above-ground piping
system.
Although this discussion analyzes whether Shell Oil's ditch
system is ancillary equipment, we would arrive at the same'
conclusion unrter an analysis of whether the ditch system is a
trough/trench connected to a sump. The reason for the same
conclusion, no matter how we characterize Shell Oil's ditch
system, is—that sumps and connected troughs/trenches are defined
as tanks and are governed by the same regulations as are tanks
("...it is EPA's intention that hazardous waste tankasystems,
including sumps used to transport hazardous wastes,, are managed
in a manner that would easure protection of human health and the
environment." (51 FR 25441) July 14, 1986). Even Shell agrees
that the definitions of tank and sump and their respective
components (e.g. trenches, troughs, conveyances, and ancillary
equipment) -are used interchang_eably. (See especially page 11,
paragraph D of Shell's December 15, 199*3 letter to Ms. Elaine
Taylor and 43 FR 34080 (September 2, 1988) .quoted on page 4 of
the same letter.)
-------
Should you have questions regarding our analysis of Shell
Oil's Norco, Louisiana facility ditch system, please contact
Chris Rhyne of my staff at (703) 308-8658.
cc: Chris Rhyne, AB, PSPD, OSW
Chet Oszman, AB, PSPD, osw
Frank McAlister, AB, PSPD, OSW
Rafael Casanova, Region VI
Kathy Nam, OGC
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
9432.1994(02)
OFFICE OF
SOUO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MAY I 2 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Shell Oil's Norco, Louisiana
Facility Ditch System
PROM: Michael H. Shapiro, Di
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Allyn M. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region 6
In your March 30, 1994 memorandum, you requested
clarification of the regulatory status of the Shell Oil, Norco,
Louisiana refinery ditch system that has been used to convey
hazardous waste. In previous correspondence, Headquarters
provided a detailed interpretation regarding RCRA applicability
to the facility. That interpretation concluded that Shell oil's
Norco facility ditch system can not be considered ancillary
equipment to a tank (or as troughs/trenches connected to a sump)
within the meaning of "tank system" in 40 CFR 260.10. Therefore,
the ditch system is not eligible for the wastewater treatment
unit exemption. (See February 1, 1994 memorandum from Frank
McAlister (OSW) to Bill Gallagher (Region 6)). Below we have
provided further explanation of this interpretation.
The RCRA regulations require that ancillary equipment, as
part of a tank system, must be designed and operated so that it
will not leak. See 40 CFR 265.191. Natural soils, such as those
at the Norco ditch system, although useful for many construction
applications, are not leak-proof materials. One of the
fundamental properties of natural soil is that it allows
transmission of liquids; no natural soil is leak-proof. The
Norco ditch system, therefore, fails to qualify as part of a tank
system under this regulatory test.
Shell maintains that it should be able to demonstrate
(pursuant to 40 CFR 265.191(a)) that its ditch system is leak-
proof by using a leak test or other integrity assessment.
-------
- 2 -
However, this regulatory provision is intended only to confirm
that tank systems constructed of leak-proof materials do not in
fact leak. As discussed above, the Shell ditch system is not
constructed of leak-proof material.
Furthermore, the Norco ditch system does not meet the
requirement in 40 CFR 265.191 that tank systems be constructed of
materials that provide structural strength. The tank system
regulations require that the owner/operator obtain a tank
assessment attesting to the tank system's integrity. 40 CFR
265.191(a). This assessment must determine that the tank is
adequately designed and has "sufficient structural strength and
compatibility with the waste(s) to be stored or treated to ensure
that it will not collapse, rupture or fail." 40 CFR 265.191(b).
We interpret the term "structural strength" required of tank
systems in 40 CFR 265.191(b) consistently with our interpretation
of the almost-identical term "structural support" in the
definition of tank in 40 CFR 260.10. Specifically, EPA has
interpreted the term "structural support" to mean that the sides
of the structure must be capable of supporting themselves, and
the wastes they contain, without the aid of adjacent soils.
These structural support qualities are what distinguish tanks,
for example, from surface impoundments.
This distinction for tanks was made in an April 8, 1983
memorandum from Bruce R. Weddle, Acting Director, State Programs
and Resource Recovery Division to Thomas W. Devine, Director, Air
and Waste Management Division, Region IV. The Third Circuit
further articulated this distinction in Beazer Eastf Inc. v. U.S.
EPA Region III. 963 F.2d 603 (3rd Cir. 1992). In the Beazer
case, the Third Circuit determined that a surface impoundment
that was lined with concrete was not a tank, because the sides of
the impoundment were not capable of supporting themselves, and
the wastes they contain, without additional support from
underlying dike soils. Similarly, Shell's partially lined Norco
ditch system is not ancillary equipment that is part of a tank
system, because it is not capable of demonstrating that it can
support itself without additional support from the surrounding
soils.
You also inquired about what we meant in our February 1
memorandum by the sentence, "Alternatively, the ditch system
could be retrofitted in accordance with the tank regulations."
By this we mean that in order to convert the ditch to an exempt
wastewater treatment unit, Shell would need to reconstruct the
entire Norco ditch system using materials that are both leak-
proof and provide the structural strength required of ancillary
equipment that is part of a tank system.
-------
- 3 -
I hope this memorandum clarifies our position on this issue.
If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact
Chris Rhyne of my staff at (703) 308-8658.
cc: Jim Michael
Frank McAlister
Matt Hale
Dev Barnes
Kathy Nam, OGC
Allyn Davis, Region 6
William Honker, Region 6
Mike Roulier, ORD
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200
/ DALLAS. TX 75202-2733
MAR Q 01904
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Determination
Refinery Effluent Ditch System
Shell Oil Company, Norco, Louisiana
EPA I.D. No. LADOOS186579
FROM: Allyn M. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
TO: Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS-300)
Attached is a memorandum forwarded to Frank McAlister of your staff
requesting written clarification of the issues included in his
memorandum of February 1, 1994, concerning the regulatory status of
Shell Oil's (Norco, Louisiana) ditch system. A meeting was held on
March 22, 1994, at EPA regional offices which included, among
others, counsel for Shell and the Deputy Director of the Hazardous
Waste Management Division. Shell has sent a letter requesting
clarification of the February 1, 1994, Frank McAlister memorandum
(see attachments).
Shell contends that the wording of the referenced memorandum
specifies that if Shell demonstrates that the ditch system is not
leaking, then the ditch system could then be considered ancillary
equipment and thus exempt from regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Shell proposes to make this demonstration under 40 CFR §265.191
(Assessment of existing tank system's integrity). Region 6 argues
that Shell's reading of the memo was not our intent. Therefore, we
are requesting written clarification of these issues in order to
respond to Shell in a timely manner. Shell plans to request a
meeting with you to present their argument. Therefore, we are
requesting that clarification come from your office. If you have
any questions or comments concerning our request, please call Bill
Honker of my staff at (214) 655-6770.
Attachments
r; Printed on Recycled P.^
-------
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Determination
Refinery Effluent Ditch System
Shell Oil Company, Norco, Louisiana
EPA I.D. No. LAD008186579
FROM: William K. Honker, P.E., Chief
RCRA Permits Branch (6H-P)
Hazardous Waste Management Division
TO: Frank F. McAlister, Chief
Assistance Branch (5303W)
Permits and State Programs Division
Office of Solid Waste
The purpose of this memorandum is to request written clarification
of the issues included in your letter of February 1, 1994,
concerning the regulatory status of Shell Oil's (Norco, Louisiana)
ditch system. A meeting was held on March 22, 1994, at EPA
regional offices which included, among others, counsel for Shell
and the Deputy Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Division.
Shell contends that the wording of the referenced letter specifies
that if Shell demonstrates that the ditch system is not leaking,
then the ditch system could then be considered ancillary equipment
and thus exempt from regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. Shell
proposes to make this demonstration under 40 CFR §265.191
(Assessment of existing tank system's integrity). Shell states
that the natural clay liner (hydraulic conductivity » 1 x 10'8
cm/sec) underlying the ditch system along with the hydraulic
gradient of the groundwater towards the ditch system will not allow
contaminants to migrate into the groundwater. Shell proposes to
model groundwater under the two following worst-case scenarios: the
ditch system full of water and the lowering of the water table to
a level below the ditch system.
-------
Region 6 argues that Shell's reading of the memo was not the intent
of EPA and that in order for the ditch system to be designated as
ancillary equipment, it must be designed according to those
specifications (e.g., leak tested, secondary containment, etc).
Additionally, EPA has not determined that the ditch system is part
of a tank system and is thus ineligible for the demonstration
specified in the regulations for tank systems. If a demonstration
were conceivable, this demonstration should have been made one year
after the date that the waste became a hazardous waste [see 40 CFR
§265.191(c)] . This deadline has already passed.
Region 6 is requesting written clarification of these issues in
order to respond to Shell in a timely manner. Additionally, the
Region'is requesting clarification of the term "retrofitting" as
used in the context of the referenced letter. Since Shell may
request a review from a higher authority at EPA Headquarters, the
Region is also requesting that the clarification memo be signed by
Mike Shapiro.
-------
AKIN. GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER <& FELD, L.L.P.
1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE. N ,\
SUITE 1OO
WASHINGTON, O.C. 2OO36
i2O2> 887-Aooo
65 AVENUE LOUISE. P.a. NO. 7
IO5O BRUSSELS. BELGIUM
(Oil) 32-2-535.39.ll
65 EAST 55TH STREET
33RO FLOOR
MEW 1-ORK, NEW YORK IOO22
(212) 873-IOOO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
2IOO FRANKLIN PLAZA
III CONGRESS AVENUE
AUSTIN, TEXAS 7S7OI
(512) 499-62OO
TAX (512) 476-38SS
WRITCM'S OIRCCT DIAL NUMBCK (SID
..6203
I7OO PACIFIC AVENUE
SUITE 4IOO
DALLAS. TEXAS 752OI-ASI8
(214) 9S9-28OO
I5OO NATIONSBANK PLAZA
3OO CONVENT STREET
SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS 782O5
(2IO) 27O-O8OO
I9OO PENNZOIL PLACE-SOUTH TOWER
711 LOUISIANA STREET
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77OO2
(713) 22O-58OO
March 24, 1994
Mr. Jack S. Divita
Deputy Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Re: Shell Oil Company, Norco Louisiana
EPA ID No. LAD008186579
Dear Mr. Divita:
This letter is in response to issues raised at our March 22, 1994 meeting with you
concerning the regulatory status of the wastewater collection and conveyance system at the
Norco Manufacturing Complex ("Norco") owned and operated by Shell Oil Company
("Shell"). The purpose of the meeting was to determine what action Shell may take to
demonstrate that this conveyance system meets the definition of ancillary equipment based
on the Dr. Allyn Davis* letter of March 4, 1994 and an earlier advisory memorandum from
the Office of Solid Waste. Shell disagrees with the apparent interpretation of these two
documents by the Region as discussed at the March 22 meeting. This letter is intended to
provide you our understanding of the regulatory criteria applicable to the conveyance system
and request clarification of the Agency's position.
In an EPA memorandum, dated February 1, 1994, from Frank McAlister to Bill
Gallagher, the Office of Solid Waste advised the Region that a facility ditch system could
be construed to be ancillary equipment to a tank. To qualify, ancillary equipment must be
designed to prevent leakage or discharge. Shell has not demonstrated that the conveyance
system is designed to meet this criteria. This advise was incorporated without any significant
modification or analysis by the Region in Dr. Davis' letter of March 4.
-------
AKIN. GUMP, STRAUSS. HAUER & FELD. L.L.P.
Mr. Jack S. Divita
March 24, 1994
Page 2
Based on our reading of the analysis from the Office of Solid Waste, we believe that
the conveyance system would be classified appropriately as ancillary equipment to a
wastewater treatment tank if Shell could meet the tank assessment and certification
requirements of 40 CFR § 265.191. In the March 22 meeting, we were informed that we
were misconstruing the EPA documents. We were told that it was not the agency's intent
that Norco conveyance system, as it is presently designed, could qualify as ancillary
equipment. The conveyance system should be classified as either a Subpart X
(Miscellaneous Unit) or as a surface impoundment. We believe that the Region's statements
are neither consistent with the very clear language in the EPA documents nor with the RCRA
regulations.
Shell appreciates the Region's apparent concern with what appears to be "unlined-dirt
ditches" that typically would be the source of uncontrolled discharges and releases of
hazardous waste or hazardous constituents. This concern is misplaced because there is no
evidence that the conveyance system has resulted in releases or discharges constituting
disposal. The unique geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the site provides
containment meeting or exceeding other types of engineered devices, including underground
piping considered ancillary equipment at other facilities. Under these circumstances, Shell
should be allowed the opportunity to perform the tank system assessment and obtain a
certification.
Based on preliminary review of the substantial amount of site-specific data onNorco's
conveyance system, Shell believes that the conveyance system could be certified after
additional analyses and groundwater modelling. The natural clay bottom of the conveyance
system exhibits low permeability. The physical characteristics of the surrounding soil are
similar to the clay bottoms. The groundwater elevation in the soils surrounding the
conveyance system are higher than those inside the conveyance system and is maintained
through the operation of the conveyance system. Little or no organic constituents have been
detected in chemical analyses of the underlying clays.
Shell is requesting that the Agency clarify its position on this matter. Shell intends
to meet with appropriate representatives of the Office of Solid Waste to confirm that Norco's
conveyance system could be classified as ancillary equipment if the conveyance system is
certified by an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer to have integrity
sufficient to contain the wastewater and prevent leakage and discharge. Shell believes very
-------
AKIN. GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P.
Mr. Jack S. Divita
March 24, 1994
Page 3
strongly that, if its conveyance system can be certified, Shell not be forced to incur
significant construction costs to address a non-problem.
We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and desire that this clarification can
be made expeditiously.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Seals
PAS:rt
cc: Dr. AUyn Davis
Frank McAlister
Bill Honker
Bill Gallagher
Elaine Taylor
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9432.1994(03)
Off KB OF
HPT 7 KVM SOIJD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
UU ( Wy4 RESPONSE
Mr. Thomas R. Trafton, President
Recovery Express, Inc.
197 Portland Street
Boston, MA 02114
Dear Mr. Trafton:
Thank you for your letter of February 18,1994, in which you requested a regulatory
intrepretation. You contend that processing of lead abatement debris at generator's site
to meet the hazardous waste recycler's specification, is not "treatment14 as defined in 40
CFR 260.:10. As discussed below, we believe that processing of lead-based paint (LBP)
waste could be construed as "treatment" as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, but might not be
subject to Subtitle C regulations.
Typically, recycling of hazardous wastes meets the definition of treatment under
40 CFR 260.10. In general, legitimate recycling processes, however, are not subject to
RCRA Subtitle C regulations under 40 CFR 261.6(c) except as noted in 40 CFR 261.6(d).
If processing (e.g., cutting, chopping, shredding, or grinding) of the LBP waste exhibiting
the toxici'ty characteristic for lead, is a necessary part of a legitimate recycling process
(i.e., necessary to meet the vendor's specification, as in this case), it would not be subject
to RCRA Subtitle C requirements except as specified in 40 CFR 261.6(d). The processing
activities !may occur at the generator's site, or at the recycler's facility. In either case,
such processing is considered a first step in the recycling process and remains exempt
under 40! CFR 261.6(d).
Assuming LBP waste processing is done as part of legitimate recycling, a RCRA
hazardous waste treatment permit is not necessary. Under 40 CFR 261.6(c), any storage
of LBP hazardous waste before or after processing is subject to RCRA Subtitle C
regulation (e.g., 40 CFR 262.34 for generator accumulation or 40 CFR Part 264 for other
storage)!under 40 CFR 261.6(c). In addition, EPA advises that generators/processors
should ta'ke care to protect workers from paint dust, and any dust generated during the
processing should be minimized and contained. Also, please note that any materials that
exhibit hazardous waste characteristics and that are disposed of are subject to full Subtitle
C reaulaiion. including treatment under the Land Disposal Restrictions at
PrtnM with ftoYfCanot* Ink an p*p« iKn:
-------
40 CFR Part 268. EPA believes that processing shredding or grinding of LBP debris
whether hazardous or not, prior to disposal, should not be practiced, since such action
may makeilead in waste more amenable to leaching.
Undpr RCRA, most States are authorized to administer and enforce the hazardous
waste program in lieu of the Federal program. If you have any questions about how
recycling and storage requirements apply to your specific activities, you should consult
the appropriate State agencies (or EPA Regional office in an unauthorized state) for a site-
specific determination.
The, Agency is currently evaluating various LBP waste disposal alternatives to
address concerns of HUD and local housing authorities, lead abaters, advocacy groups,
and Statesj For example, the RCRA hazardous waste rules may impede and discourage
lead paint jabatement. EPA may amend the existing RCRA regulations and propose
different rules under TSCA governing LBP waste disposal.
EPA[ Region III forwarded your letter to us for interpretation, and we are
concurrently sending a similar letter as our response to EPA Region III. If you have any
specific questions, please contact Mr. David Friedman, EPA Region III at (215)597-2863.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
e.
February 18, 1994
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street Southwest
Washington, DC 20460
RE: Proposal for site preparation of hazardous lead paint waste debris
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Recovery Express Inc. proposes to use a Shred Pax AZ40 machine to grind lead
painted wood debris into pieces approximately three inches across. ( See diagram and
photos Attachment A) The purpose of this process is two fold. First, our preferred TSD
Facility requires wastes to be presented in this fashion. This facility, Exide Battery, Reading,
PA, is a lead smelter and recycles the lead content and will take debris in no other form.
Landban of this type of waste makes this kind of disposal the most environmentally sound
alternative available. Second, reduction of large pieces will make them easier to package into
our thirty cubic yard transportation containers and thus more cost-effective to transport.
This machine will be used only on the generator site. No transportation will take place
until after processing is completed. Precautions have been taken to eliminate air emissions.
Crushed material falls directly into a specially prepared, covered transport container because
the machine is positioned on. eight-foot legs over the container and intervening spaces are
covered with polyethylene. A HEPA vacuum device is available if necessary to add to these
precautions. Our air testing shows negligible emissions from this process. (Results available
on request.) After processing the container is covered as per US DOT regulations. ( See
our Operations Manual, Attachment B.)
Our workers are OSHA trained, and our manager is a forty-hour OSHA Hazardous
Waste supervisor. Transportation is provided by our sister company, Jeffrey Chemical Co.
Inc., which is a Licensed Hazardous Waste Transporter in eighteen states.
Before Recovery Express Inc. undertakes to use this machine in any state we ask that
each State Environmental Agency settle two questions regarding its use. Firstly, is this
process treatment of hazardous waste as defined by state regulations. Secondly, would this
process require obtaining any permit for its use. Because the answers we have received so
far have varied from state to state, we ask your department to respond to these same
questions. Interpretations from Region One and various states which agree with our own are
attached. States which consider this process treatment by definition, such as Maine and New
Recovery Express, Inc.
Hazardous Waste Specialist!
197 PonJand Screet, Boston, MA 02114
Tel. 617.523.7740 Fax 61 '.367.3627
-------
Page two
York have presented us with other options, all different. We hope that a definitive response
to us from your department will provide these states and others which we have not yet
contacted with guidance on their future actions.
Request for Interpretation
We consider this process to be site preparation of hazardous waste. The volume of
hazardous waste remains unchanged and the hazardous element of the waste is unaffected.
The enclosed approval for its use by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection presents our case for this belief in the most succinct terms. We ask that you read
and consider their opinions carefully. ( Attachment C )
The definition of treatment consists of two parts, according to the letter of John
Skinner of EPA, 11-6-84,( Attachment D ): 1. the change in character, and, 2. the purpose of
the change. While it may be argued that our process makes the waste more amenable to
transport or recover, under the listed purposes of the definition in 40 CFR 260.10, we do not
believe that we will change the physical characteristics of the waste. What is changed is the
physical shape of the debris. There is no change in any of the physical characteristics of the
wood substrate nor of the hazardous lead paint constituent of the waste. All that is changed
in the end process is the amount and conformation of the air spaces which surround the
waste when it is containerized for transport.
Presently on all sites where lead paint waste is generated, some preparation of waste
for transport and disposal is now taking place. The physical shape of all wood debris, and
other debris as well, is being altered to conform to disposal requirements of landfills in the
United States. We have enclosed a chart which gives the size requirements of these
hazardous waste landfills. ( See Attachment E ) As can be seen here, the reality of
hazardous debris disposal is such that some form of preparation of the waste is necessary.
Material is now routinely broken up, sawn, sorted, and shredded for transport to the disposal
sites on our list. ( See the enclosed article from Deleading Magazine, Vol. 2 No. 10, which
discusses the handling of lead wastes on-site by an abatement company which operates in
the New York/New England area. Attachment F ) Other activities, such as planing, sanding,
or sand-blasting are also common.
We believe that these activities are not considered treatment as per 40 CFR 260.10.
Environmental agencies are aware of the requirements of lead debris disposal and do not
regulate this site activity. Leave is given to prepare material to become an acceptable
"waste", even though it is hazardous, and this preparation is not considered treatment so as
not to overburden the procedures for transport and disposal. In a manner of speaking,
material still on-site is not discarded, therefore not "waste", until it has been packaged and
prepared for disposal. Of course, not all such activities in all industries would fit this analysis,
-------
r n
Page three
but the small danger posed by our process justifies considering it as site preparation. We
believe that our process is only a more efficient form of the type of activities described above.
Overview
Over the past two to three years changes have occurred in the way disposal of lead
based paint waste was envisioned. At first, regulators and public officials believed that most
lead paint would be stripped from the wood substrate and disposed of in drums. Disposal
itself was viewed as a simple process of landfilling these small particles. Predictions of the
amount of lead paint that would be found to be hazardous in any case were quite low, usually
estimated at about 30 % or below.
The reality of today is very different. Our experience, which is not unusual, is that
more material is hazardous than was predicted, as much as 75 to 90 %. Work practice by
abaters has shown that laborious stripping of old wood is very time-consuming and
expensive, as well as not being as efficient as originally hoped. The disposal field has also
changed. As of May, 1994 no hazardous lead debris will be accepted for landfilling unless it
is treated, as per 40 CFR 268.30, the Third third' landfill ban. Treatment, i.e., stabilization,
requires that the debris be reduced in size to very small pieces. Even now most hazardous
waste landfills require some processing of the debris before they will accept it. Preferred
state of any wood debris is in pieces less than 3 feet long or even, in some cases, less than
three inches long. And this says nothing of the expense of landfilling the large amounts of
material generated by even a modest sized project ( as much as $200 -300 per cubic yard).
None of the above difficulties takes into consideration likely future possibilities such
as refusal of landfills to take in the huge amounts of material generated by large projects
which the Federal government and states may mandate; or the possibility that these wastes
may not be acceptable for landfilling under any circumstances should the current regulations
change.
Conclusion
We do not feel that this process needs a permit. However the guidance of your
department in this matter will help settle that question. We ask that you keep in mind certain
points. Transportation is by state-licensed Hazardous Waste Transporter. All preparation
workers are adequately trained. No air or ground contamination can result from proper use
of the equipment. All reduction is strictly on-site.
Our company feels that, with all the safeguards described , this process is an
important and necessary step in the safe and cost-effective disposal of large amounts of
Hazardous Lead Paint Waste Debris. The TSDF described above is the only one of its kind
-------
Page four
at the moment and provides the safest, most permanent solution to this important and
growing disposal problem. Our ability to offer this solution to the large number of Housing
Authorities and large housing projects which need it, depends on our use of site preparation
equipment.
We hope that all the information we have provided here will adequately address any
concerns your department may have. We request that your department send us your written
opinion on regulatory concerns raised by our proposed process. If further information is
necessary, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Very truly yours,
Thomas R. Trafton
President
Enclosures
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
February 1995
9432.1995(01)
RCRA
1. Status of WWTUs/ENUs at
Generator Sites
A generator may treat hazardous -waste
without a permit or interim status in an on-site
accumulation 'unit that is in compliance with
the regulations in §26234 (March 24,1986;
51EK10146,10168). If a generator chooses
to treat hazardous waste in an on-site
wastewater treatment unit or in an on-site
•elementary neutralization unit, must the
generator comply with §26234?
No. A generator treating hazardous waste
in an on-site wastewater treatment unit or in
an on-site elementary neutralization unit, need
not comply with -§262.34, which is a
conditional exemption from penmttiog
requirements, because these units are already
exempt from certain RCRA requirements.
Specifically, wastewater treatment units and
elementary neutralization units, as defined in
§260.10, are exempt from RCRA treatment,
storage, and disposal facility CTSDF)
standards as well as from permitting standards
(§§264.1(gX6), 265.1(c)(10), and
270.1(c)(2Xv)).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9432.1995(02)
OCT I 2 995 omcEOF
BOLD WASTE AND B&ftGENCV
RESPONSE
Mr. Scott Xuhn
Corporate Compliance
Laidlaw . Environmental Services, Incorporated
P. O. Box 210799
Columbia, SC 29221
Dear Mr. Kuhnt
This 10- in response to your letter of July 26, 1995
requesting clarification of treatment, as defined at
40 CFR.260.iO, &a -it related to hazardous waste fuel blending
activities , You also present two interpretations of treatment
related to' fuel blending, and .aak whether they are cone ie tent
with RCRA Subtitle C regulations.
As your letter correctly notes, there is no definition of
"fuel blending" in the Federal regulations. However, there are
letters and memoranda that present Agency policy regarding fuel
blending as discussed below.
Your first interpretation states that the consolidation or
blending* of compatible bulk cr containerized hazardous waste into
a tank or container for. the purposes of efficient transportation
or disposal would not be considered treatment, as long as there
was no change in the physical, chemical or biological character
of the waste, except for incidental reduction of hazards
associated with the waste mixture which may occur. In support of
this interpretation, you note a letter from Sylvia Lowrance to
Christopher JaeJcele (March 1, 1990) .
We generally agree with this interpretation, but with the
following clarification. You used the term 'blending" to
describe the combining of waste streams for efficient
transportation or disposal. However, the activities you
described would not be considered "fuel blending" for regulatory
purposes, so the use of the term "blending" may cause confusion
on this point. Also, please note that site-specific
determinations would be mada by authorised States, because
individual States may have regulations and policies regarding
treatment that are more stringent than the Federal regulations.
Your second interpretation statfte that the blending of
hazardous waste fuel with the intention of meeting a
specification would be considered treatment , because t&e physical
MnWwBh Scy/CBwU M w pipr Nl
MAWnt tf teMt W* «er«W **
-------
NOV-2-95 THU 13:03 P. 02
and chemical ahara0tftri0ti.ee of the waste are beir =r intentionally
changed so as to make the wast* mixture amenable for energy
recovery.
We agree with this interpretation* I am enclosing a
memorandum which I sent to the regional Hazardous Waste
Management Division Directors (October 17, 1994), that contains
additional guidance on the regulatpry ctatua of fuel blending.
You will find that page 3 of this memorandum support* your
interpretation by concluding that "Selective blending of
hazardous waste fuels to meet a fuel specification. . . would
constitute haEardous waste treatment requiring a permit.*
Thank you for the opportunity to address your fuel-blending
related quest iocs, if you have any further questions, please
contact James Michael of my staff at {703) 308-8610.
Sincerely*
Enclosure
Shapiro, Director
>f Solid Waste
cat Matt Hale, PSPD
Frank Mc&lister,
Jim Michael, PSPD
Jeff Qainee, BSPD
Jim Thompson, OBCR,
Steve fiilvermaa, OQC
RCRA Permit Section Chiefs/ Regions I-X
-------
FILE COPY
% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9432.1996(01)
OFFICE OF
SOtlD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
APR I 2 1996
Mr. Randall A. Jones
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Molten Metal Technology
51 Sawyer Road
Waltham, MA 02154
Dear Mr. Jones:
This is .in response to your July 21, 1995 letter to Stephen
Bergman of .my staff regarding MMT's proposal to use industrial
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes as feedstock for your
Catalytic Extraction Processing (CEP) unit to produce a synthesis'
gas. These wastes include but are not limited to RCRA-listed
hazardous wastes such as chlorinated organic compounds F024, KOI9
and K020. In your letter, you s'eek OSW concurrence on the
following points:
• "the CEP unit deployed in such an application is a
legitimate recycling unit that is not subject to RCRA
permitting requirements,
• the secondary materials are ^used or reused' pursuant to 40
CFR §261.2(e)(1)(I), and
• the CEP synthesis gas that meets established specifications
for material use is a legitimate commercial chemical product
with a variety of normal uses,, including use as a fuel."
During its analysis, my staff has not attempted to make a
determination as to its status as a legitimate recycling unit.
Such a determination is made by the appropriate RCRA authorized
state or EPA regional office. The CEP process, should it meet the
established criteria in the judgement of the appropriate
regulatory authority, would be considered a legitimate recycling
operation. We. are aware that the state of Texas recently
reviewed your proposal to use a CEP unit to produce syngas from
RCRA-listed hazardous waste at the Hoechst Celanese facility in
Bay City/ Texas and found it -to be a legitimate recycling process
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canota Ink on paper that
contain* «t lost S0% recycled flber
-------
subject to a number of conditions specific to the site. At the
state's request, EPA provided input to Texas on the Agency's
direction on comparable fuels, as discussed below.
This letter responds only to general regulatory questions
regarding the CEP technology. Different regulations and site-
specific conditions in RCRA authorized states may dictate
different outcomes at different sites.
Application of the "Use/Reuse" Provision
As I stated earlier, it is the responsibility of EPA
regional offices or RCRA authorized states, using specific
criteria related to a particular site, to determine whether or
not a particular process is a legitimate recycling operation or
whether it is a form of waste.treatment. Once this determination
is made, the state or EPA region could then determine whether or
not the hazardous waste input meets the terms of the 40 CFR
§261.2(e)'(1) (I) "use/reuse" exemption.
This "use/reuse" provision exempts from the definition of
solid waste materials that "can Jbe shown to be recycled by being
used or reused as ingredients in an industrial process to make a
product, provided the materials are not being reclaimed " This
exemption does not apply if the product is either placed on the
ground or burned for energy recovery. Therefore, as long as the
products of the process are not burned for energy recovery or
used in a manner constituting disposal (see "Status...When Used
to Make a Fuel" below) and assuming the process is determined to
be legitimate recycling, the materials used by the CEP unit to
make the gas would not be regulated as solid waste. In such a
case, the syngas would not be regulated as a hazardous waste-
derived product since the feedstock would no longer be regulated
as a solid waste. Should both legitimacy of recycling and
"use/reuse" be established, the CEP unit itself would be.excluded
from RCRA jurisdiction.
As for the status of residuals of the synthesis gas
production process, those residuals that are not themselves
listed and do not fail one of the hazardous characteristics, as
described in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C, are not regulated as
hazardous waste, providing that the findings mentioned above are
made. However, listed or characteristic residuals would be
considered newly generated wastes subject to RCRA.
Status of the CEP When Used to Make a Fuel
The status of the feed materials changes when the output
from the CEP is burned as a fuel, since the use/reuse provision
does not apply when the hazardous waste feedstock is used to
produce a fuel. According to 40 CFR §261.2 (e) (2) (ii), ''materials
burned for energy recovery, used to produce a fuel, or contained
-------
in fuels...are solid wastes, even if the recycling involves use,
reuse, or return to the original process..."
Comparable Fuels
Our current regulations do not distinguish among hazardous
waste-derived fuels based upon how a particular fuel might
compare to a fuel that is not derived from hazardous waste. The
Office of Solid Waste has spent considerable time looking at this
issue. EPA recently proposed an exclusion for "comparable fuels"
that resemble fuels made from virgin materials. The Agency also
proposed an exclusion for synthesis gas. meeting stringent
specifications from the definition of solid waste (and therefore,
from regulation as hazardous waste). The Agency believes that
syngas meeting the stringent requirements of the proposed
exclusion are- more appropriately classified and managed as
products than as wastes. Based on .the information you have
provided on MMT's proposed CEP unit, the syngas produced by this
unit should qualify for this exclusion.
We are persuaded that these changes will have a positive
impact on the development of new recycling technologies. Such
changes .are a high priority in the context of our overall
reevaluation of hazardous waste regulations to remove
disincentives to environmentally sound recycling technologies
that produce products comparable to those manufactured using
virgin materials.
Thank you for -your interest in hazardous waste recycling and
innovative technologies. If you have any further questions
regarding the regulation of solid and hazardous wastes, please
don't hesitate .to contact Stephen Bergman of my staff at (202)
260-5944.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiros/Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9433 - RULEMAKING
PETITIONS
Part 260 Subpart C
ATKl/l 104/14 fcp
-------
9433.1984(03)
y.r. John C. Oliver
Porcelain Enaoei Institute, Inc.
19LI North Fore &:yer Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Dear John:
As we have discussed previously, the Agency considers
its July 27 interpretation (see enclosure) of che spene pickle
liquor listing to b« the correct reading of the hazardous waste
regulations. Therefore, the spent pickle liquor (as veil as
any sludge generated from the treatment of the spent pickle
liquor) that is generated from the procelaln enamel industry
is considered to be a listed hazardous waste--nanely, EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K062. In order tor the industry to
change the regulatory status of this waste, they will need to
subalt an industry-vide ruletnaking petition.I/ At your
request, we have aade a preliminary assessaent of the nuaber
or plants to be sampled and the specific toxicants that
would need to be evaluated to support an industry-wide exclusion
petition for the Procelain Lnaceling Category. In addition,
the petition should address che requirements cited in 40 C?R
$260.20. We 'would not view an industry-wide petition as
applying to plants chat are integrated with electroplating
operations and generating wastes covered by che F006-F009
listings. Wastes of this type would have to be evaluated
independently.
We estimate that in order co obtain a 95* degree of
confidence that you have a representative saaple of che
industry you will need co saople 2U integrated and 5 non-
integrated racilicies. (If cost integrated porcelain enaneling
plants are integrated with electroplating operations under
the circumstances described above, then we would accept
saoples from a lesser number of integrated facilities, since
_!/ Of course, any person ssay submit a site-specific delis ting
~" petition pursuant to 40 CFR SS260.2G and 260.22.
-------
Che pecition would not be addressing porcelain enamel planes
chat are integrated wth electroplating operations.) These
figures were determined using an approximate sampling rule
developed by CSHA. This type of saapling approach has been
successfully used in the past by the Institute for Scrap
Iron and Steel in a similar study for EPA. The actual number
of samples which should be analyzed cannot be identified as
precisely. However, a sufficient number of samples should
be taken from each facility which would represent the' variable
nature of the waste. In this regard, composited samples
representing any variability in raw materials or process
would be the best approach in minimizing the overall analytical
burden.
Sample analysis should include determination of a limited
number of both inorganic and organic constituents and cests •
for the four hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability;
corrosivity, reactivity, and Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity).
The specific constituents that should be analyzed for in the
wastes are as follows:
2/
Category Constituent
Inorganic Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Cadmium
Selenium
Category Constituent
Organic Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
1-dichloroethylene
trans 1,2-dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Tetra chloroehtanes
Tetrachloroethylene
2/ The metals should be analyzed using the Extraction Procedure
~~ (EP) toxicicy test and for their cotal metal concenc.
-------
Tr ichloropropane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Benzene
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
The organic constituent* were selected due Co Che likelihood
that both halogenated and non-halogenated solvents are used
ac integrated facilicies. and chac these facilities are doing
painting operation*. However, if you have information which
would indicate chac some of these toxicant* are noc expected
to be in the waste from integrated facilities,^we will consider
this information Co determine whether analy«i»"for Cheae
contaminants is necessary. We will require that-all these
contaminants (i.e.. organic and inorganic toxicants) be
analyzed for ac the 20 integrated facilicies; however, since
the non-integrated facilities are noc expected Co'contain
significant levels of organics, we will only require that
two of Che five non-integrated facilicies be analyzed for
the organics. All five non-integrated facilicies should be
analyzed for che inorganic cootasinanes. Test aethods for -
these constituent* are provided in che Methods HanuAl "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste N SW-846.
Vte believe it is in the industry's beat interest to
proceed.with a deliscing, whether or noc ic pursues che
pending"litigation. EPA will expedite processing of Che
petition no matter^how che litigation'is proceeding. If you
decide co oove forward with as industry-wide petition end
need specific information on saapling and Analysis methods
please call Jia Poppici ac (202) 382-4690*
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
WH-562B/JPOPPlTl/pes/475-855l/10-23-84/Disk JP840120
-------
9433.1984(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
per
SOLID WASTE AND EMiNCtNCV RESPONSE
Mr. Dave Rudder
Vice President - Environmental/Process Control
Seigel-Robert, Inc.
8645 South Broadway
St. Louis, Missouri 63111
Dear Mr. Rudder:
The purpose of this Letter is to describe the test methods
and standards used in evaluating cyanide levels in inorganic wastes
petitioned for exclusion under S260.22 of the RCRA regulations.
As explained in our telephone conversation on December 5, 1984, the
Agency requires four forms of cyanide to be evaluated for the
purposes of petitioning to delist an electroplating sludge. These
include total, free (amenable to chlorination), leachable, and
photodegradable cyanide.
Total and free cyanide in the waste is determined using Method
No. 9010 "Total and Amenable Cyanide" in Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste. The delisting program imposes no
limitations on the amount of total cyanide present in the
waste other than the requirement of running the photodegradable
cyanide test if total cyanide in the waste exceeds 10 ppm. Free
cyanide in the waste however, is considered hazardous at
levels at or above 10 ppm. The 10 ppm limitation is derived
from the workroom air threshold standard of 10 pom set by the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hypienists
(ACGIH) .
Leachable cyanide is the only cyanide parameter evaluated in
the extract rather than in the waste. The test method used for this
determination is the EP Toxicity Test with no acetic acid adjustment.
Therefore this is a distilled water extraction. The delisting
program looks at all cyanide showing up in the extract as being
leachable cyanide, therefore cyanide in the extract is measured as
total cyanide. This total cyanide concentration in the extract is
evaluated using a generalized ground water dispersion model which
predicts a receptor well concentration 500 feet from the disposal
site. The receptor well concentration is then compared to a health
based standard - the U.S. Public Health Services' suggested drinking
water standard of 0.2 ppm. If the receptor well concentration exceeds
0.2 ppm then the waste is considered hazardous. The model uses
the maximum extract level reported as well as the volume of waste
generated on an annual basis. The model automatically yields
a ten fold dilution of the maximum extract value, therefore a waste
exhibiting a maximum extract concentration at or below 2.0 ppm
would be delistable while.a decision on higher extract levels
would depend on the volume of waste generated.
-------
As indicated above, a determination of photodegradable cyanide
is required when total cyanide concentrations in the waste exceeds
10 ppm. The test used for this determination is Method 9011
"Method for the Determination of Photodegradable Cyanides"
in Proposed Sampling and Analytical Methodologies for Addition
to Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. This test measures
any hydrogen cyanide gas that might be generated after irradiating*
the waste with a UV lamp. The concentration of hydrogen cyanide
generated in this test is again compared directly to the ACGIH
threshold of 10 ppm as cited above. A concentration of less than
10 ppm would be considered non-hazardous.
In wastes exhibiting high concentrations of total cyanide
it is possible that artificially high free cyanide levels can
be recorded. This is due to positive interferences attributable
to the complexed iron cyanides in the waste. In these instances
the Agency has a number of alternate test methodologies that
are less prone to interferences. The most frequently used is
"Test Method for the Determination of Cyanide and Sulfide
Containing Wastes" (copy attached). This test measures the
generation of hydrogen cyanide gas which is then evaluated
in terms of the 10 ppm ACGIH threshold previously discussed.
Again, a concentration of less than 10 ppm would be considered
non-hazardous,
I have enclosed a background article on the ground water
model now being used by the Agency in petiton evaluation. A
detailed appendix explaining the assumptions used in the model
will appear in the Federal Register as a part of the next
group of proposed delistings (hopefully in February of 1985).
If you have any questions regarding any of the tests or
standards descibed in this letter do not hesitate to call
me at (202)-382-4782.
Sincerely,
Myles E. Morse
Environmental Protection Specialist
Delisting Program
-------
9433.1984(06)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEl<
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
DEC I B
OFFICE
SOi. ID WASTE AND E *.'£
Mr. Tom Horvach
Environmental Control
Weirton Steel
400 Three Springs Drive
Weirton, West Virginia 26062
Dear -Mr. Horvath:
As indicated in my telephone conversation with Mr. Wood
on Tuesday, December 18, 1984, three additional issues regarding
Weirton1s delisting petition need to be resolved. These include
testing representative waste samples for the EP toxic metals
using the EP Toxicity Test for Oily Wastes; testing representative
waste samples for photodegradable cyanide; and an explanation
of where in the process 1,1,1-trichloroethane is used including
analyses of representative waste samples if it is determined that
this toxicant has a reasonable likelihood of being present in the
waste.
The Agency previously indicated that the EP toxicity test
is not applicable to wastes containing greater than 1 percent
oil and grease since the oil fraction may act as a binder.
(See 49 FR 42591, October 13, 1984). Weirton has submitted
data that indicate a maximum oil and grease content of 2.8
percent. Therefore the data supporting the lack of mobility of
metals from Weirton1s waste (as measured by the E? toxicity
test), is questionable. I have enclosed a copy of the EP
Toxicity Test for Oily Wastes. This test should be run on
representative waste samples from the impoundments.
The Agency is concerned about the possible ohotodegradation
of complexed cyanide to free cyanide upon exposure to sunlight.
The Agency has data indicating that this conversion can occur
in some wastes, resulting in the formation of free cyanide that
can escape from the waste by leaching or by the generation of
hydrogen cyanide gas. Due to the levels of total (complexed)
cyanide in Weirton's waste (maximum concentration reported
was 96 ppm), testing of representative samples for ohotodegradable
cyanide is required. The Agency requires all petitioners to
test for photodegradable cyanide when total (complexed) cyanide
concentrations in the waste exceeds 10 ppm. I have enclosed a
copy of this test methodology. If you have a problem locating
a laboratory that is set up to run this test please call and we
will assist you.
-------
-2-
Finally, Weircon indicated that 1 , 1 , 1 -trichloroethane is
used in the process. The Agency roust determine if this toxicant
has a reasonable chance of entering the petitioned wastestream ,
as required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 198^.
If Weirton indicates that 1 , 1 , 1 -trichloroethane can enter the waste
as alluded to by Mr. Wood, then you are required to present an
explanation (including mass balance relationships) detailing why
it could not be present in the waste in hazardous concentrations,
or analytical test data on representative waste samples. If
you find it necessary to test the waste for this toxicant, I
have included the appropriate analytical method.
.It is important that these issues be resolved as soon as
possible so the Agency can complete its action on the petition.
If you have any questions regarding the information requested above,
do not hesitate to call me at (202)-382-4782.
Sincerelv .
Myles E. Morse
Environmental Protection Specialist
Delistine Program
enclosures
-------
9433.1935(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A
WASHINGTON DC 20460
MAY 1 6
E Of
SOLID (WASTE AND EMERGENCY "€S»ONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Reauthorization Statutory Interpretation * 4 :
Effect of Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 on StatjB Delisting Decisions
*/ * ; '"' L\/ r/^y^
FROM: ,?*€*• W. WcGr'aw
Acting Assistant Administrator
v
TO: RSI Addressees
ISSUE: What effect do the delisting provisions of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 have
on State delisting decisions?
SUMMARY
Since November 8, 1984, EPA has administered all RCRA
delisting programs, and will continue to do so until a State
is authorized for delisting under the new provisions of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA or the
Amendments). To receive authorization, a State must conform
its delisting program to the Federal program and apply to the
Agency for authorization. Any temporary exclusion.granted by
a State before November 8, 1984, must be reevaluated using
the new delisting criteria and procedures. If a final
decision to grant or deny a petition has not been made by
November 8, 1986, the temporary exclusion will cease to be
in effect for purposes of RCRA.
DISCUSSION
Before enactment of the Amendments, EPA's evaluation of
exclusion (delisting) petitions addressed only those factors
considered by the Agency in listing the waste as hazardous.
The regulations also allowed the Agency to grant a temporary
exclusion without prior notice and comment if there was
substantial likelihood that an exclusion would be finally
granted. In addition, once EPA authorized a State program,
EPA suspended the administration and enforcement within the
-------
- 2 -
State of those parts of the Federal program for which the State
was authorized. Consequently, any authorized State thaf had a
delisting program could make delisting decisions without prior
EPA review of each decision. Any delisting decision made by the
State still was subject to EPA oversight, however, to ensure
that the State program did not become less stringent than EPA's.
(Any delisting decision made by the State was in effect only
while the waste remained under State control.)
HSWA Effect On State Delisting Decision
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 modified
both the substantive standard and the procedures to be used in
evaluating delisting petitions. The Amendments require the
Administrator, when evaluating delisting petitions _!/ to:
0 consider factors (including additional constituents) other
than those for which the waste was listed if there is a
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste; and
* provide notice and an opportunity for comment before
granting or denying a petition.
Furthermore, the Amendments require the Administrator to re-
evaluate all temporary exclusions granted before the date of
enactment (i.e. , before November 8, 1984); if a final decision
to grant or deny a petition has not been promulgated within 24
months (i.e., by November 8, 1986), the temporary exclusion
will cease to be in effect.
Under Section 228 of the HSWA, any requirements, including
the delisting requirements, imposed pursuant to the Amendments
are effective in authorized.States at the same time they are
effective in other States. Therefore, until the States are
authorized for these requirements, EPA is responsible for admin-
istering these provisions. Based on this provision:
0 any further RCRA delisting decisions made by States (once
authorized) will have to be based on the new delisting
criteria and procedures noted above;
I/ In evaluating a petition, the Agency does not consider
(valuation to be completed until a final decision is published
le Federal Register.
the evaluation __ __
in the Federal Register.
-------
0 any State delisting decision made on or after November 8,
1984, and before authorization under the new standard
would not qualify as a RCRA delisting decision; and'
c any temporary exclusion 2/. that was granted by the State
before November 8, 1984, must be reevaluated by the
State (if they have been authorized under the new
delisting criteria) or by EPA. If a final decision to
grant or deny a petition has not been made within 24
months of that date, the temporary exclusion will cease
to be in effect.
Finally, any final exclusions that were granted by the State
before November 8, 1984, are not affected by the Amendments
(i.e., no additional action is required by the State or by EPA).
The States, however, are encouraged by EPA to reevaluate those
decisions if the other factors were not considered by the State.
The effect of the Amendments on the States is summarized on
the attached table.
Attachment
2/ Temporary exclusions are any delisting decisions which
are not considered the final delisting action under the
regulations of the issuing authority. For example, EPA issued a
number of temporary exclusions, pursuant to 40 CFR $260.22(m).
That provision explicitly states that these decisions are made
"before making a final decision." Similarly, several States
have mechanisms for removing a waste from regulation before
promulgating a final decision, such as delistings patterned on
the Federal temporary exclusion. All such exclusions are
temporary.
A final exclusion is an Agency determination done in
accordance with the issuing authority's regulations; e.g., with
notice and comment after which no further review of the petition
is contemplated. EPA issues final exclusions pursuant to 40 CFR
$260.20, which requires publication of a tentative decision in
the Federal Register, receipt and evaluation of public comments,
and publication of a final decision in the Federal Register.
Decisions not to prosecute petitioners because it was believed
that a delisting later would be issued do not qualify as
final exclusions.
-------
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY: EFFECT OF
AMENDMENTS ON STATE DELISTING
0 FINAL EXCLUSIONS
States do not need to reevaluate decisions made before
November 8, 1984.
States must use new delisting criteria for decisions made
after November 8, 1984.
States must provide an opportunity for comment before
making a final decision.
0 TEMPORARY EXCLUSIONS
EPA will need to act on previous State temporary
exclusions, unless, within 24 months of November 8, 1984,
the State:
a) modifies its regulations;
b) requests and becomes authorized by EPA for delisting;
and
c) acts on previous temporary exclusions.
If the State (as described above) or EPA does not make a
decision within 24 months of November 8, 1984, the waste
is hazardous again.
States must use new delisting criteria for decisions
made after November 8, 1984.
States must provide an opportunity for comment before
making a temporary decision.
-------
9433.1985(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 85
3olidf waste Variance
5. A solvent product is sent off-site for use. The solvent material secones spent
and is sent 3ac* to the production facility as a hazardous waste. Tna production
facility reclaims the waste and then uses it as a raw material in the production
process. Ooes this waste management scenario qualify for a variance fi'o? the
definition of solid waste for a material that is reclaimed and then reused within
the original primary production process in which it was generated ($260.30(5))?
!to. The variance applies to a waste which is reclaimed and then reused witr.in
the original prunary production process in which the waste, not the product/
was generated. In contrast, the waste here is not used ultimately in the
process from which it was generated. The following scenario may qualify for a
variance under 5260.30(D): Raw material A is put into primary production process
B. In this process, raw material A becomes spent and is generated as hazardous
waste A. This waste A is reclaimed and then reused in the original primary
production process in which it was generated.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-9551
-------
UNITED S. ,E5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION At ICY
943 3.198 5(04)
UO I £
Mr. Ronald Panicucci
LAM Associate
662 Goffle Road
Hawthorne, New Jersey 07506
Dear Mr. Panicuccii
This ia in response to your letter, dated September 25,
1985r concerning the liability of an industry once a wasta
ia delisted. In particular, you request clarification of
the generator's liability if a waste that is delisted and
disposed of in a non-hazardous waste landfill is, at some
point in the future, considered hazardous again.
In general, after a wast* has been delisted, it is
no longer subject to the StCRA hazardous waste regulation.
However, the generator is still liable for any damage the
waate may cause and can be held responsible under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
or can be sued by any citizen for damages incurred. In
response to your concern over revoking a previous delisting
decision, if a delisting were revoked it would not effect
any waste that has already been disposed as non-hazardous,
since the waste was considered non-hazardoua at the time of
disposal (i.e., you would not be required, under RCRA, to
dig up the waste). However, as indicated earlier, you still
nay be held responsible under CERCLA if it is shown that your
waste contaminated the environment.
Should you have any further questions regarding this
matter, please contact Mr. James Po^piti at (202) 382-4788.
Sincerely yours,
J. Winston sorter
Assistant mininistrator
-------
UNITED . ATES ENVIROMKCKTM. PROTECTION A. -MCY
9433.1985(05)
J .— - /^ -/ I '
.NOV £ i u
Honorable Dan Glicknan
Member, United States
House of Representatives
U.S. Court House
Box 403-Room 224
Wichita, Kansas 67201
Dear Mr. Glickman:
This letter is in response to your Inquiry of October 29,
1985, concerning the delisting petition filed with the Agency by
Boeing Military Airplane Corporation for its Wichita, Kansas
facility. The Agency has proposed tin the Federal Register, on
February 26, 1985) the use of a vertical and horizontal spread
(VHS) model to aid in the evaluation of delisting petitions.
After addressing tne public comments received on the model, this
model was nade final (with few adjustments) on November 4, 1985;
it will be used to assist us in Making delisting evaluations.
The VHS model uses leachate data and waste volume estimates in
order to predict waste toxicant concentrations in ground water
at a downstream compliance point, and allows the comparison of
predicted values with appropriate health-based numbers. The
Agency's use of this model involves several reasonable worst
case assumptions concerning the land disposal of hazardous
wastes. These assumptions are based on reviews of the technical
literature and informal surveys of States and State Solid and
Hazardous Haste agencies, and are not based on site-specific
factors. The Agency believes that the VHS model is quite
conservative, and represents a reasonable worst case tor the
factors considered.
The Agency has considered the use of site-specific factors
in its delisting evaluations. Specifically, the local geographical,
hydrogeological, and demographic conditions were considered as
ractors that could affect the Agency's decisions. Once a wast*
is oelisted, however, there is no guarantee- that the waste will
DC managed at the site that was evaluated. That is, the generator
or t^i«- waste is under no obligation to manage the waste at a
particular site. Therefore, we believe the use or sito-specitic
tactors arc inappropriate. The A^oncy also considered t>laciny
conditions on tnf.- aelistiny. decisions that would require s^ecxtic
.'nana.^eiropt. This option was also rejected since such an
-------
evaluation would essentially be the same as the permitting
process. The Agency reels that if managenent conditions need to
be specified to ensure that a particular waste does not damage
human health or the environment, tne waste i_» ha»ardoua and
should be managed at a site that is fully permitted to handle
that waste .
I would also like to point out that the Agency does
consider ground-water data frov a facility aa part of the
delisting evaluation. The lack of ground-water contamination
ia viewed as being supportive of a petition; how»v«r, this
information is indicative of what has happened at the site
receiving the waste and not what will happen. Therefore,
ground-water data alone are not sufficient to determine
whether a waste is non-hazardous.
I an hopeful that this response addresses your concerns.
If you have any questions, please contact a»y office at your
convenience .
Sincerely yours,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
bcc : GWTF
Nancy H. Fussell, Boeing
Faye Sandberg , EPA Region VII
Congressional Liaison/Craig Deremer, EPA
-------
9433. 198 5(06}
OCT 29 B95
Mr. Verrill M. Norwood, Jr.
Vice President, Environmental Affair
01 in Chemicals
P.O. Box 248
Lower River Road
Charleston, Tennessee 37310
Dear Mr. Norwood:
This is in response to your letter to me dated October 8,
1985, regarding the applicability of a variance from
classification as a solid waste for a spent material which
is regenerated and then recycled at the facility which produced
the original commercial product. Before I respond to your
specific request, I would like to define the facts (as I
understand them))
A commercial alkaline etchant (produced by the Philip A.
Runt Chemical Company) is distributed for use to manufacturers
of printed circuits. After a period of use, the alkaline
etchant is reduced below acceptable levels and therefore
becomes spent (i.e. , a material that has been used and
as a result of contamination can no lonqer serve the
purpose for which it was produced without processing).
This material (as you indicated) would be defined ac
hazardous because of its corrosive nature. This spent
material is then returned to the manufacture of the
alkaline etchant where copper is first recovered
(defined as reclamation)? the remainder of the etchant
(after reclamation) is then used as a raw material to
produce additional alkaline etchant. (Although not
germane to the decision, you indicate that the recovered
copper salts are sold providing additional economic benefits.)
Based on this description, I do not believe that you
qualify for a variance under the modified closed-loop provision.
In particular, to qualify for a variance pursuant to S260.31(b),
the material that is reclaimed must be used as a feedstock
within the original primary production process in which the
waste was generated« You are correct that the regulations do
not require that this all occur at a single production/regeneration
facility; however, the material (after reclamation) must be
returned to the process fro* which it was generated. In your
-------
situation, the process which generated the waste is the us*
of the *tcha*t by th* printed circuit board manufacture; th*
reclaimed material is not returned and us*d as an *tchant but
r*th*r us*d as an incrcdicnt to mefc* additional etchant.
{ It should 4-leo b« noted thct if you were to return the
stchant to ths printsd circuit board manufacturer after
r«cla»ation, you still would not qualify for a variance
sine* th« matsrial is not b«ing us«d as a fsadstock/ingr»di«nt.)
Thus, sine* you do not return th« rsclaiflMd vatsrial to th*
process which g«n«ratsd th« wast*, your particular situation
does not »**t th* basic conditions of th« nodifisd clo**d-loop
provision.^/
Therefor*, the spent alkaline etchant is subject to
regulation by the generator (which includes the manifest),
must be transported by a hasardous waste transporter/ and the
reclamation facility mist cooply with the appropriate standards
regarding storage of the spent alkaline etchant. I had
discussed this with several of the Regions when you originally
sent in your petition and, therefore, I believe we are all
being consistent.
Please feel free to give »• a call if you have any
questions? my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
I/ Although you do not qualify for a variance pursuant to
|2«0.31(b), the reclaimed material that la used aa a
raw material to produce the alkaline etehant is not a
waste, and thus is not subject to regulation.
-------
9433. 1986( 01)
urn. Elisabeth Rose (6H-CE)
EPA Region VI
1201 El* Street
Dallas. TX 75270
Dear M«. Rose:
This letter is in response to your recent telephone
conversation with Mr. David Topping of my staff. Specifically,
you requested information concerning the definition of hasardous
waste contained In 40 CPR Part 261 and the delisting criteria
related to leachate levels.
§261.3 5000 y
-------
Evaluation criteria for wastes that are subject to disposal
other than in landfills (e.g., land treatment or management in
surface impoundments) are currently being developed; in fact, the
evaluation criteria for waste that are land treated was proposed
on Nov«icb«r 27, 1965 (50 PR 46543). wnil« tnese models have not
yet been made final, it is expected that the allowed leachate
levels for these disposal scenarios will be more strlgent than
those described above for landfllled wastes.
Should you have any further questions concerning the hazardous
waste definitions or the delisting program, please contact me or
Mr. David Topping of my staff at (202) 475-8531.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
943 3. 198 6 ( 04 )
John Pamsey
Kansas Department of
health arvl Environment
Hazardous Waste Section
tbrues Field
Topeka, Kansas 66620
Deal Mr. Ka^sey:
As per our telephone conversation, this letter sunm-.arizes
thy information that our office would have ireouired for the
evaluation of the filter caKe from the new filter cress systen
at Boeinn's V-'ichita facility. Typically, we recuest the
tollowinq items from all petitioners. V'e ask for a minimum of
tour representative samples (usually composites) to be taken
over a tine period sufficient to encompass any nonral variations
in the process system. Janis Butler had indicated to me that
Boeina woula likely be preparing weekly composites for analysis.
-Analyses for total constituent concentrations of the
EP'toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide
-EP leachate data for the EP toxic metals and nickel
-Distilled water leaching test for CK~ (substitutino
distilled water for acetic acid in the DP t«st)
-Total oil and grease content of the waste (the EP Test
tor Oily Kaste nay be necessarv if there is >14 OSC
in the waste)
-Testing for the other characteristics of hazardous waste
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, and teactivitv)
-Average and maximum annual sludge volumes {projected if
necessary—waste voluro is a variable in our VliS model)
-Raw materials lists and/or Material Safety Data Sheets
(to evaluate the waste for the presence of Appendix
VIII constituents)
-Detailed descriptions of the production processes and
wahLe LieaLi.ie.Vt. r>i"eeea,"ftfl in operatic '
CONCURRENCES
SVMVOU }
AUE }
-'« >
-Qesci
prc
th€
iptioas <
ccduros ,
• ana'lys'i'!
f the...sai
ami cual
c"of ••the"'
•p.l.i.na..p.V.
.ty contr
iras'tw-
scedures,
si proced
analytic
jres usea
al
"in
EPA ftrm 1320.1 (11-70)
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
SPO : 1963 0 - «OJ-20l
-------
Some ot this information is piosaoly in your files already,
and there may oe additional items net ipentioned here for which
you will want more information fron- Boeina.
I hope this will help your office with the t'e-evaluation
of Boeing's waste. If you have any questions, feel free to
call me at (202) 382-47i!3.
Sincerely/
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection soecialist
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562P)
-------
9 433.19 86(05)
A'.EMOPANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Temporarily and Informally
Del isted Wastes
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director °'^-V ":"-«H by
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) r':= ^ E. V.';.;.jrr»s
TO: Solia Waste Branch Chiefs
Regions (I-X)
A number of questions have arisen regarding the status of
informally excluded wastes (i.e., those facilities that submitted
delistincj petitions and were informed via letter that their wastes
would be delisted). After discussions with Enforcement personnel,
the Office of_ General Counsel, and Congressional staff, we have
determined that intonral exclusions are no longer effective.
This menorandur sets our current policy with regard to infernal
exclusions.
First, however, I would like to review where we stand with
regard to petitioners with temporary exclusions. As you are
aware, those facilities that were granted temporary exclusions
are those that were noticed in the Federal Register (see attached
list). Tnese exclusions terminate on November 8, 1986, unless
the Agency grants a final exclusion before that date. Petitioners
with temporary exclusions, that have outstanding data reguests,
have been notified by letter that if a conplete petition is not
received by a certain date, we will propose to deny their petition
based on insufficient data. The first notice of this kind was
published at 51 FP 2526, January 17, 1986.
Informal exclusions, on the other hand, are those previous
decisions where the staff of the delisting program evaluated the
petition, and decided to grant the exclusion; however, the decision
was never published in the Federal Register, as reouired under
5260.22(1") . (See attached list.) Tne Agency informed the
petitioners and Regional enforcement counsel of the anticipated
delisting. ive requested that the Regions exercise discretion with
rerjard to these facilities until the decision was published in the
federal Pecister as a temporary exclusion. *'hile the Auency informed
petitioners and enforcement counsel that this inter in period should
be short, no specific time period was mentioned.
-------
It was ultimately decided, however, not to publish the decisions
in the Federal Register due to the anticipated chano.es in delistino
criteria as a result of the Amendments ( i.e., the consideration of
otner factors in evaluating the hazards posed by the waste).
Instead, these petitioners were asked to submit the additional
information, as would be required under HSWA/ to evaluate the
petition*
Since notices were never published in the Federal Pegister,
legally, informal exclusions were limited to the exercise of
enforcement discretion, and these wastes are still considered
hazardous. Since the provisions under Section 3005 (e)(2)
apply to hazardous wastes, any person who nanaqes hazardous
waste in a land disposal facility, including petitioners with
informal exclusions, lost interim status on November 8, 1985,
unless the requirements of the loss of interim status provision,
42 U.S.C. $6925{e)(2) are satisfied. Petitioners with informal
exclusions will receive a letter very shortly clarifying this
issue, and reguesting that they contact you regarding the specific
concerns of their facility. A copy of any letter sent to a
facility in your Region will be sent to you. In addition, those
facilities that manage their waste off-site must transport it
to a Subtitle C facility (i.e., a facility that has been fully
permitted or one that has Interim status).
For those facilities with an active petition still on file
with us, we are processing their petitions in an expedited
manner, when a decision is made on these petitions, it will
be proposed in the Federal Register as soon as possible.
If you have any questions or need any further information on delist-
ing, please contact Matthew A. Straus or Myles (torse of my staff,
at (202) 475-8551. Please direct any questions on enforcement to Lloyd
Guerci at (202) 382-4808.
Attachment
-------
9433.1986(06)
MAR 10"%
tin S-ith
an Independent Rsfinery
PHI Tower, 733 Hi&hop St.
Honolulu, M 96842
r>ear Mr. Si* i tin
Th« purpose of this letter is to inform you that the
informal delictinc that your facility received, with icoard to
the wastes identified in the petition (f0119) you submitted
pursuant to 40 CFP SS260.20 an«J 260.22 ot the PCPA haznrrtou*
wa«te regulations, is no longer effective. In nartlculnr, on
LecerD«»i J, 1981, your corpany sufc^ittec a petition to exclude
the wastes cerrerated (and stored] at youi facility (listed an
KPA Hazardous fcaete Hos. F050 and K051). Pase'1 on our evaluation
of the petition at that tire, tr>« clclistina orocran recor%re:v!ed
that your petition be granted.^/ Tho Office of Solid Waste sent
a letter to you (det*»d Auqust 7, l^Hl) inforni.-yj you that
a preliminary decision had been r^ado on your petition, anc1 that
too wastes generated [and stor«dj at yout facility were likely
to be declared non-hazardous (based on the original listing cri-
teria). According to this lett«r , a notice would be puMishe-J i"»
the Fecaral Peoistor in the near future that vouln r-iv* your
facility a temporary exclusion. In the inter in, however, it WAS
suggested to the Peg ion that your facility be allowed to handle
the petitioned wastes as non-hazardous.
Tho Assistant Administrator for Solid v;astc and
Hosponbo decideu, however, not to qrant your facility a te?r>nor-
ary exclusion due to the anticipated statutory changes in delist-
inc; criteria ( i .«?. , the consideration ot oth^r factors in evaluat-
ing the hazards poi»ed hy the wastes). Instead, you were* ask*H to
submit the addition*! infom^tion, as would o« recuirwd under
HSVA, to evaluate the petition. As a result, a notice granting R
temporary exclusion was novcr published in tn« Ferieral
ac required under S260.22(r). Consequently, you never receive
It Should be noted that the Hazardous and Solid i.'aste
»«nts (HSHA), enacted in 19tf4, recuire the Agency to address
other factors (including additional constituent?) when ev^lu-
atinr a delisttnr petition, if there is a reasonable basis to
believe that those factors way cause the notitiont
-------
exclusion tor t*-f> .£#=f.<»«; r.~-,<*r r <••••'' [*n-! r^crr-'l .-«•
you: r^cilitvj your wd5te'.=; *:-s cor--H'T _•'"•' (.^>: -jivrv* ^r'v?
^cu rust n« r.:!io your VJSCH^ 3 s r.« zcr t«srir: status) . If, c-n the other hann,
you ran-j.jo your wcscc-5 ort-site, you rust rdnant: tl:ev. in an
i:iteri:-. stit-jr, or tully rcr^itteJ facility. You shouM NO
ftwsre t^c-t it you use a l.ind -Upposal facllitvi *nri you rt i-'t
not cf^.rly with tr,e ^rovi sio.ns of Fection 30^5 (e)(?) (I.e.,
surr.it a co^rjlt-te P?.i t I: i-ernit application an-* certifv cc~rl i-
anco wit^ uiourv; water ervl financial respoisir>il ity rrcuirer^
o1/ f;ove«"C-er ^, 19^S), yoij have lost inter 1^ jst.ituJ*. Tnus, if
tl.c- lanJ ciaf>oh>al tacility is still active, you runt IT-IP.; i # telv
clobe it an-j Kbi«. it a closure plan. If vou h«ve any inactive
l^n-j diftjopal fflcilities that were used to ra-iaic thrsf V.-*PC.C?S,
you T»u2t also suhi-it & closure rl<*^ for thv/eo units. You r-sv
be subject to enfcrceuent actions, inclurl int; enforc«-'«»nt in th*
event of operation of larsd dicfORal units that have not complied
witr: Feetior. 3UOS(e)(2).
Tlie petition that is currently on file with this otCice
t»ill ne treated as «n *ctiv« petition tor wnicK a previous
oocisior. has not been padc-. rinc«» vour tacility novcr rtcfeivt:':
j tei...:orary pxclusion, the letters sv,t to you announcin-j a -.*rr-
datory deadline for a fin?l decision on your petition ( !-'ovor-l>er -
I^HC.) are no lortoer valicj. re ^lan to ex-^oitc tie :>rocessi->' of:
your petition. Once your petition i« corolete, a decision will »•
;.«^r.e, an(j a notice proposing to qrant or rtony your oxclv)sic-n
will be published in the Foci oral ?e" istor .
It you have any cuestions re<;erdinc this Decision,
contact ('tr. Matthew .Straus at (202) 475-3551. Also,
ccntict youi reryion*! enforcenent office (see enclosure) to rficc
tr«r particular needs of your facility as a result of this nctio-i
Sincerely,
Original sl^e'd IJY,
Marcia E. Williams
f'.arcia ri Hi firs
Director
Office of rolid
Gene Lucero
Director
Offic« of Kaste Pro<:rftr
-------
US .D STATES*. (RNMfc * *GENCY
9433.1986(07
Mr. Ponald Shiver
Staff Engineer
K.w. Brown & Associates, Inc.
6A Graham Rd.
College Station, TX 77840
Dear Mr. Shiver:
I have reviewed the ground water monitoring data you
submitted on behalf of Falcon Steel, Kaufman, Texas. The
increase in conductivity is not, in itself, sufficient reason
to deny a delisting petition. Unfortunately, data for the
remainder of the EP toxic metals and nickel (in addition to
lead and chromium) were not included in the 1984 and 1985
monitoring reports; ground water data for these constituents
is also necessary to insure that no contamination has occurred.
As a result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, we are required to consider all factors {including
additional constituents) when evaluating delisting pet-i-trrcms,
if these factors may reasonably cause the waste to be hazar-
dous. (Tne EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide^ are—reason-
ably expected to be present in the was.tfi-.-as-a result of the
operations performed at the fae-i'1'ity, i.e., the tanks and
steel involved).
I also, once again, reviewed the closure plan submitted
in February, 1985. I want to clarify what will be required
in order to submit a complete delisting petition. The follow-
ing information will be needed:
1) all information under 40 CFP 260.22(b) and (i)(l-12);
2) a detailed list, description and schematic of all
manufacturing processes, including surface and
equipment preparation, cleaning and/or degreasing,
coating or painting processes, which may have contri-
buted waste, wastewater, painting or rinse water to the
waste petitioned for exclusion;
3) a complete list of all raw materials used, including
chemical compositions, and material safety data
sheets, if available, identifying all solvents, acids,
cleaners, surface preparation agents, paints, etc..
-------
used in t.'ie n.arvjf actur inq process which, nay have
entered the waste petitioned for delisting;
4) an explicit statement verifying that the number
of samples collected and analyzed is representa-
tive of any variation in constituent concentrations/
and the basis for such a conclusion;
5) a detailed description of the sampling methodology
and analysis methods used on the representative
waste samples;
6) data indicating that representative samples were test-
ed for the ignitable, reactive, and corrosive charac-
teristics outlined in Subpart C §261.21-13.
The following testing requirements must be performed on
samples collected from each impoundment. The impoundments should
be divided into quadrants; at least four core samples should be
collected in each quadrant and composited (at least four composites
are needed from each impoundment).
7) total constituent analyses of the waste (complete acid
digestion) for each of the EP toxic metals, and nickel
on a representative number of samples (but not less
than four);
8) total analysis for cyanide on a representative number
of samples (but not less than four); if the cyanide
concentration exceeds 1 ppm, then tests should be
run for free cyanide on representative samples?
9) an EP leachate analysis^/ of the waste for each of the
EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide (using distilled
water for the CN analyses) on a representative number
of samples (but not less than four);
10) a determination of the total oil and grease content of
the waste be testing a representative number of samples
(but not less than four) using the enclosed method;
11) amount of waste present in each impoundment after neutral-
ization;
12) describe quality assurance procedures followed during
sampling and analysis. For example, results from the
method of standard additions for the EP toxicity tests
should be included.
__ If the oil and grease level of the waste exceeds one percent,
the £P for oily waste metholology should be followed during
analysis.
-------
-3-
If after reviewing the data specified above, the Agency finds
that organic toxic constituents or other toxic metals are used in
the facilities manufacturing processes, you may be reouired to sub-
mit representative test data quantifying these constituents in
the waste.
If you have any questions about these information reauests,
please call we at (202) 382-4519. In addition, the final guidance
manual is available through NTIS if you have not already acouired
it.
Sincerely,
Ann Burke Sarno
Environmental Protection Specialist
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9433.1986(08
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
? 4
Mr. Samuel Moatkoff
Legal Counsel
Monroe Auto Equipment
International Drive
Monroe, Michigan 48161
Dear Mr. Mostkoff:
This is in response to your letter dated February 21, 1986,
formally requesting the Agency's reconsideration of, and a
rehearing on, its decision to deny, in part, Monroe's delisting
petition No. 0020. Monroe also requested the Agency to stay
the effective date of the final decision to deny the petition
for the waste contained in Monroe's lagoon.
Monroe raises three issues as the bases for its request
for reconsideration. These include: (1) Monroe's lack of
an opportunity to comment on the final VHS model; (2) the
Agency's evaluation of Monroe's waste using a total chromium
regulatory standard rather than a standard based on the waste's
hexavalent chromium content; and (3) the use of the present
drinking water standard for chromium rather than the use of
the proposed recommended maximum contaminant level (RMCL) in
the evaluation of the petition.
The Agency has evaluated Monroe's request, and has decided
that the final decision published on November 27, 1985, denying
Monroe's petition for the impounded waste was correct. The
Agency believes that the issues raised by Monroe do not warrant
a reversal of our decision.
Monroe had an opportunity to comment on the model and its
application to Monroe's waste during the comment period. The
final version of the VHS model and its application to Monroe's
waste consider the same elements as the proposal on which
Monroe commented. The change in the VHS formula, an altera-
tion in the vertical dispersion term, was made in response to
comments, and did not alter the Agency's basic approach.
Monroe had an opportunity to comment on this aspect of the
proposed model.
-------
- 2 -
Monroe, reiterating its April, 1985 comments, suggests
that separate standards for hexavalent and trivalent chromium
are appropriate. A single standard for hexavalent chromium
and total chromium is currently warranted. The current maximum
contaminant level (MCL) and the EP toxicity test level both
refer to total chromium. The Agency has considered revising
its standards to refer only to hexavalent chromium but has not
done so, and is concerned that trivalent chromium may be con-
verted to hexavalent chromium in the environment. The Agency
continues to believe that total chromium is an appropriate
factor to consider in its evaluation of delisting petitions.
The Agency is using the current MCL (50 ppb) set for
drinking water as the health-based standard for delisting.
As noted in the November 27, 1985 Federal Register, an increase
has been proposed for the recommended maximum contaminant level
to 120 ppb. As this new level is only proposed, and comments
on this proposal are still being evaluated, the Agency intends
to use the current MCL (to grant or deny petitions) until a
new RMCL or MCL can be set.
Finally, the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), referred
to in your letter, are standards applying to waters of the United
States, which are primarily surface waters. We have decided to
use MCLs in the VHS model, which considers the potential for
contamination of ground water. AWQC will only be used when no
MCL or no other regulatory standard is available. The AWQC would
be used in that situation, until an MCL was developed.
If you have any further questions regarding these issues
please contact Mr. Steven Hirsch in our Office of General Counsel
at (202) 382-7703.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
cc: Jeffrey K. Sherwood
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC 9433.1986(09)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTt RCRA Section 3001 (£) (2) (b) and States' Exclusion
of Wastes front Regulation as Hazardous
FROM; Marcia E. William., Director
otf ice of Solid waste
TO: Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Regions I-X
Since November 8, 1984, EPA has administered all RCRA delistfng
programs and will continue to do so until States become authorized
for delisting under the new provisions of the Hazardous end Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). A State is not required to have
a delisting nechanism, and may be authorized under HSWA without
one. To receive authorization, a State must conform its delisting
program, if any, to the Federal program and apply to the Agency
for authorization.
Effective November 8, 1986, temporary exclusions automatically
expire. Any temporary exclusion granted by a State before
November 8, 1984, should be re-evaluated either by EPA or a State
that has been authorized to conduct delisting pursuant to HSWA.
If a final decision to grant or deny a petition has not been made
by November 8, 1986, the temporary exclusion will cease to be in
effect for purposes of RCRA Section 3001(f)(2)(B).
Temporary Exclusions
Temporary exclusions arc delisting decisions which exclude
a waste froai regulation as hazardous, but are not the final
deli.ting action under the regulation, of the issuing authority.
For example, IPA i..ued a number of temporary exclusions pursuant
to 40 CFR 2<0.22(»). That provision explicitly stated that these
decisions are made 'before Making a final decision". Similarly,
several States have mechanisms for removing a waste frosi regulation
before promulgating a final decision, such as delistings patterned
on the Federal tenporary exclusion.
-------
- 2 -
These temporary exclusions should be distinguished from
grants of enforcement discretion, where a State did not remove a
wast* from regulation, but stated only that it would not initiate
an enforcement action against a person treating this waste as non-
haz&rdous. Entorceaent ditcret ion, sometimes ctlled infonu.1
exclusions, are not temporary exclusions (nor are they final
exclusions).
Final Exclusions
A final exclusion is an agency determination done in accordance
with the issuing authority's regulations; e.g., with notice and
comment after which no further review of the petition is contemplated.
EPA issues final exclusions pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,
which requires publication of a tentative decision in the Federal
Register, receipt and evaluation of public comments, and publication
of a final decision in the Federal Register. States issue final
exclusions in accordance with their State legal authorities.
Any final exclusions that were granted by authorized States
before November 8, 1984, are not affected by HSWA (i.e., no
additional action is required by the State or by EPA). EPA
encourages the States to re-evaluate thoso decisions if all
factors (including additional constituents) which could cause
the waste to be hazardous were not considered by the State.
Actions Required
On November 8, 1986, all temporary exclusions will cease to
be in effect for purposes of RCRA if a final exclusion has not
been granted. States and Regions should plan to verify that the
handlers of these previously excluded wastes are complying with
applicable requirements after November 8, 1986. To this end, the
Regions and States should begin to evaluate all State delistings
to:
(1) determine the type of State exclusion (temporary or final)
that was granted before November 8, 1984;
(2) determine whether a final exclusion has been granted or
denied by EPA; and
(3) take appropriate action to ensure full compliance with
RCRA.(e.g., prior to 11/8/86, you should send handlers
written notification of their regulatory responsibilities.
-------
- 3 -
From a practical standpoint, the expiration of a temporary
exclusion will have greatest immediate impact on those who
manage their waste in land disposal units. These units may
be imaedietely subject to ground-water monitoring requirements
and, on November 6, 1987, may be subject to the 'loss of interim
status' requirements of Section 3005 (e){3), depending on whether
other hazardous waste management activity is occurring at the
facility.
Currently, there are no States authorised for the HSWA
delisting authority. Even if • State were to receive the
required authorisation before November 8, 1986, it is highly
unlikely that adequate time exists to collect and evaluate the
additional information from petitioners so as to avoid termination
of the temporary exclusion.
A "Reference Guide to Delisting Petitions" is compiled at
EPA Headquarters and distributed weekly to the Regional delisting
contacts. In turn, the Guide is distributed to the States. This
reference can be used to determine if EPA is reviewing a particular
petition and the status of EPA's review.
Please feel free to contact the delisting staff of the Waste
Identification Branch or the Regional Liaisons of the State
Programs Branch here in the Office of Solid Waste if you have
any questions regarding State delistings.
cc: Matt Straus, OSW
Truett DeGeare, OSW
-------
9433.1986(10}
APR 7 A !9So
j>Ui>JLCli Destruction of Lioxin Contaminated Soil Using Mobile
Incineration
Marcia t. v»iiiiaros, Director
Ctnce or Solid Waste -
site construction prior to permit issuance*
U; listing
You xfequesteci tne use ot Celisting information troic the
trial burn or £PA's burn «.t Times Be a en to expedite NlEC's
cclibtirx; petition. (During the H.^Cv trial Uirnf tricnloroettiane/
^onoci»lorooenzene , and tricMorobenzcne were incinerated and the
uitt. (at the stack) was calculated.) This intotnation can only be
used indirectly to support the NCbC petition. The dclistincj
regulations explicitly state (ace 40 Cr^ i*6u.2*(k)) tnat "an
exclusion will orviy a^pl> to the waste generated at the individual
racility covered C/y the demonstration ana will not if ply to
wabte tror. any other facility". In addition, KCkA S3005(f)(l)
rt-uirtst, the pttitiontr to oemonstrate, to tne satisfaction ot
tJie Aoninistrator/ that the waste does not neet any ot the criteria
lot which it is litstec nor contain any other additional constituents
vnich coulo cause the waste to oe hazarcous. The oelisting
demonstration, theretore, is required to be naoe on the waste
it&elt* and cannot Le oaoe on surrogates (i.e., POi'.C's).
way, however, incinerate a small portion ot the
contacinateci soil trorc Oulfport, Mississippi on another ENSC
unit ccrtitiea as achieving six V's L.HL as a oasis for their
-------
collating petition. NCbC would need to denonatrate that: (1)
ti.e two ZiNscO units are essentially identical, ana (2) the waste
incinerated curing the "test Sum" is representative or a "worst-
cdbe" ot tne waste that will oe incinerated during the field
demonstration. Furthermore , NCdC must provide 'test burn" data
on a u.ininun ct tour representative samples of the solid residue
and ct tli a scrubber water* These samples raust be analyzed for the
characteristics ot a hazardous waste ana for all the Appendix VIII
constituents tnat aro reasonably expected to oe present in the
waste. Ihc Appendix VI II constituents would be chosen based on
the results or the analyses on the contaminated soil from
Ciulf^ort/ Mississippi. Providing that the concentrations of the
hazardous constituents in the waste meets the delisting require-
ments, the Agency could propose to *rant a conditional exclusion.
The conditional exclusion is needed to verity that the two
units do indeed achieve the sane destruction otticiency*
site Construction
^JUUi>(a)f as amended cy tne Hazaroous and Solid waste
Air.enor.ents ot 1984, requires owners and operators of all hazardous
waste treatnent, storage/ and disposal facilities to obtain a
^CKA percit prior to constructing a UCRA tacility. While I can
appreciate tne USAt's intent to expedite the testing of the
f.obile incinerator, hD&U permits are also subject to this
restriction* (Section j270,65(b) only allows KPA to codity or
waive the permit application and procedural requirements of
*u C.r.R. farts 270 ana 1*«, not the statutory requirements
ot nCKA. ) ihis rceanft that the oobile incinerator can t-e prefab-
ricated and transported to tne proposed treatment site, but
construction ot the site itself, such as pouring concrete founda-
tions and connecting the MTU to physical structures on-site
cannot occur until the RL*D permit is issued (KCRA $1UU4(2)).
If you nave any additional questions on these issues, tleaso
contact Loreen bterling at FTS/475-dbSl with regard to delistinq
and Nancy Ponerleau at fTb/3ii2-45uu with regara to site
construction*
cc: bruce wed die
Peter Ouerrero
Art Glazer
i132ii)
Kyles norse (WH-562B)
-------
9433 .19E6 (1 1)
rtr. Leland Horning
Chevron USA, Inc.
P.O. Box 7
Cleves, OH 45002
Dear Mr. Herningi
Th« purpose of this letter is to summarize the February 13,
1986, telephone conversation between yourself and uoreen Sterling
of my staff and the ensuing conversations with Chris Tanner, ERrt-
Southwest, Inc. regarding Chevron's sampling and analysis plan.
The plan was submitted on January 13, 1986, and covered both the
separator sludge and pond sludge. We agree with Mr. Tanner that
it is imperative that we document our position to ensure no misunder-
standings in the future.
Chevron proposed to take ten grab samples of the separator
sludge as it is pumped to the thickener during a five-minute pump
cycle. Thus, samples would be taken every 30 seconds over the
course of five minutes. Chevron further proposed to allow the
samples to settle for a half-hour, and the samples which showed a
"relatively significant volume of solids* would be mixed, «rab
samples of the essentially soiias free water pumped at the end of
the cycle and the solids free water left in the line would o«
discarded. Chevron claims that the grab samples are "representative*
of the pump cycle. A composite sample would be constructed fro*
equal volumes of three grafi samples taken over a four hour period.
The Agency is concerned that the proposed stapling plan
may not result in collection of samples that are truly representative
of the listed waste* In particular, we believe that the samples
would consist of the listed API separator sludge diluted with a
large volime of non-listed wastewater. Chevron concedes that the
water* which purges the sludge from the line, is "easily" separated
from the sludge and returned to the influent of the oil/water
separator. The Agency has, therefore, concluded that the dilute
samples taken from the separator are not representative of the
waste. Although the Agency recognizes that it is the A*>! separator
sludge which is the listed waste, the Agency oelieves, however,
that samples of the thickened sludge would more accurately represent
the waste for the reasons discussed below.
-------
Ordinarily/ the combination of API separator sludge and
water would be considered a mixture of a listed hazardous waste
and notv-listed wastewater. By virtue of the mixture rule (40 CFR
f2Cl«3(a){2)(lv )), the resultant wastestreao would be defined as
haiardous. Even if the sludge is dewatered, the resultant liquid
stream would be considered a hazardous waste by virtue of the
•derived fro*" rule (40 CFR 261.3(c ) (2 ) (i ).
According to a memorandum dated August 23, 1985 (see enclosure),
however, the Agency concluded that the "derived from" rule is not
uniformly applicable to the aqueous stream generated in a sludge
dewatering process. The basis for this determination was that
properly conducted dewatering of API separator sludge would insure
that none of the listed waste is returned to the system/ while
simultaneously reducing the total amount of waste generated. This
assumes that the non-listed wastewater cane in contact but was not
•mixed" with the sludge.
The burden of proof is on the facility to establish that
•properly conducted" dewatering had occurred* Specifically, it
the facility can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Regional
authorities, that the return water stream is chemically equivalent
to the non-listed wastewater influent to the wastewater treatnent.
device that originally generated the listed waste, then the return
water stream is not "derived from" the hazardous waste. EPA may,
however, make its own evaluation and determine that the waste in
question is indeed a mixture.
Chevron's four bay aerated lagoon is not currently reported as
a regulated waste management unit* We/ therefore presume that
Chevron has satisfactorily made the demonstration, to the appropriate
Regional authorities, that effective dewatering of sludge had
occurred and that the return wastewater is not the listed waste. If
this is correct, then the separator sludge, which is diluted with
water, is not considered a mixture. Sampling of a waste, diluted
with a large volume of water, does not constitute a representative
sample. It is, therefore, necessary that you sample the dewatered
sludge by either: (1) sampling the thickener, or (2) analyzing the
sludge from the separator once the water has been removed. If you
choose the latter option* the samples should be allowec to settle
for ninety minutes (the calculated wastewater residence tiae in
the separator). During settling, the samples should oe properly
stored to prevent the possible loss of hazardous constituents
through volatilization (i.e., the samples should be capped and
refrigerated).
If we have misrepresented your position that properly conducted
dewaterinq has occurred and you believe instead that the dilute
sample coning off of your seperator is indeed a "mixture," you
should be aware that your .downstream impoundments are then hazardous
waste management units. If the units in question were not included
on Part A of your RCRA permit application* or subsequent modification
thereof and/or were not covered in your certification of compliance
-------
with applicable ground water monitoring and financial requirements,
then these units do not have interim status uncer KCRA. They must
cease the receipt of haiaroous waste immediately and closure plans
oust be auomitted to EPA or an authorized State agency for review,
approval, and implementation ($3005(e}(2) ot KCKA, see 5o r*_ .ja*4fe),
Failure to comply nay auoject you to entorcement action.
If you have any further questions regarding this issue/ please
contact Uoreen sterling of my staff at 202-475-6775.
Sincerely,
Eileen Claussen
Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division (WH-562B)
Enclosure
cci Chris Tanner, EKM-Southwest
bcc: Ben Smith
Lloyd Guerci, OV^PE
Dale Helmers, Region V
-------
5. Delisting 9433.1986(12)
A petroleum refinery obtained interim status in 1980 for a surface
impoundment used to treat and store K051. The facility manages no
other hazardous waste. In 1981, the EPA granted a delisting for
the K051 waste because the owner/operator proved that the refining
process waste did not contain lead and hexavalent chromium, the
constituents for which K051 was listed. Does the K051 delisting
effectively mean -.at the facility never T.anaoec a listed hazardous
waste? How would the delisting affect the facility's interim status?
A person may submit a petition to EPA, pursuant to 40 CFR
§§260.20 and 260.22, to have a waste at a particular facility
delisted. Prior to September 21, 1985, EPA granted only
"informal" or temporary exclusions. "Informal" exclusions
were suggestions to the Regions that enforcement discretion be
used when a tentative decision to grant a temporary exclusion
had been made. Temporary exclusions removed a waste at a
particular facility from regulation, pursuant to 260.22(ra)
(then in effect, see 50 FR 28727-28, July 15, 1985). EPA
follows the procedures set forth in 40 CFR §260.20 to grant
final exclusions, which are regulatory amendments.
Wastes which were informally excluded were technically still
hazardous wastes. An impoundment holding informally excluded
K051 waste was subject to the Loss of Interim Status provisions
£ on November 8, 1985.
fj For temporarily excluded wastes, the facility's status depends
w on the scope of the temporary delisting granted. If only the
> waste generated after the date of the temporary exclusion was
J delisted, waste placed in the impoundment prior to that date
E-, would still be hazardous (K051) waste. The impoundment would
§ have had interim status and should have met Part 265 standards.
X The Loss of Interim Status provision applied to the impoundment
w £ on November 8, 1985.
H hJ
J M If the temporary exclusion covered the waste already in the
O £ impoundment as well as K051 waste generated after the exclusion
K < date, then the facility would still have interim status, but
Q none of the Part 265 interim standards would apply to that
* surface impoundment. The facility would technically have been
£ subject to the Loss of Interim Status provision, but not
w required to certify compliance with financial responsibility or
2> ground water monitoring retirements, since none of these Part
w 265 requirements were "applicable," or to submit a Part B
.< permit application on November 8, 1985, (50 FR 38947, September
S 25, 1985).
Pi
If EPA revokes the temporary exclusion, or it ceases to be in
effect by operation of law, e.g., if the Agency does not make
a final decision on the petition by November 8, 1986, (RCRA
§3001(f)(2)(B)), the facility will beccme subject to the Par-.
265 interim status requirements. The facility must then
certify compliance with financial responsibility and ground
water monitoring reouirements and submit a Part B permit
application within 12 months or lose interim status (RCRA
S3005(e)(3)).'
Source: Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7703
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
, Aw
9433.1986(14)
2 7*85
Mr. J. K. White
President
United Chair
P.O. box 96
114 Churchill Ave. N.W.
Leeds, Alabama 35094
Dear Mr. White:
I have received your letter dated April 17, 1985, regarding
the informal exclusion issued to your Irondale, Alabama facility
on May 5, 1982, and withdrawn on March 10, 1986. The issues
addressed in your letter are discussed separately below.
(1) There is an apparent conflict in the Agency's claims that
United Chair received an intormal delisting, but that
the waste generated has always been considered hazardous
and must be treated as hazardous.
There is no conflict. A temporary exclusion and an informal
exclusion are very different. A temporary exclusion is a change
in the regulatory status of certain wastes, from hazardous to
non-hazardous. A temporary exclusion could only be granted by the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste ana Emergency Response,
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. $260.22(m). In contrast/ an informal exclusion
was not a regulatory change at all. It was an indication by tne
Agency that it would not take enforcement action against a petitioner,
This enforcement discretion was exercised when it was believed
that a temporary exclusion would be granted, but before the petition
had been processed and the temporary exclusion granted. (See
enclosed memorandum from K. Sarah Compton to the Regions, January 12,
1931. )
In May 1982, a memorandum was sent from Headquarters Enforcement
Counsel to our Regional contacts advising them that the Office of
Solid Waste had made a preliminary decision on United Chair's
petition (see enclosure). The memorandum suggested the use of
enforcement discretion until the uelisting was published in the
Federal Register. This memorandum reflects only the use of
enforcement discretion, i.e., an-informal exclusion, not a temporary
exclusion. As noted above, a temporary exclusion could only be
issued by the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and tmergency
Response. The Assistant Administrator never acted on United Chair's
petition, and thus an temporary exclusion was never granted*
Accordingly, your waste is, eo»
-------
(2) unicfd Chair believes that the informal exclusion was the
same as a temporary exclusion and that EPA used these
terras synonymously to indicate the waste's non-hazardousness.
Despite the regulatory difference between these two types
of decisions, the Agency for & period of time, treated informal
and temporary exclusions similarly (i.e., all wastes were allowed
to be managed as non-hazardous wastes, although Agency discretion
had been used with regard to informally excluded wastes)* The
Agency/ however* cannot legally ignore this regulatory distinction.
(3) United Chair believes that its exclusion was a tenporary
exclusion which would require EPA to provide notice and
opportunity for public comment before effectively withdrawing
this decision and further claims that HSWA under 42 U.S.C.
§6921(f)(l), (f)(2)(A) requires notice and comment.
As indicated above, there is a clear regulatory definition of
a temporary exclusion. If a recommendation to exclude a waste was
never signed by the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response then the petitioned waste is still a listed
hazardous waste. Despite the Agency's choice to exert discretion
for a period of time, your waste was never legally an exempted
waste, and notice and public comment are not required for the Agency
to withdraw an informal decision. It should be noted that notice
and an opportunity for public comment is not necessary for issuing
and withdrawing enforcement discretion. 42 U.S.C. $6921(f)(l) and
(2)(A) indicate that the Agency must provide notice and an opportunity
for public comment before granting or denying a petition. The
March 10, 1986, action withdrew our decision to exert enforcement
discretion. It was not a decision to grant or deny United Chair's
petition. It, therefore, was not necessary to provide notice and
an opportunity tor public comment.
(4) EPA must make a final decision on United Chair's petition
by Novemoer 19B6, and must, in the meantime, consider the
waste as non-hazardous.
The November 1986 deadline referred to only affects temporary
exclusions. The Agency is not required to make a final decision
on temporary exclusions by November 6, 1986. The 1984 Amendments
state only that if a final decision is not made by that oate,
the temporary exclusion will cease to be in effect. Tne Agency
intends, however, to make a final decision on all temporary
exclusions by November 8, 1986. Again, no decision to exclude
United Chair's waste was ever signed by the Assistant Administrator
and, therefore, a temporary exclusion was never granted. The only
statutory requirement imposed on the Agency for petitions for
which a temporary exclusion has not been granted is that a decision
be proposed in the Federal'Register within one year of receipt of
a couplete petition, and that a final decision be made within two
years of receipt of a complete petition, to the maximum extent
practicable. We expect to meet these deadlines tor_your petition.
-------
•o-
(5) Representatives of the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEH) are prepared to testify that EPA
representatives had made a decision to approve United Chair's
petition and had granted United Chair an informal delisting.
The Agency has never donied granting United Chair a
discretionary or informal exclusion. The Agency's Regional Office
correctly relayed this information to the ADEM.
(6) An EPA letter dated September 17, 1985, requesting additional
data under HSWA indicated that the data be submitted as
soon as possible since all exclusions not made tinal by
November 1986 will expire.
As indicated in 12 above, the Agency had tracked both informal
and temporary decisions together in its efforts to collect additional
information in a tinely fashion under HSWA. The Agency, however, is
not required by statute to issue a final decision on any informal
decisions by November 8, 1986. Nevertheless, we would like to
process your petition and issue our final decision by this date.
(7) HSWA acknowledges that EPA had granted non-published
temporary exclusions and that they are valid.
The HSWA reference means only that temporary exclusions were
granted without a prior opportunity for comment and the' full
consideration of such comments (i.e., temporary exclusions were
issued with a request tor comment after the effective date of the
exclusion) .
(6) United Chair also requests that a final decision be made no
later than November 8, 1986.
The Agency expects to issue a final decision by November 8,
1986. Much of our analysis has been completed, and our tentative
decision to deny is based on highly variable levels of barium
and chromium in the waste and the unacceptable mobility of both
barium and chromium exhibited by the population of waste samples
tested. United Chair will receive a letter providing the details
of this analysis in the near future.
If you have any further questions regarding these issues,
please contact Mr. Myles Morse of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9433.1986(16)
,.-,0
V
Oyron R. Crary, Esq.
Environmental Law Section
The Dow Chemical Company
2030 Willard H. Dow Center
Midland, Michigan 48674
Dear Mr. Crary:
This is in reference to your rulemaking petition to classify
your halogen acid furnaces (HAFs) as industrial furnaces under
KCRA. Although the Agency has not yet reached a decision on the
merits of your petition, our thinking has progressed sufficiently
to provide you with our initial views.
I understand that you and other DOW representatives met with
members of ray staff and our Office of General Counsel on July 10,
1986, to exchange information. At that meeting, we provided an
overview of our regulatory authority and existing and planned
controls for naterials that are recycled by burning. We also
discussed the information you provided in your July 8, 1986,
letter.
Based on our understanding of your operations as summarised
in the enclosure, we believe it could be appropriate to classify
those HAFs that are not currently boilers as industrial furnaces.
Accordingly, we currently plan to propose to designate your non-
boiler HAFs as industrial furnaces in a Federal Register notice.
We hope to be able to develop the notice for publication this
fall and to nake a final decision early next year after considering
public cosuaent.
Please review the enclosure and correct any misunderstandings
we may have) about your operations. In particular note that we
consider the nonboiler HAFs that we tentatively plan to propose
to desi-jnate as industrial furnaces to be burning the secondary
streams both as an ingredient and for energy recovery. The heat
energy released from burning the materials provides substantial,
useful energy to drive furnace reactions (i.e., to thermally
degrade chlorinated organic compounds). (Energy recovery does not
have to involve export of energy froa a combustion device such as
steam produced by boilers.) Accordingly, these nonboiler llATs as
-------
well as the boiler HAFs would be subject to regulation under
the rules we are planning to propose this fall for boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous wastes.
Furthermore, we consider the secondary streams to be
inherently waste-like and subject to designation as a solid
waste under §261.2(d) when burned in the HAFs. However, given
that the HAFs are considered to be burning partially for energy
recovery and would be subject to the soon-to-be proposed rules
for industrial furnaces, there is no need to undertake a desig-
nation at this time.
If you have questions or comments, please contact Bob
Holloway, Chief, Waste Combustion Section, at (202) 382-7938.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Enclosure
cc: Bob HoiIoway
Steve Silverman, Esq.
bcc: David Garrett
Dwight HI us tick
Marc Turgeon
-------
TENTATIVE 3A3IS FOR CLASSIFICATION OF HAFs
AS JOILijJRS Ot? I.«i/'
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT
9433. 1986(17 )
EP 3 01-35
George Bays
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Burns Harbor Plant
Box 246
Chesterton, Indiana 46304
Dear Mr. Bays;
Since our last telephone conversation, I have looked into
the regulatory requirements that would be applicable to Bethlehem's
waste should the temporary exclusion for this waste be withdrawn.
Since your waste has a temporary exclusion, it may be handled and
disposed as a non-hazardous solid waste. If Bethlehen were to
move the petitioned sludge to a new site closer to the Burn*
Harbor sinter plant in order to prepare the sludge for met&ls
recovery, a hazardous waste manifest would not be necessary while
the temporary exclusion was in effect. Manifesting would be
necessary in order to transport the waste to the new site after
the exclusion was withdrawn.
Whenever the exclusion for this waste is lost, the waete
must be managed as hazardous wherever it is located on Bethle-
hem's property. If the waste was re-located prior to loss of the
exclusion to another site on Bethlehem's property closer to the
sinter plant, then Bethlehem may be eligible for interim statue
as a storage facility under J3005(e) of RCRA, subject to Part A
permitting requirements and compliance with storage standards
(40 CFR Part 262}. Please contact your Regional representative
for further information.
Concerning Mr. Sepia's desire to store the waste on site
for future reclamation, it may be possible for Bethlehem to do
so under the conditions specified above. It may also be possible
that the future management of this waste may be affected by the
Agency's definition of solid waste, which contains several
exemptions for the recycling and recovery of waste materials.
For additional information, you should contact Mr. Matthew Straus,
Chief of th« Vaste Characterization Branch, at (202) 475-8551.
If you have any questions concerning the delisting petition
review process, please call me at (202) 362-4763.
Sincerely,
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division
-------
cr«MKOMMCKTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9433. 1986(19)
-9HE
u 1300
John B. Hagar
Chemist
Stone Industrial Division
J.L. Clark Manufacturing Co.
51st Avenue 4 Cree Lane
College Park, Maryland 20740
Ret Delisting Petition 4582
Dear Mr* Hagart
1 have completed the review of the confidential business
information submitted by you in support of the delisting
petition that J.L. Clark Manufacturing Co. has on file here
at the Agency. My concern is focused primarily on the
detection limits provided for the organic constituents of
the still bottom solids. These limits are expressed in units
of percent by weight, and as such are too rough to allow a
precise evaluation of actual waste concentrations (that isr
if these rough percentages were used as inputs to the Agency's
organic leaching model and VHS groundwater model, several
resultant compliance-point values would be too high to consider
delisting). Finer detection limits for these compounds (i.e.,
parts per million) must be produced in order to evaluate the
organic content of the waste*
Also, inspection of the material safety data sheets has
indicated the potential presence of several other toxic Appendix
VIII constituents in the waste stream. These compounds must
also be evaluated in the waste in a manner similar to that
needed for the re-evaluation of the previously tested solvents.
A list of these constituents is given below.
Phthalic acid esters
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Aniline
Tolylene diisocyanate
The Agency would like to receive further clarification about
the ingredients of several other compounds mentioned in the
juctuof lox WaLvvjf ualo •ii^w wo *CQn^t\Vif^tCt.f >l^* mJA L jLtkwk wva& t/wu ivSlllSf
SYMBOL )
SURNAME ^
OATt ^
WKISUA uj
motion, .it
have thii
VE» t aiiu i
..pjrop.r.iei
informal
.a,r,y*..the.
ion kept
KV UuriTFO
Ag*ixcy...w
conf iden
aim tsabcc
Lll.AAk.tt..
Lial.
>« 41 BU
tcrangeme
^11 X 11 & VJL
0.t9...tQ
EPA Form 1320-1 (12-70)
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
MI.S. SO
-------
In order to ensure the timely review of your petition,
this information should be forwarded to the Agency as soon
as possible. If you have any questions, please call me at
(202) 382-4783.
Sincerely,
Scott J, Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Pernits and State Programs Division
-------
9433 .19£6 (20 )
DEC I t 835
KEHCRANDUK
Sl'ZJECT: Delisting Issues Relating to tP\'s Mobil* Incinerator
TO. Lavid Wagoner Director
»aste Management Division
Region VII
FROM: aruce Weddlt, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
This memo serves to suraaarize the questions resolved, and
data to be subaitted as discussed in a conference call on
December B, 1986 with Mylee Morse of my staff. The questions
discussed included the extent of coverage of th* delistir.g
decision for the D«nney Farm site (originally propoced on June 5,
1985); redefinition cf the terms of the contingency testing
requirements; areas cf the the original petition that would
remain "yrandfathered" and data requirements &nd scheduling
for a new petition deronstration regarding waste from Syntex
Corporation.
First, you asked if the residue generated rrcr, the incineration
oi ar additional (approximately) 550 drura of waat«i »oulu be
covered by the original decision anJ thftrefore he considered
non-hazaraouft unaer the terms of the exclusion. rnt waat^s ir.
tr.ese dru..\» were described as either "uerivec? rrcr" wastes from
the ^rocesnit.c, or the Denney Farm soil and soil iro^ the- Piazza
F-cad site. You indicated that nany of these drur-'-i ccntaitied
*jarbage^ xron these sites which may have included laboratory
debris from processing saaples of these wastes as well as
disposable clothing worn during the sailing auforta. Aa yyle?
and Steve Uirsch ot our Office of r,an«ral Counsel (CuC) indicatec,
tr.^se wastes would oe covered by the original dclistin^ decision
since they would have been implied as similarly stated in category
to. 13 "Soils snd other materials from clean-up from Baldwin ParV."
of the field davonstration categories in the proposed decision
(so« SO £H 2J722). The original decision therefor:, would not
have to be reopened for public coament to treat these wastes. «fe
do, however, naed an accurate description of these wastes and
their estinated Tolun«s for the file and to assure OCC that thi»
-------
- 2 -
interpretation is correct. Several other drums were described
as containing solvent and stillbottom waste*. Neither Pegion VII
nor Frank Freestone of our Edison Lab adequately described this
wacte or its source. Therefor*, aincc it coulvA not be *urrci»cd
over the phone that these waste* were in any way derived rrcw th«
original 13 categories of the exclusion, we could not conclude
that the exclusion covered these drums. We will further evaluate
whether this waste is covered by the original decision if acre
detailed information is sent concerning the characterisation and
souce of this material, including your basis for believing that
it is a waste derived from the original categories.
The second question regarding the original decision was
whether the definition of "batch testing' for the contingency
testing program could be changed, and would such A change neces-
sitate reopening the decision for public comment. You indicated
that the requireesent of sampling and testing oach tank of waste-
water for aercury, selenium and chrociura generated, during the
field demonstration, and the testing of daily composites of
•ajnples frost each CMEAf roll and each drua of ash, were too
prohibitive logistically and economically. We can propose to
change these conditons to cover a less frequent sampling regime
(i.e., weekly instead of daily), however, this would reopen this
portion of the decision. That is, an amendment of this nature
would need to be proposed Federal Register allowing a suitable
public convent period. The original proposal included language
that indicated if representative data on at l*cst 1C samples were
submitted and were below the limits of 0.03, 0 14, 0.68 ppm for
mercury, selenium, and chromiun, respectively, in the wastewater;
and 0.044 and 0.22 ppm for mercury and selenium in both the CKEAF
media and ash, then the Agency would drop the testing conditions.
Curing the conference call, Frank Freestone indicated that you nad
collected representative test data. This data (on the wastewater,
ChSAF media, and ash) should be submitted to the Variances Section,
If the data indicate that these materials are consistently non-
harardcus, then we can publish a notice ascending the decision, to
drop the testing requirement completely. If the data is satis-
factory we should be able to propose this change within a lew
weeks. This anendff.ent would not reopen any other part* of tr.e
previous decision to public cooasent. that ia, we will not require
the application of different TCDD detection licita as a result
of this amendment.
You should submit an explanation of the rise in chromium
levels noted in SOKS samples dus to the chro»iuir content of
patching material used on the refractory after removal of parti-
culate build-up in the refractory. You should also identify
which samples this affected. We are not at this time indicating
that this is an acceptable variation. We will need to review tne
data and determine if s sufficient nuabsr of ssr.plss have L-een
tested before this decision can be made. If a suitable number of
-------
saaples, (at least forty five if non-parametric statistical
procedures are used) are presented it may b« possible to use
an average chroaiu* level rather than a caziubua l*tv«i in cur
•vcluttion •
Your third concern was whether any new (lower) detection
liaits for TCDD would b« applied to the original decision if
reopened for either of the reasons mentioned above. As already
nentioned the only situation where a different TCDt level would
be considered would be in a new petition request for a waste not
covered by the previous decision. The TCOC levels used in the
original decision will not be changed as a result of anen
the decision to renove the contingency testiny conditions
final topic of discussion was tho initiation of a new petiton
action for the Syntex waste. It will not oe necessary to resub.iiit
descriptive data on the treatment systen. You should however
describe specific aiterations in flow through rates, residence
tine, etc. The waste to be incinerated needs to be adequately
characterized. This should include physical description of the
waste, estimated volute and historical knowledge of the generating
source, and a description of how the charge was prspared.
Representative samples of this particular waste matrix must be
treated and representative samples of the waatewater, CUEAF nedie,
and ash must be testud for suitable Appendix VIII parameters
(including all priority pollutants). The conditions of the teat
burn should be described as well as the sampling procedure of tne
waste for treat&ant and the sampling procedure of the treatjr.«nt
residues for analysis. The volumes of treatment residues should
Do estimated tor the total voluctt of Syntex waste to be treated.
Frank Freestone as'xed whether analytical data collected fron
earlier samples of the Syntax wast* could b« used in our ovaj.uato.cr.
This data can be used if you can Jescrioe the sampling procedure
for both tne untreated waste and the treatment residues in enough
detail for us to determine how representative these sazoles were
of the waatj reclining to be treated; and li th* hey conditions
of the trial burn, (i.e., residence tine) were, similar er.cujh to
the actual conditions that will occur during
Using the recoesnended test methods in SW-b-.G, the detect inn
limits for all other Appendix VI I I constituents other th«n the
TCDD's do not fall bo low the pnb range. 11. t Characteriiaticn and
Assessment Division (CAL) is currently working with CKD anu the
Chlorinated Oioxin Workgroup to determine if the assuic^tions
made about the mobility of dioxin through environc.ontal ;.
-------
water transport. If we determine that diozin containing waste*
should be evaluated using the OLrt (s«e Si Kk 41032-41100, N'ov. 13,
19do) and the VHS model (s«e 50 FR 4d&87, Appendix, Nov. 27, 19bj)
thtn a regulatory itandard of 0.2 ppq and a solubility of 0.2 ppL«
would be u**d in ecnjucticn with the vciun-.e of trtdticent r«*iuue
to determine an acceptable dioxin level in the incineration
residue. If the CAD finds that .ot^gr exposure routes are core
relevant for dioxin wastes thtn^thes* scenarios t*rt* may result
in a less conservative level of Concern.
:/e have attached a list of rnaxinuin acceptable levels of some
Appendix VIII constituents based on the health based standards
and the minimum attenuation ailoved through the CLM and V.3S
models currently us*d by the Variance Section. It should be
noted thAt the attached levels only apply to a landfill waste
tranaQtsroent scenario (i.e.. exposure to contarinated groundwater
from landfilling of the treatment residue). It should also be
noted that although the standards for soae of these constituents
are extremely low, we would not require detection licvits belov
those noroally achievable using the recommended extraction and
analytical procedures fron Test .Methods for tvaluating Solid
Waste (3u-ti46). (fee can sake the detection lixiits fro* SW-846
available to you if you do not have th«».) Where hazardous
constituents in a wast* are not detected using appropriate
analytical methods, we will, as a natter of policy, not use
those constituents as a basis to regulate the waste as hazardous.
he will make every attesipt to oeet your April deadline
ror tnis now ^*}tition. However, it should :>a noted that if a
complete petition with all necessary descriptions and test data
is not received L>e:.'or« the end oc D«ccoib«r. then *chi«vin.e
process as much as possible. It should be noted that petitiui;a
are handled as they are submitted (i.e. on a first cone, first
served basis). W« are currently acting on about ISO active
petitions, therefore an accelerated schedule en a new petition
could have an adverse effect on tho schedules of several other
petitioners in your Hegion.
If you have any additional questions concerning the original
D«nney Farta decision or about information requirements tor the
new petition, please call Myles Horse of ny staff at FTS 3«2-«*7&b.
Attachment
-------
9433.1986(21)
Hike Bverhart
Bo«inq Military Airplane Company
P.O. *ox "7730
Wichita, Kansas 67277-7730
Dear *r. Everhart:
This letter is in response to several recent telephone
conversations I have had with you and with Janis Butler of
Butler t Associates concerning the waste saaiolino necessary
to be performed in order to complete your delisting petition
(9200). MS. Butler and I have discussed at lenoth the
sampling plan for the landfill. The wasta is lanrifilled in
trenches at the site. The trenches, as near as they can be
determined, would be divided Into Quadrats of roughly eaual
size, approximately 10,000 ft2 each, and 5 to 8 randomly chosen,
full-depth corinqs would be taken frcai each ouadrat. These
corings would then be composited to oroduce a sample from each
Quadrat for analysis. This particular sampling plan would ensure
that composite samples would be very representative of the process
operations utilized by Boeing over the past 25 years, while at
the sawe time minimizing the actual costs of analysis.
In order to move ahead with the delisting of the landfill,
It Is necessary for the landfill to be sampled as comprehensively
as possible, so that a full accountinn may be made of the spectrum
of wastes which "
-------
9433. 19 86(22)
CEC 1985
Jack H. Luckhardt
Manager, Corporate Safety and
Health/Environmental Affairs
Keller Industries
18000 State Road 9
Miami, Florida 33162
Re: Delisting Petition t650
Dear Mr. Luckhardti
I am responding to a letter dated September 30, 1986,
in which you outline several reasons why Keller Industries
should not have to submit additional test results (besides
the single organic analysis already performed) for the
impoundment subsoils at Keller's Milford, Virginia facility.
I believe that the information requested in the letter sent
to you by Technical Resources/ Inc. (TRI), dated September 9,
1966, is necessary for the further review of the petition/
and so the remaining three quadrants of the impoundment sub-
soils must also be evaluated for organics.
The first point you raise/ that no organics would be
expected in the other three quadrants if none were detected
in the first quadrant sample/ is fallacious. Such a procedure
may not allow the evaluation of the waste in terms of prior
management/ accidental spills/ or "hot spots,* and certainly
does not allow for evaluation of laboratory error. The Agency's
experience is that predictions of waste consistency cannot be
made on the basis of a single composite sample. Such a value
is not statistically defensible and will not allow a valid
estimate to be mad* of the variability of the waste. The
federal regulations also require a minimum of four samples to
be evaluated in a delisting petition (see 40 CFR S260.22[h]}.
The fact that the impoundment is no longer active does not
excuse Keller from meeting the same delisting standards that
all waste managers must meet in order to receive exclusions
for their wastes.
The Agency has provided guidance on numerous occasions
to petitioners to indicate- how many samples must be evaluated
in a petition. The Agency's method of dividing impoundments
-and Ism
l9«S-4«7-8}3
-------
of no areattr than 10,000 ft^ each, selecting sampling points
at random, and collectina conplete-depth core samples has
been in active use fox sevexal years. The Agency's guidance
document, 'Petitions to Delist Haxardous Wastes,' was published
in April 1985, and also describes this sane ••thod fox sampling
•olid wastes. The requirement of four samples does not subject
Keller Industries to a sampling program any more tigorous than
that routinely performed try any other facility.
In response to your point that Keller's treatment system
waa designed to create a homogeneous waste, I wish to point
out that the delisting evaluation must include an appraisal
of the uniformity or variability manifested by the waste*
Process variability has been found in the past to be quite
substantial at a number of different facilities, as seen in
test data (on file at the Agency) submitted in support of
other delisting petitions. Homogeneity of a waste cannot
be assumed but must be proven in a delisting petition.
You have established the presence of substantial
quantities of natural vegetation in the impoundments, and
have cited this vegetation as the cause of the elevated TOC
levels exhibited by the subsoils. Z agree that this occur-
rence is very likely in Keller's impoundment, and also believe
that the TOC results may not accurately depict potential con-
centrations of toxic organic compounds. I do not believe that
use of the TOC test as a screening procedure for the presence
of toxic organic compounds in Keller's impoundment subsoils is
effective, and do not believe that TOC levels should serve in
any way as a basis for limiting sample sice. My office will
adhere to its previously published guidance, namely the
requirement for a minimum of four representative samples.
The Agency affirms the previous information request that
was forwarded to Keller Industries by TRI. In order to ensure
the timely review of the petition, the information should be
forwarded to this office as soon as possible. If you have
additional questions concerning the review process, please
contact me at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely,
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division
ccs A. McLaughlin, TRI
Joel Karmazyn, Region III
-------
9433.1986(23)
5 0 DEC 1986
Mark E. Grummer, Esq.
Environmental Enforcement Section
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Rei United States v. Keystone Consolidated Industries
Dear Mr. Grvunmeri
I have reviewed the description of the sampling plan
submitted by Keystone Consolidated Industries for the impounded
hazardous sediments at its Bartonvilie facility. The outline
of the proposed plan seems to be consistent with the methodology
discussed in our earlier conference call with Keystone's
representatives. I would like, however* to make some modif-
ications to the list of organic compounds compiled by Keystone.
The list of Appendix VIII compounds presented by Keystone
is not complete. After consultation with two chemists, I have
determined that testing for acid-extractable (i.e., phenolic
compounds) organics should be performed. Phenols are often used
in degreasing operations, and could have been used by Keystone
in that context. In addition, if oils are present in sludges,
the oily sludges will likely contain phenolic compounds as
degradation products. Keystone has proposed testing for other
compounds (e.g., polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs)
that are often associated with the presence of petroleum hydro-
carbons, which suggests that Keystone is aware of the presence
of some oil or grease in the sediments. The phenolic compounds
can be evaluated either in separate or combined fractions with
the other compounds on Keystone's list for minimal additional
cost (estimated at approximately $200/sample, about $14,000
total).
Keystone should evaluate its sludge for total oil and
grease content prior to any other analysis. If the amount of
oil and grease is found to exceed one percent, then the waste
should be subjected to the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure
(OWEP), which involves a dual solvent extraction, instead of
the conventional EP test, Which uses a dilute acetic acid
solution.
BPA F«rw 1320-1 (1*2.70)
-------
I alto believe that formaldehyde is & potential hazard
and should be evaluated in the sedicent* based on the fact
that formaldehyde was known to be influent to the waste stream.
(In the Agency's evaluation process, the delisting office uses
a regulatory standard of 7 z 10~5 09/1 for formaldehyde, which
is classified as a Class A carcinogen.) - Th« Agency, however,
does not have an approved teat method for formaldehyde in
solids, and alternate test nethods (e.g., inorganic coloriraetric
tests) do not offer a detection limit as low as the calculated
worst-case level (0.057 ppm) presented by Keystone. A GC/NS
scan Kay be possible if the end of the analytic spectrum is
lowered to below 30 to accommodate the low molecular weight of
formaldehyder the analysis would also involve the use of a
formaldehyde standard in order to identify the compound by its
retention time, and a strict quality control/quality assurance
program. Even if such an analysis were performed successfully,
however, there is little indication that a detection limit lower
than 1 ppm could be achieved. The Agency labs are working on a
high resolution method for formaldehyde, but it is not expected
to be available until mid-1987 at the earliest. Until the Agency
has an acceptable test method for formaldehyde, I do not believe.
that analysis of the sediments would be worthwhile in Keystone's
case. It nay be necessary, however, to require Keystone to test
its ground water for formaldehyde (analysis of water is much
easier than analysis of solids) in order to show that none of
the formaldehyde has entered the aquifer.
The other constituents (e.g., pesticides, plastics, etc.)
not found on Keystone's list are not reasonably expected to be
present in the sediments since they are not used (and have not
been used, according to Keystone) in the production of fabricated
steel wire products. Testing for these constituents is, there-
fore, not necessary*
Sampling for the purposes of submitting a delisting
petition should begin as soon as possible. If you have ques-
tions concerning the chemical analysis of wastes, please con-
tact Mr. Ian Phillips (of ERCO, an Agency contractor) at (€17)
661-3111. If you have any questions concerning the petition
review process, please contact me at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely,
Scott J. Maid, B.P.
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division
-------
9433.1986(24)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
12. Variance from a Treatrent
Can a facility obtain a variance fron the treatment standard
[51 FR 40642, §268.41 and §268.42] for a particular waste stream
which cannot be treated to the level (or by a method) specified by
the treatment standard?
may be subject to a treatability variance in cases where
the treatment standard for a particular waste cannot be mat
because the waste does not fit into one of the BDAT tre^ta'oility
groups [51 FR 40605] used to set the treatment standard.
Facilities interested in obtaining a treatment variance must
submit a petition in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR 260.20 [51 FR 40642, §268.44 as amended].
-------
UNITED H^TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO
9433.1987(01
Mr. W. Frank Owen
American Environmental
Pollution Control, Inc.
Post Office Box 98
Dadeville, Alabama 36853
Dear Mr. Owen:
Thi§ is in response to your letter of September 9, 1986,
regarding a petition for a boiler variance under 40 CPU 260.32,
now pending before the Region IV EPA Administrator. We are eorry
not to have been able to respond earlier. I understand, however,
that you, with Drs. Hoeller and Whittle of the University of
Alabama, were able to meet with my staff on October 20, 1986, to
clarify your letter and to provide additional information.
Our understanding is that the installation will use a waste
heat recovery boiler to produce stean for use in drum cleaning.
The unit will maintain a thermal energy recovery efficiency of
at least 60 percent, and at least 75 percent of the steam will
actually be used for drum cleaning or for other purposes and will
not be vented.
At your meeting with my staff on October 20, 1986, you
provided further information in support of arguments that the
design of th« facility was innovative and should be considered
to be of integral design. We have since received a copy of your
submission of October 27, 1986, to Ma. Beverly Spagg of EPA
Region IV.
Our conclusion after considering the information before ue
is that the American Environmental Pollution Control combustor
design as installed for BucJcner Barrel and Drum does not meet the
definition of boiler because it .is not of integral design. We
consider it to be a two-stage combustion system with a waste heat
recovery boiler connected by insulated ducting. We do not believe
that the special nature of the insulation is sufficiently unique
to consider the boiler and combustion chamber to be of integral
design.
-------
Your letter of September 9 etated your belief that the
integral design test is arbitrary and capricious. You believe
that test regulates SB incinerators waste heat recovery combustion
eys^er.s that recover energy as efficiently as integrally designed
boilers, which are exempt iron regulation. £PA nas considered
the ciiticisir. of relying on physical criteria to differentiate
between incaneratois and boilers (see the preamble to the January 4,
1905, final rule on the definition of solid waste (50 FR 626)).
Given, however/ that significant regulatory consequences result
from the distinction, EPA believes it is important that the test
for the distinction be unambiguous and easy to apply. The physical
test of integral design meets that need.
The Region has interpreted your petition .In a manner con-
sistent with previous decisions denying variances to units with
waste heat recovery boilers. We are sending the appropriate
officials in Region IV a copy of this letter for inclusion Jn
their decision record.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: James Scarbrough, EPA Region IV
Beverly Spagg, EPA Region IV
bcc: Bob Holloway
Marc Turgeon
Art Glazer, Permits Branch (WH-563)
Sonya Stelmack
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTinw
9433.1987(03)
FEB-25193F
Harvey E. Henjum
President
IPS Investor* Setrvices, Inc.
7800 Metro Parlcway
Suite 100
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420
Dear Mr. Henjums
This lettar is in response to your October 20, 1986 letter
to Ms. Marcia Williams, in which you requested information about
discharges generated by the U.S. Nameplate Company (Maneplate)
and the possibility of ground water contamination at its facility
in Mt. Vernon, Iowa* I an sorry that our response has been so-
long in coming, "but the Agency has only recently been able to
address the isstues of concern to you*
We are aware of two types of waste management units at the
Nameplate sites a drainage field and a waste lagoon. Prior to
1979, Nameplate * s liquid wastes were treated in septic tanks and
discharged to an on-site drainage field which flowed into a nearby
creek. These acidic wastes were generated fro» Nameplate'• metal
etching operations, and wastes such as these typically contain
high concentrations of several metals.
As a result of the discharge from the drainage field,
Nameplate was proposed in October 1984 to be included in the
National Priorities List (NFL) for future clean-up under the
provision* of trie Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or "Superfund'), based on the
potential for copper, zinc* and fluoride to reach ground water.
This site remain* in proposed status until the Agency implements
its final policy for listing sites on the NPL that are still
regulated under the authority of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
After a number of citizen complaints to the State of Iowa
about the drainage field, Nameplate constructed a waste lagoon
to treat the wastes. The State subsequently determined that the
lagoon was treating hazardous waste* and requeeted Naneplate to
file a Part A pemit application for the? lagoon as • hazardous
•u.s. OS i»l!-«»7-8Jl
-------
management unit. The Part A permit application was sub-
mitted in February 1981, but the lagoon did not receive interir.
•tatus fron the State, tnd has, therefore, been operating as a
non-ptrmitted hazardous watte treatment unit. In 1982, after a
State inspection noted several deficiencies, the State of Iowa
determined that the lagoon was leaking, based on high fluoride
levels in ground water at the Nameplate site.
Naroeplate petitioned the Agency in December 1964 for an
exclusion ("delisting") to exempt its lagoon from compliance
with the federal hazardous waste program. Samples of lagoon
sludges taken by EPA Region VII personnel in July 1985 indicated
the presence of trichloroethylene (TCE) In Baseplate's sludge
at concentrations of up to 95 parts per million (ppm). TCE
was also detected, as well as barium, lead, chromium and nickel,
at elevated levels in the ground water, although the data was
insufficient to make any statistically valid determination
about the ground water contamination at Xaroeplate's facility.
Nameplate did not indicate in its petition that TCE was used
in its process* In addition, the Agency has knowledge that
highly corrosive wastes (pH < 2) were allowed »r> enter the
lagoon from 1982 through 1983, which created conditions amenable
to increased leaching of metals from the waste into the ground
water.
Based on the Agency's findings, Naroeplate's petition for
its lagoon was proposed to be denied by the Agency (51 PR 26417,
July 23, 1986) due to the unaccounted presence of TCE in the
lagoon, the preliminary indications of ground water contamination,
and the documented past management history of the lagoon. The
etching processes at Haneplate have stopped, and the lagoon is
no longer accepting hacardous waste.
In response to a request by Wameplate, Agency Headquarters
personnel visited the Nameplate site in August 1986 in order to
take 45 additional lagoon sludge samples and two ground water
samples for analysis. Nameplate had retreated the lagoon sludge
by mixing (which aerated the waste) prior to the Agency's visit
in order to reduce possible levels of volatile organic constituents
such as TCE. TCE levels in the sludge were found to be lower
than the levels previously documented by Region VII. TCE
contamination in the ground water, however, was shown to be at
levels higher than previously reported. The Agency has prepared
a notice of 'Availability which will provide an opportunity for
interested parties to review and comment upon the analytical
laboratory report on the Baseplate site. Publication of thic
notice in the Federal Register is expected to occur during the
week of February 22, 1987.
-------
This summary represents the body of information presently
available concerning Nameplate. Some additional technical
information on Nameplate'» drainage field can be obtained
from the Region*.! docket at the U.S. EPA Region VII Library,
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas, 66101. As more
information becomes available to the Agency, this information
will be made available to the public. If you have any questions
please do not hesitate to contact the Agency or EPA Region VII.
Sincerely yours.
Suzanne Rudzinski
Branch Chief
Assistance Branch
-------
9433.1987(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 87
5. Appealing a Petition Denial
A generator submitted a petition under §260.22 to amend Part 261 to
exclude a hazardous waste produced at a particular facility, but
the Agency's final decision was to deny the petition. What options
does the generator have for appealing the Agency's decision to deny
the petition?
A generator who has had his petition denied by the Agency rray
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, pursuant to §7006(a)(l) of RCRA.
The generator may also wish to petition the Agency for
reconsideration of the decision. Denial of a delisting petition
is a final Agency action, however, and a petition for
reconsideration does not extend the time to file suit in court.
Source: Steven Hirsch (202) 382-7706
Research: Joe Nixon (202) 382-3112
-4-
-------
9 433.1987( 05
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
WASHINGTON, B.C. 20460
919ST
OF
•OLIO WASTE AND fMEKOENCV RESPONSE
Mr. Omar Nuniz Diaz, P.E.
Manager - Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Caribe, Inc.
Firm Delivery
Ponce, PR 00731
Reference: Delisting Petition for Union Carbide Caribe, Inc.
(#0658)
Dear Mr. Diaz:
The Permits and State Programs Division has completed its
review of Union Carbide Caribe Inc.'s (UCCI) petition requesting
the exclusion of its aeration basins, which are located at UCCI's
Penuelas, Puerto Rico wastewater treatment facility and are
presently classified by application of the derived-from and
mixture rules as EPA Hazardous Waste Number K022 (distillation
bottom tars from the production of phenol/acetone from cumene).
Based on existing ground water contamination and results from
our evaluation of aeration basin sludge, wastewater, and soil
composition data, we will recommend to the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that your petition be denied
We believe that UCCI's aeration basins are at least partially
responsible for contamination of the ground water underlying the
wastewater treatment facility based on the detection of organic
and inorganic contaminants in nearby monitoring wells and on the
existence of a ground water mound beneath the basins. Monitoring
well data submitted in support of your petition for monitoring
wells 13B and 14B, which are immediately downgradient from the
aeration basins, exhibit silver, mercury, and lead levels above
their respective drinking water standards. Constituents found in
these wells were also found in the wastewater and sludge of the
aeration basins and in the soils below the basins. These reported
concentrations of heavy metals are above background levels and
are most likely indicators of the downgradient ground water
transport of these contaminants from the aeration basins. Other
contaminants (e.g., benzene, toluene, naphthalene, dimethyl
phenol, fluoranthene, anthracene, chrysene, dibutyl phthaiate,
barium, cadmium, chromium, and selenium) were also reported as
detected in nearby monitoring wells. With respect to monitoring
-------
-2-
wcll 15B, UCCI has claimed that the contamination of ground water
in its vicinity is a result of a leak from an underground concrete
transfer pipe for influent to the wastewater treatment system. We
believe, however, that the tracer test conducted to investigate
this claim is inconclusive. The tracer test did not demonstrate
that the leaking fluid would reach well 15B under normal conditions
(i.e., in the absence of the test's rigorous pumping conditions).
Therefore, we cannot conclude that the leaking fluid has reached
well 1SB and is solely responsible for the ground water contamina-
tion.
We believe that all units of the wastewater treatment facility
and management area, including the aeration basins, have contributed
to the ground water contamination since a ground water mound uni-
formly surrounds the complex. We cannot conclude, however, that
the area's ground water contamination is solely a direct result of
seepage from the aeration basins since constituents similar to those
found in the basins are also contained in wastes found in other
units of the wastewater treatment facility and waste management area.
Even though underlying ground water is not potable, we consider the
existence of ground water contamination to be sufficient grounds for
petition denial.
In support of delisting decisions, the Agency uses a ground
water transport model, the vertical and horizontal spread (VHS)
model, that was developed to predict the environmental impact of
toxicants leaching from wastes.£/ The Agency also has developed
an organic leachate model (OLM)~to predict the mobility of organic
toxicants from land-disposed wastes. The OLM calculates organic
leachate concentrations which nay then be used as inputs to the VHS
model. (See 50 FR 48944, November 13, 1985; 51 PR 27061, July 29,
1986; and 51 FR 41084, November 13, 1986.) The OLM and VHS models
were used to evaluate the sludge and wastewater contained in the
aeration basins, as well as the soils below the basins. This
analysis predicted that levels of certain constituents at a hypo-
thetical drinking water well will exceed regulatory standards.
£/ As a result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984,
the Agency is now required to consider all toxicants and factors
that may cause the waste to be hazardous. In addition to these
changes, the Agency has developed new tools to evaluate petitions.
The VHS. model (see 50 FR 48886-48967, November 27, 1985) is one
of those tools used by the Agency in making delisting decisions
regarding leachable toxicants contained in a land-disposed
waste. The VHS model establishes a sliding regulatory scale
that is based on the volume of waste generated and extract
data. The model predicts the concentration of each toxicant at
a hypothetical compliance point located 500 feet from the disposal
site* The Agency considers the hazards presented by the waste by
comparing the compliance point concentrations of the toxicants
predicted by the VHS model with a regulatory standard for each
toxicant.
-------
-3-
Specifically, bromomethane, trichloroethylene, and 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane levels in the sludge; benzene, fluorene, phen-
anthrene, and tetrachloroethylene levels in the waptewater; and
bromomethane, trichloroethylene, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
levels in the soils generate compliance point concentrations that
exceed health-based standards (i.e., fail the OLM/VHS model
analysis). A summary of our analysis is presented in the following
table. This table presents the maximum allowable level (MAL) for
each constituent of concern, as determined by the VHS model, that
would be allowed in the sludge, wastewater, or soil. The number of
samples that exceed this level and the number of samples analyzed
are also presented.
MAL (ppm)
No. of Samples
that Exceed MAL
No. of Samples
Analyzed
Sludget
Bromomethane
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-
ethane
0.69
0.59
0.15
1
1
1
8
8
8
Wastewater;
Benzene 0.0076
Fluorene 0.013
Phenanthrene 0.013
Tetrachloroethylene 0.004
Soil;
Bromomethane 0.69
Trichloroethylene 0.59
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro- 0.15
ethane
6
2
2
1
3
3
1
24
14
14
7
10
10
10
As a matter of policy, the Agency does not consider site-specific
factors (such as ground water salinity and hydrogeologic site
characteristics) when determining whether or not a petitioned
waste is hazardous. Instead, because waste, once delisted, can be
moved to any other site and be disposed, the Agency uses a model
(OLM/VHS) with general applicability to evaluate the potential
hazard. The model results combined with the existing ground water
contamination discussed above are the basis for the Agency's intent
to deny your petition.
-------
-4-
We conclude that the aeration basins and the materials con-
tained therein present significant hazards to both human health
and the envi rorunent. The basins should be considered hazardous
and subject, to regulation under 40 CFR Parts 262 through 265 and
the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270. Accordingly, we will
recommend to the Office Director and Assistant Administrator that a
notice proposing to deny the petition be published in the Federal
Register. Our policy is to give petitioners the option of with-
drawing their petitions instead of publishing a negative finding
in the Federal Register. If you prefer this option, you must send
us a letter withdrawing your petition and indicating that the
aeration basins are considered hazardous and will be managed as such.
If you send such a letter, it should be forwarded to this office
within 2 weeks of the date of receipt of today's correspondence.
If you choose not to withdraw your petition, a proposed denial
decision will be published in the Federal Register. If you have
any questions regarding any of the above, please contact Myles
Morse of my staff at (202) 382-4788.
Sincerely,
Susan Bromm
Acting Director, Permits
and State Programs Division
cc: J. Utz, SAIC
F. Kozak, Region II
S. Siegel, Region II
-------
y«o "^
(&'•
9433.1987(06)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
-2 138T
OFFICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Julia L. Phillips
Counsel, Environmental Division
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
Wilmington, DE 19898
Dear Ms. Phillips:
The Agency is still in the process of reviewing E.I. du Pont's
request for reconsideration of our denial decision regarding the
K103/K104 waste streams. I apologize for the delay in responding;
however as explained in your meeting with my staff on
February 19, 1987, several questions involve resolution of
cross-cutting policy issues at the Agency. Therefore, this is
only a partial response. The remaining issues, such as the
impact on future management and closure requirements, of the date
of your initial delisting and the effect of terminating input of
listed wastes into the impoundment prior to the effective date of
the denial on future management and closure requirements, will be
resolved as soon as practicable and addressed in a separate
response.
While the K103/K104 waste streams may meet the best available
technology (BAT) effluent limitations established under the Clean
Water Act, it is not within our regulatory purview or policy
directives to consider this compliance as a basis for delisting
decisions. The statutory authorities and objectives of the Clean
Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are
different and were not designed as integrated directives from
Congress. Hence, the levels of concern developed under BAT and
the VHS model have been derived differently with different
assumptions and goals.
In your letter you also point out that your treatment
methods for the K103/K104 wastes are included in the BDAT
treatment technologies identified in the November 7, 1986 land
disposal ban rule. Again, this is not considered in the delisting
process. BDAT treatment will assure that the waste can be land
disposed, but not necessarily delisted from the hazardous waste
management system.
You requested that EPA reconsider its denial decision if
E.I. *'i Pont could demonstrate that (a) the lagoon does not have
the potential to leach K103/K104 constituents into potable water,
and (b) the waste streams will never be transported to another
location for disposal where a usable aquifer might be affected.
Our current policy is not to consider site-specific factors
(such as local hydrogeology and aquifer potability) in the
-------
-2-
application of the Agency's vertical and horizontal spread
(VHS) model. Specifically, the VHS model analysis does not
take into account the potability of the aquifer beneath a
petitioner's facility, i.e., it. is limited to waste-specific
rather than site-specific evaluations. We also will not limit
our analysis to K103/K104 waste constituents. Due to both the
HSWA requirements and the mixture rule (40 CFR 261.3 (a)(2)(iii))
the waste must be evaluated for all hazardous Appendix VIII
constituents likely to be present in the mixture, regardless
of their origin. In addition, EPA has made a policy decision
not to grant exclusions which are based on the future management
conditions of a waste. Again, this is due to the fact that
delisting decisions are based on the characterization of the
waste rather than on management conditions.
E.I. du Pont.requested confirmation that if it can be
demonstrated that the K103/K104 wastes do not contribute to
lagoon sludge generation, EPA will not consider the lagoon
sludge to be hazardous. Theoretically, we believe that this
may be possible and the suggested filtration and waste mixing
experiments may show that the wastes, as currently generated,
do not add to the lagoon sludge. Practically, however, we do
not believe that this demonstration is possible. For example,
you would need to demonstrate that the wastes have historically
never contributed to the sludge. Because you have implemented
a number of process and treatment changes over the past five
years, we are skeptical that such a demonstration can be made.
If the impoundment continues to receive hazardous waste four
years after the date of promulgation of the petition denial,
HSWA §3005(j)(6) requires that the impoundment be retrofitted to
meet minimum technology requirements. Accordingly, the deadline
for installing a double liner and leachate collection system is
November 18, 1990, if the unit continues to receive hazardous
waste after that date.
We realize that several key questions regarding applicable
requirements for continued management after the effective date
have not been answered. The Agency's policy is presently
being prepared and will be forwarded to you in the near future.
If you have any questions regarding either the issues addressed
above or our progress on resolving any outstanding issues, please
call Mr. Steven Hirsch of our Office of General Counsel at (202)
382-7706.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOl 9433.1987(07)
APR ! 3 19S7
Davis
PTRA foorc
Brush V-'Mlrean Inc.
Scuth Plver Road
rirore, Ohio 43416
Drar Mr. Davis:
In vour letter of March 23, 1987, you indicated your concerns
over our decision to deny thr deUstino petition (*0573) that
Eru*h Wellroan has had on filo with the Acercy sine* October 2f,
19°*. In our denial lettc-r of Decepher 5, 19PJ>, the l»ooon
pJuda«»s (EPA Hazardous W«Ft« No. PPCC) eccumulatinq at your
Flmor<», Ohio facility w»re deftm*»(? t-o he harerdous. Thj«« rtet(»r-
TB! nation was hased larq«ly or th« evaluation of the w«pt-«?9 with
a oround water mode) (the vertical and horizontal spread1 (VPS)
) , which predicted that fh*e» elu<*g**, when land (Marosftfi,
terd to 1«ach lead Into oround waterr producino contamin-
ation at levels ahove our levels of regulatory concern. This
]e.tter suitwarizes our resrcnees to your concerns about the
decision, as were addressed in a mretina with Ken fhuster,
e, and Scott Maid, on November 17, 1986.
Your prirasrv contention wan that e*ch Impoundment
he analyred as a separate entity, and should pot he coni-ined with
thr oth«»r Jwnoundwents in the VHE analyses. Combination of
Impounded Fludnes to determine- • maxiwuiP waetc volume has bten
rprforw«*d routinely in delistinq decisions; example* of previously
published decision* which have co»hined volumes of impnunderi
w*»tfes for VHS analysis ar* qiven below. These listed
have either been granted final exclusions or have beer, proposed
by the Aooncy to he granted finaj exclusions for their waste*.
Pet Ui oner Citation Impoundments
Watervjiet Arsenal 51 PR 1253 (1/10/86) 2 dryinr
Bomber Industries 50 f£ 48930 (11/27/S5) 2 ponds"
General Flectric 50 FP 48949 (11/27/05) 4 ponds
•ti.S. 90 HI»-«*''-»»
-------
- 2 -
The rationale behind the combining of your irpounded
wastes ie that these wastes are the same (F006) waste that
have been subject to a ccrjron. treatment regime, contain common
constituents, nay possibly be disposed together, and in fact
have been impacting the underlying aquifer as a single unit.
The consideration of the combined wastes in the VHS evaluation
would, therefore, be a reasonable worst case. Ke cannot
restrict the disposal of the waste after it has been delisted.
Our position has been that if management restrictions must be
placed on a petitioned waste to ensure the proper treatment of
the waste, then the waste should be considered hazardous.
Consequently, the analysis of a waste for delisting must
necessarily take into account all viable management practices,
including simultaneous disposal of the wastes. Because of the
snail amount of F006 sludges accumulating in these three lagoons
(less than 300 tons total), our model calculations used the
naximum dilution rate of 32-fold dilution in the aquifer. No
greater dilution would occur, therefore, if each lagoon was
considered separately.
Our findings, as stated in the December 5, 1985 letter,
indicate that lead may leach from the waste and cause ground
water contamination. Although lead is not a listed constituent
of F006, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendnents of 1984 (IISWA)
require the Agency to consider additional factors (other than
those for which the waste was originally listed) to determine
the hazardous nature of a waste. The presence of leachable lead
in the impounded waste has been determined to be a significant
problem, in spite of your contention that the lead may have
entered the waste stream from a non-listed source. More recent
evaluations of the data have indicated that beryllium, another
Appendix VIII constituent, is also capable of leaching from the
waste at levels which fail the VHS evaluation. The impounded
wastes are defined as F006 sludges because a portion of these
sludges were derived from the treatment, storage, and disposal
of a listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR §261. 3(a)(2)(iv),
which states that such a combination of solid wastes and listed
hazardous wastes is defined as hazardous.
You have mentioned previously that ground water monitoring
data for the Elmore facility shows that no hazardous constituents
are migrating from the surface impoundments, and that this site-
specific data should be used in the evaluation instead of the
compliance-point concentrations predicted by the VHS model.
Ground water data is used in the course of petition evaluation,
because it is an indicator of past management practices at a
site. Ground water data which indicates contamination fron
on-site wast* management may be used as a basis for petition
denial. Ground water monitoring data does not, however, offer
a means by which we can evaluate potential future impacts of a
-------
- 3 -
disposed waste upon ground water, since such data represents
only a "snapshot" in time. Ground water data, therefore, is
useful for evaluation of past management practice but cannot
be used as a predictive tool such as the VHS model.
You requested a delisting decision for the nickel plating
rinse waters and electrocleaning/bright dip rinse waters prior
to their commingling with numerous non-listed waste streams in
the lagoon system. These two wastewaters are not eligible for
delisting. These wastewaters are not disposed wastes, but are
subsequently treated in the lagoons, where wastewater treatment
sludges accumulate. Because the accumulated sludges are listed
(F006) wastes, it is inappropriate to delist the wastewaters
prior to treatment in the lagoona. We would like to note that
even if the nickel plating rinae waters were to be examined as
the waste of concern, uaing your maximum generation rate of
36,000 gallons per month and the average cadmium concentration
in this wastewater (from the petition), the VHS model indicates
the compliance-point concentration for cadmium in the ground
water would be 0.016 ppm, which exceeds our regulatory standard-
cf 0.01 ppm.
Finally, meeting the BAT guidelines for rinsewaters under
the Clean Water Act has no bearing on the regulation of sludges
generated from the treatment of these wastewaters under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The
sludges generated from these bright dip and plating rinsewaters
are regulated as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006 under RCRA.
He re-affirm our earlier decision to deny the petition for
the impounded F006 waste* at the Elmore, Ohio facility. We
anticipate that a denial notice will be published in the Federal
Register in the near future. If you have any additional questions
or concerns, please direct them to Scott Maid at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely yours,
£_* / Signed
Suzanne Rudzinski
Branch Chief
Assistance Branch
cci file
Al Debus, Reg. V
William Muno, Reg. V
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIROMMCMTAL PROTECTI
9433.1987(08)
24 1987
Mr. William II. Leoni
President
Grand Blanc Landfill, Inc.
2277 W. Grand Blanc Road
Grand Blanc, Michigan 48439
Dear Kr« Leonii
The Permits and State Programs Division has completed
its review of your delisting petition (10631) for all 40 CPR
Part 261 listed and non-listed hazardous wastes disposed in
your landfill, located in Grand Blanc, Michigan. Based on our
evaluation of ground water monitoring data presented by the
State of Michigan, and the lack of representative data necessary
to characterise the wastes disposed in the landfill, we will
recommend to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response that your petition be denied.
Our decision to deny the petition is baaed on the fact
that significant ground water contamination has occurred at and
around the Grand Blanc Landfill (see Attachment 1). Bariur,
cadmium, lead, bia(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate,
benzene, and chloroform have been detected in the ground water
at levels above their regulatory standards (these standards are
1.0 ng/1, 0.01 mg/1, 0.05 mg/1, 0.7 mg/1, 0.6 rog/1, 0.0012 mg/1,
and 0.0005 mg/1, respectively) used by our office in petition
evaluations. The above constituents were detected, in all cases
(except cadmium), in higher concentrations at the downgradient
monitoring wells than at the upgradient monitoring wells.
We use positive Indications of ground water contamination
as a basis to deny an exclusion petition. We note that it is
the petitioner's burden to adequately demonstrate that the
petitioned waste is not the actual source of contamination.
Based on the fact that the waste disposed at the Grand Blanc
Landfill contains the same constituents detected in the
surrounding ground waters (based, on our review of the haxardous
waste manifests submitted by the petitioner), we must conclude
that the waste disposed at the Grand Blanc site has contributed
to the overall degradation of. the ground waters.
-------
- 2 -
We do rot consi^r t-he Grand Pla^c landfill petition
'-•o rornlete, and Ksv*» serious r^servat i nr.s ahout the
r, r-?r • c «> c s ."i rv in 40 CFR
nanj feets wh•ic^ r!octir?ent <:he Hazarrfa of the
hv th» landfill f«om*» of t^p listed h^zardoun w^Ktr^ r!«»mon-
'l the cbaracfprist ic of FP Toxicitry) and the results
one compos it** .«»oi3 •»ar*irl#>.
nif>d and rh«t a public noticp tf that
be puhtip^pd in th«» Fedpr^l PPQ j s»:«»r » In accordance
our nMicv. It. is our practice to allow petitioners to
b<»i r n(>t.it»ons to avoid piih.1 ic«t ion of « ronfltivo
in t.hp Federal Register. T* vou prefer that « public
not he n«jKlishPdf pl^ftpe suhnit a letter to our nfMce
cT t*-.* ret iff on and stjt.tnn that the waste will be
as ?> tiaran-'ous waste an recuired under 40 CFR Parts
2^7 t^rol^nh 2*5 and 40 rpp Part 270. Please inform u* as to
•/our Decision within two week* of recejnt of today's corres-
ropr"»nr«». Tf t^e letter of withdrawal 1 p not received by
t.Kat tire, a denial notlc** will he nuhlirhod in the Federal
Pecister.
If vou have any cuostions reqardino our d«c1sion» please
contact Pr. My1«» Morse, of mv staff, at (202) 392-47R8.
Sincerely yours,
Pruc* R.
ni rector
Permits and State Prooramn Division
cc: Howard Flnk^l , TCP
Al Dehiifl, Peq. V
V'JIHaw Huno, Peq. V
WH-5B3/HF1n*pl/?Maid/382-4783/l-30-87/S269/HF 08
revised a-8-87, 4-10-87
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
943 3 . 1987 (09)
JUN 8 !98T
Hr. Hark Grumroer, Esq.
Environmental Enforcement Section
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Subject; Keystone Consolidated Industries
Dear Mark.
We have tinished our review of the information submitted
by Keystone Consolidated Industries for its facility in Peoria,
Illinois. Based on the evaluation of EP leachate and total
constituent data tor the vastewater treatment sludges (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F006) contained in the waste management
units at this facility, we have concluded that it is extremely
unlikely that this waste could be granted an exclusion from
regulation under 4U CFR Part 261.3 or the lists ot hazardous
wastes in Subpart D of Part 261. Our evaluation indicates that
the waste has the potential to leach high levels of lead, chromium,
selenium, and several organic constituents into ground water.
Specifically, Keystone submitted EP leachate and total
constituent data for waste contained in eight locations at the
Peoria facility. A list ot waste locations and constituents of
concern are presented in Table l
I/ Our decision is based on an analysis using the vertical and
horizontal spread (VHS) model (see SO Federal Register 48886,
November 27, 1965). We use this model to predict constituent
concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical compliance
point located 500 feet downgradient from the site. The VHS
model uses the waste volume and maximum leachate concentrations
as inputs to determine the amount ot dilution that may occur
in an underlying aquifer. For Keystone, we assumed co-disposal
ot the wastes of the different areas and assumed a maximum waste
volume of at least 8,000 cubic yards. The results ot the model
(i.e., the calculated compliance-point concentrations) are
compared with the Agency's level of regulatory concern for
each constituent.
-------
Th-. sunmtted data demonstrate tMat the waste may peso a
threat to numan health and the environment according to delisting
protocol. The samples described in Table 1 were taken over a
substantial geographic area and are presumed to be representative
of the waste. The test data from these samples do not support
Keystone's contention that the sludges are non-hazardous. We are
extremely concerned about the Retention Reservoir, the tinal
resting point of the waste. In tact/ the average leachate con-
centration of lead in the reservoir Samples demonstrated the
characteristic- of EP toxicity for lead (i.e., the average of
9.67 ag/1 exceeded the EP toxicity standard ot 5 mg/1 for lead).
There has been no evidence presented to suggest that other testing
to evaluate the hazardous waste characteristics of these impounded
wastes hao been performed by Keystone at any other time. In
addition, sulfide levels in thy sludges tor six locations exceeded
our interim thrusholJ tor sulfide ot SOU ppm.^/ The submitted
data have failed to demonstrate that the sludqas at this facility
are not hazardous. In tact, every portion ot the system tailed
our analysis zor either sultides or lead. Four locations also
tailed our analysis tor organics.
in addition, based on a preliminary review of th* ground
water monitoring aata, we determined that the waste has atrectoci
the aquiter. bpecit ically, we ar-2 concerned with potential
contamination of the aquifer with halogcnated organics ana lead.
Delistinc protocol requires that facilities raanaqinc wastes
on-site have a ground water monitoring system in compliance with
40 Ct'R Part 264 or 265.3/ it is our policy to require at least
tour quarters of grouno water monitoring data betore we will
consider a o«_listing ror a waste managed in an on-sitc, waste
management unit.
2/ See internal Agency memorandum dated July 12, 1985 entitled
•Interim Thresholds tor Toxic Gas Generation" (in SPA public
docket).
I/ Additional wells would be needed tor the North Ditch, Mid Mill
Ditch, and the abandoned ditch (culvert). The petitioner
would be requested to identity which halogenatod organics
were present in the ground water and the origins of these
constituents.
-------
Tat; Ic i
Constituents or Concern tor Keystone Consolidated Industries
Waste Location
North Ditch
Mid Mill Ditch
South Ditch
(north nalt)
South Ditch
(south half)
North Dredge
Sc-cjiment j
Constituents of concern
South Dredge Sedi
ment Stockpile*/
Sulfides
Lead
Tetrachloroethylene
sulfides
1,1-Dichloroethane
suit ides
Suit ides
LeaJ
Benzo(a)antnraceno
Bonzo(a)pyrene
Benro(a ) anthracene
Suit ides
Number of
Samples (of
total) that
exceed Deliat-
ing Standard
tor the
Constituent
9 of *
1 ot 5
1 of 5
4 ot 5
2 ot 4
4 ot 4
4 ot 4
3 ot 6
1 ot 6
1 ot: 6
1 ot b
2 ot b
Surtaca Drainage
Ditch
24-Hour Retention
Reservoir
Chromium
Selenium
Chromium
Lead
Sulf Idea
3 ot 6
2 of 6
1 of b
11 of le
16 ot 18
8 of 18
We usually require that the Oily Wast* BP (OWEP) be used as
the leachate protocol for wastes that contain greater than one
percent oil and grease. Several of the stapled wastes contained
greater than one percent oil and grease. Because the OWEP
includes an organic digestion step, the leachate concentrations
are expected to be higher than EP leachate concentrations. Thus,
since even EP leachate concentrations are exceeding dalisting
standards, we believe that the EP data may be used as a basis
tor petition denial.
-------
Thus, in terms or deiisting criteria, the waste contained
in these locations is hazardous and should be treated as sucn.
If you have any questions concerning the review process/ please
contact me at (202) 3b2-4783.
Sincerely/
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permit* and State Programs Division
cc: Robert Aten/ Keystone
Andrew Running, Esq. (Kirkland & Ellis)
D. Jansen, Illinois EPA
C. Lieoman, Illinois EPA
K. Pierard, Region V
H. Radell, Region V
K. Palmer, SAIC
-------
9433.1987(10)
JUNI2I987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Filter Press
at Burham Corporation
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Chief
Solid Waste Branch
EPA Region V
I am responding to your May 5, 1987, memorandum requesting a
determination of the regulatory status of a filter press'proposed
as part of a corrective action at the Burnhan Corporation. You
asked whether this unit could be excluded from permitting as (1) a
totally enclosed treatment unit, (2) a wastewater treatment unit,
or (3) as reclamation exempt dander the definition of solid waste.
With respect to totally enclosed treatment, it is clear to
us that this exemption is not available because the treatment is
not connected to the process. EPA's position with respect to this
issue was clarified in our March 17, 1987, memorandum to James
Scarborough of Region ZV which is attached. Further, it appears
in this case that, even if direct connection to the process were
somehow achieved, the filter press, as diagrammed, could be open
to the environment and could release hazardous constituents to
the environment. Therefore, we do not believe it could be con-
sidered totally enclosed.
Your second approach appears to provide the proper basis for
exemption. OSW currently has no formal definition of wastewater.
Although Agency guidance suggested that wastewater should not
exceed more than a "few" percent constituents other than water,
this definition was never promulgated. Therefore, our current
interpretation is that any waste that is treated in a unit that
is subject to regulation under Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean
-------
Water Act and Beet* the other requirement* specified in 40 CFR
260.10 for a waatewater treatment unit is eligible for the exemp-
tion. This definition does not require a permit under the Clean
Water Act, only that it be eubject to regulation under Section 402
or 307(b) should a discharge occur. The attached letter from
John Lehman to Richard Boynton of EPA's Region I explain* our
interpretation in greater detail.
Finally, we do not agree with the third possible excaption,
which was suggested by the company. The exemption from the
definition of solid waste for reclamation requires that the water
be returned to the manufacturing process. As explained in the
attached memorandum on totally enclosed treatment, the emission
control device is considered a treatment unit, not the manufac-
turing process. Therefore, the water is recycled back to another
treatment unit, not back to the process. As a result, this
recycle would not qualify as reclamation under the definition
of solid waste.
Any questions regarding these interpretations should be
referred to James Berlow, Chief of the Treatment Technology
Section, on FTS 382-7917.
Attachments
-------
m IT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Total Enclosed Treatment and the Steel Industry
FROM* Karcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Wast*
TOi James H. Scarbrough
Chief, Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
I have reviewed your memorandum of February 4, 1987, regarding
our guidance to RMT, Inc., advising that its baghouse dust treat-
ment system does not meet the requirement of a totally enclosed
treatment system. It is unfortunate that Region IV apparently has
reviewed a similar facility in Alabama and reached the opposite
conclusion. Although I understand your reasoning in that decision,
I cannot concur with it. I believe this interpretation would
unnecessarily broaden the exemption and create new problems in
the definition of what constitutes a treatment unit.
The concept of a totally enclosed treatment unit in 40 CFR
(260.10 was designed to prevent the need for a permit for treatment
that occurred in pipes exiting a process unit. As a result, this
definition made clear that the treatment units must be connected
directly to an industrial production process. By not adhering
strictly to this principle, your interpretation would broaden
the universe of exempt units beyond what was intended for this
exemption.
As you note in your memo, the baghouse is not part of the
production process. Therefore, as stated in ray December 22, 1986,
letter to RMT, the dust fixation system cannot be considered
directly connected to the process because the baghouse is open to
the environment. Although listed waste is not generated until the
?rr.ission control dust is collected in the bayhouse hopper, this
-oes not change the fact that there is an opening between the
production unit and the fixation system. I recognize that this
-------
means that any treatment provided downstream of a baghouee cannot
be totally encloeed treatment. To find otherwise, however, would
require us to find that the baghouee is a process unit. I think
this would hopelessly confuse the definition of treatment units
and process units and complicate enforcement by introducing how
a unit is used into the definition.
Therefore, I believe that despite its possible environmental
advantages, this unit should not be exempted from permitting as a
totally enclosed treatment unit. Based on your extensive involve-
ment in the design and constraction of this system* I expect per-
mitting will not create an unreasonable barrier to the use of the
closed fixation technology on baghouse duets. Expedited permit
review would seem appropriate.
I also would note that treatment in 90-day accumulation
unit* is currently exempt fro* permitting* Management within 90
days could make this issue moot for the Alabama facility at this
time.
-------
9433.1987(14)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20440
JUL 20 1987
SOUlO WASTE AND
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Enforcement of Applicable RCRA Regulations at Facilities
with Pending Delisting Petitions
FROM:
TO:
Gene A. Lucero, Directoi
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I, IV, V, VII, & VIII
Air & Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Hazardous waste Management Division Director
Region III, VI & X
Toxics & Waste Management Division Director
Region IX
The purpose of this memorandum is to restate Agency
policy regarding the enforcement of applicable RCRA
regulations~~at hazardous waste handlers that have pending
delisting petition*. It has come to our attention that some
Regions and State* nay be allowing non-compliance with some
or all of the) RCRA Subtitle C requirements pending a decision
on active delisting petitions, we are reaffirming here that
these wastes remain hazardous wastes and that they, and the
units in which they are managed, are subject to all applicable
RCRA regulations, including financial responsibility, groundwater
monitoring and closure requirements, until the delisting is
officially granted. In addition, facilities are still subject
to the 1988 and 1989 statutory deadlines for permit issuance.
-------
-2-
Sections 260.20 and 260.22 establish a petition process
which allow* « facility to demonstrate that its waste", although
captured by the broad listings of Section 261 Subpart D,
does not meet any criteria under which the waste was listed,
including the presence of additional constituents. Decisions
on waste delisting have always'been based on a chemical
characterization of the waste itself and of the processes
generating that waste, not on facility design/ management
practices or site conditions. Therefore, until a final
decision is made to grant the petition, the waste is hazardous
and the facility remains subject to enforcement of all applicable
regulations (including compliance with Subpart F groundwater
monitoring requirements). Facilities that are not in compliance
with RCRA regulations are subject to enforcement action.1
Concommitantly, facilities (excluding those with temporary
or informal exclusions) that had pending delisting petitions
on November 8, 1985, were subject to the Loss of interim
Status (LOIS) provision of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Facilities that failed to-validly
certify compliance with Subparts F and H and submit a Part B
application for an operating permit on or before November 8,
1985 were required to cease operating their hazardous waste
land disposal units and submit a closure plan for those units
by November 23, 1985. Facilities with pending delisting
petitions that failed to retain interim status and continued
to operate after November 8, 1985, and/or failed to submit the
required closure plan are subject to enforcement actions
under Section 3008 of RCRA.
Facilities whose only waste was subject to a temporary or
informal exclusion were not required to meet Part 265
standards during the effective time of the exclusion.
However, all temporary and informal exclusions that had
not previously been acted on expired by statute on 11/3/86
(Section 3001(f)(2) (8)) . Facilities that had either a
temporary or informal exclusion were in one of four
categories on 11/8/86: (1) the final delisting was granted
and that wast* is no longer subject to regulation under
RCRA; (2) the petition was denied when, after repeated
request*' from the Agency, the facility failed to provide
additional information for the petition; these facilities
had to -be in compliance with Part 265 regulations immediately;
(3) the completed petition was denied based on the merits
of the petition (i.e., the waste was determined to be
hazardous); these facilities had six months from the date
of publication of the 'denial in the Federal Register to
come into compliance with Part 265 standards; or (4) the
exclusion expired by statute; these facilities petitions
moved back into the standard delisting process and the
facilities were immediately subject to all applicable RCRA
requirements.
-------
-3-
Attachment 1 is a Hating of all pending delisting
petitions, broken down by Region. Please assure that these
facilities are in full compliance'with all applicable RCRA
regulations. If you have any questions regarding the iteration
of this policy, please call Steve Heare at 382-2207.
cc: Elaine Stanley
Bruce Weddle
RCRA Branch Chiefs,
Regions I - x
-------
9433 . 198 7(15)
-u CENTAL PROTECTIO
JUL 2 8 •:;
Mr. Otnar Muniz-Diaz, P.E.
Manager-Safety, Health and
Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Caribe Incorporated
Pqnce, Puerto Rico 00731
Dear Mr. Muniz-Dias:
Ue have received your June 24, 19R7 letter askine the Aeency
to place Union Carbide Caribe 's delisting petition on hold until
it can provide additional data to the Agency. As a matter of
policy, we do not allow delisting petitions to remain inactive
or on "hold". Union Carbide Caribe nay withdraw the petition
and resubrait a new petition at such time as it can supply the
additional data. Our March 19, 19«7 letter- to you, indicated
the reasons we believe your petition should be denied and stated
that we would publish our decision to deny the petition in the
Federal Register unless we received a written notice of Union
Carbide Caribe 's intent to withdraw the petition. We will allow
you two additional weeks to withdraw the petition if you so
choose before we proceed with our decision to deny.
If you have any questions regarding the above decision,
please contact Mr. Myles Morse of my staff at (202) 382-478«.
Sincerely,
. O
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIR
'TEC
9433. 19C7(16
JUL 3
198T
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Status of Hollotnan Air Force Base Delisting Action
FROM!
TO I
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Wastes (WH-562)
Allyn H. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
Region VI
In your aemorandura of June 6r 1987, you inquired about the
status of the Holloman Air Force Base (HAFB) petition to delist the
waste contained in seven impoundments and two lakes. Sgecifically,
you requested the status of policy issues that have been raised
during the review of HAFB's preliminary characterization of the
wastes. You were primarily concerned with the amount of sampling
that would be required by the Delisting Program for proper
characterization of the waste* In response to your memorandum,
my staff has completed a chronology of meetings between HAFB and
EPA representatives and outlined the progress that has been Trade
concerning the major outstanding issues that were discussed at
these meetings*
EPA and Air Force representatives have Bet three tines to
discuss delisting options and issues for their treatment train
system. The impoundment train, which was established to treat
the base's domestic sewage, also received hazardous wastes.
Therefore, under the "mixture rule" (40 CPR 261.3(b)(2)J, the
waste contained in the seven impoundments. Lake Holloman, and
Lake Stinky is considered to be hazardous*
At the first meeting on August 29, 1986, Air Force officials
submitted background information and preliminary sampling data.
EPA and Air Force representatives met again in November 1986 to
discuss the results of the EPA evaluation of the information
that was submitted at the August meeting. The meeting focused
on the additional data that would be needed to complete the
delisting petition. Three major issues were discussed at this
meetings sampling requirements; analytical requirements; and
ground water monitoring needs*
-------
bamolingi
Air Force official* were informed that to properly
characterize the waste and evaluate its uniformity and
variability, delisting policy would require the collection
and analysis of over 1600 composite samples (439 of impound-
ment sludge, 439 of impoundment liouiti, 723 of lake
water and •oils)*
In addition, they were informed that, generally, any delisting
decision is based on the maximum detected concentrations of
hazardous constituents for which the waste is analyzed.
However, a mean concentration value may b* used if a sufficient
number of samples is collected, but this approach would greatly
increase the number of samples required for characterization.
Analytical*
Air Force officials were informed that they would have to
analyze each composite for all Appendix VIII constituents
in order to fully characterize the waste as required under
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. Petit-
ioners can deviate froa this requirement only if they can
demonstrate through historical records and/or raw material
input information that certain Appendix VIII constituents
cannot be present in the waste* Air Force officials were
concerned that their records could not support such a
deviation from the requirements.
Groundwatert
Air Force officials were informed that a complete delisting
petition should include four quarters of groundwater
monitoring data front a system that had been inspected and
approved by EPA Region VI authorities.
The meeting concluded with the understanding that Air Force
officials would evaluate this information and decide whether to
pursue a delisting.
The third meeting between EPA and Air Force representatives
on February 6, 1987 focused on Air Force requests for possible
allowances to delisting sampling and analytical requirements due
to the large volume of waste involved* EPA was not encouraging
but agreed to reevaluate the issue.
We understand that in June, based on telephone communications
with delisting staff. Kill Focbt (formerly of Region VI) .
informed Air Force officials that the EPA was still evaluating
the reicaininq outstanding issues regarding delistinq a portion
of the treatment train, removal of hot spots, and more lenient
sampling and testing requirements. In addition, it is our under-
standing that Ho11onan officials will delay submitting a formal
petition pending resolution of these issues.
-------
.r,e ^resent status of each of these issues follows t
^listing Portions of Treatment Trains
At the February meeting, Air Force officials were informed
that only the entire treatment train, not portions of it,
could be subject to delisting. The Air Force believes
that contamination of one impoundment in a treatment train
does not imply contamination of all impoundments in that
train. Thus, even though two of the impoundments are
showing PCB contamination, they believe that the remaining
five impoundments and two lakes should be delisted if they
meet all of the Agency's delisting criteria*
We are reevaluating this issue and have not yet reached a
resolution* We will inform you of our decision as soon as
possible.
Hot Spot Removal
A final decision has not yet been reached concerning the
Air Force's request to remove "hot spots" from the two
contaminated impoundments and eliminate from consideration
the failing samples that were collected from this area.
Hoi Ionian officials believe that if these samples are not
considered, that all seven impoundments will meet delisting
Standards.
Analytical
EPA has reevaluated the Air Force's request to reduce the
number of samples to be taken for analysis and agrees that
the large size of the impoundments and lakes in question
warrants a departure from standard procedure. A statistically
valid characterization of these impoundment wastes may be
achieved with a fewer number of samples. We are developing
guidelines for a sampling approach that would be appropriate
for the Uollonan situation and hope to reduce the number of
samples required.
EPA will continue to require a full Appendix VIII analysis
of all samples since a complete history of the chemicals
disposed in the area is not available. As noted previously,
this complete analysis will be required to ensure that all
hazardous constituents that have been disposed in the
impoundments are properly characterized. The background
information and preliminary sampling data illustrate several
inconsistencies in the Air Force's disposal records i for
example, there is no .mention of transformer oil disposal in
the impoundments, however, the waste is contaminated with
pCBs and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, two constituents commonly
found in transformer oils.
-------
le understand that our decisions on the Holloaan situation
may potentially affect your negotiations with Hollornn. However,
we i.mst proceed carefully to ensure that our delistinq decision
considers all pertinent factors and maximizes protection of the
environment. v,/e hope to resolve these issues soon and will keep
you informed of our proaress.
(2U2)
If you have any questions, please contact Suzanne Rudzlnski,
3*2-4206, of my staff.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO
9433 . 198 7(18)
AUG T I98T
hr. B. A. St«inet-
Manager, Environmental Engineering
Arnco Incorporated
P.O. Box 600
Middletown, Ohio 45043
Mr. Steineri
In your letter of May 18, 1987, you raised several questions
concerning Delisting policy as it relates to waste treatment units
operated at your Sutler, PA facility. The issues you raise are
concerned with managing the number 5 surface impoundment wastes
as hazardous. However, your delisting petition 10613 applies
only to the Chrome Reduction Pond (CRP). Your petition raises
two concerns! the effect the CRP has had on the underlying aquifer
and the adequacy of your ground water monitoring system.* Before
we consider the issues raised in you May 18, 1987 letter, we must
resolve the concerns raised by your petition.
The data submitted to date on the CRP's impact on ground
water are mixed but indicate that the CRP has potentially leached
metals (including chromium and cadmium, two metals for which
the CRP waste, K061, is listed). Some of the 1985 data indicates
contamination above the National Primary Drinking Water Standards
(NPDWS) for some metals. The 1986 data which was filtered prior
to analysis indicate metal concentrations at downgradient wells
at the drinking water standards. We believe that if the samples
had remained unflltered as per EPA's recommended procedures, that
these levels may have exceeded the standard.
The specific information you submitted that leads us to believe
the CRP sludge has adversely affected the underlying ground water
aquifer is summarized below. Metal concentrations and ground
water indicator parameters for monitoring data are of particular
concern.
-------
o The second, third *nJ fourth quarters of the 1985
ground water monitoring results indicate that the
chromium concentrations exceeded the regulatory standard
for both the downgradient (MW-8&9) and the upgradient
(MW-10) wells.
o Our information indicates that the 1985 ground water
samples were collected improperly. Specifically, the
wells were not purged prior to sampling. As a result,
the samples may reflect constituent concentrations that
are either higher, lower, or the same as the concentrations
of the constituents in the aquifer. These samples are,
therefore, not necessarily representative of ground
water quality.
o The 1986 samples were filtered at the time of collection.
This is an inappropriate method under RCRA guidelines;
samples should be split when filtering is used with both
filtered and unfiltered analyses submitted for evaluation.£/
Since filtering tends to decrease the concentration of
metal constituents2/ contained in the sample, filtered
samples will contaTn lower concentrations of metals than
the leachate as it exists under the CRP. Thus, the
concentrations presented for the 1986 filtered .sampling
are expected to be lover than the actual concentrations
of these constituents in the ground water as it exists
under the CRP. If the ground water contains levels of
constituents that exceed regulatory standards we are
unlikely to delist the waste in the CRP.
As a result, your reported 1986 ground water monitoring
data raise several concerns about selenium, lead, and
cadmium. No analyses for these constituents were conducted
in 1985. First, a sample from the downgradient well MW-8
on November 17, 1986 contained selenium at a concentration
of 0.013 mg/L which exceeded the regulatory standard.
Second, lead detection limits are reported as <0.10 mg/L.
This value is twice the regulatory standard for lead.
Therefore, your detection limit needs to be decreased
below the standard (0.05 mg/1). Third, .cadmium concen-
trations for the January 31, 1986 sampling round were
reported as 0.01 mg/L. This value is equivalent to
the regulatory standard for cadmium, however the actual
unfiltered concentration may have exceeded the standard.
] See "RCRA Ground-Water" Monitoring Technical Enforcement
Guidance Document", Section 4.3, page 114.
£/ Approved analytical procedures for metals require that the
total metals concentration be determined. These procedures
discourage filtration. See "Methods of Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes," EPA-600/4-79-020.
-------
o 3oth 1985 and 1986 data demonstrate that the CRP has
increased the concentration of chlorides, fluorides,
sulfates, manganese, sodium, and nitrates in downgradient
wells as compared to the upgradient well MW-10. All three
quarters of the 1985 data also demonstrate an increase in
pH for all downgradient wells. These indicator parameters
support the previously mentioned metal findings, in that
they identify the CRT's impact on the aquifer.
In addition to the problems outlined above with your ground
water analyses, we believe that your ground water monitoring
system is inadequate. Specifically, we have evaluated well
placement and construction and have concluded that your monitoring
system cannot properly characterize the extent of contamination
that may have been caused by the CRP. Our specific concerns are
summarized below:
o Well HW-11 (brought into service after the 1985 sampling)
is not a valid downgradient well because it does not
intercept ground water that flows through the CRP. Based
on the map of the CRP which includes water levels, well
MW-11 is laterally offset from the CRP (and thus is
neither upgradient nor downgradient of the CRP).
o As reported by our Regional office, the wells for this
unit may be monitoring more than one aquifer or are not
screened at consistent depths within a single aquifer.
Their information leads us to believe that: the shallow
aquifer is not monitored by an upgradient well; the
system lacks enough wells to monitor the ground water in
each aquifer; and that the upgradient and downgradient
wells are not screened at appropriate depths. Construction
diagrams of wells MW-8 and 11 demonstrate that these
wells nay be inadequate.
The inadequacies of the monitoring system, sampling, and
testing make definitive characterization of ground water quality
difficult and the proposal of an exclusion impossible. It is our
policy not to exclude any waste until it has been properly charac-
terized and that the characterization demonstrates that the waste
poses no past or present threat to the environment. In your
case, existing data indicates that ground water contamination may
exist. Accordingly, we plan to deny your petition. If you choose
to refute, this conclusion, additional^/ data from a compliant
ground water monitoring system would be necessary for proper
characterization.
£ You need at least four quarters of data that include, but
are not limited to, testing for all metals expected to be in
the waste.
-------
T>it CTU- ray >.e.v« cor.tAuirieteo
the orouni water. Ir addition, the data were 'jene rated CCOK the
M;alysi» cf »an;.l«s th*t were- xt;.To>cr iy collccttJ (un^urycc!
wplls in 1905 and filtered tanples in 1DEG) fror. an inadequate
cyst a:- (too fev Jovn^ra.liout wells). T7t«re'or«« t'^e i.;.lorr-»tior.
su^^itted cannot «upiX3rt any other cor.cluiion but denial of your
petition iru": deferral of the concern* rai»«d in your Hay lo, 1V37
letter.
;»cccr.Urr:lyr we will reco4_a.end to t!i« Assistant Ajr.iniatri»tcr
that a denial notice be ru^li«***d in th« Feoral Pec Jeter for
your petition tc exclude the CKP sluices. Jf you^r.cier, you r.ay
aubrit & letter withdrawing your petition to avoid the publication
of .a r«?c6tiv* finc'.ir.r'. Vou will 'nave two weeks fror the uatfc cf.
receipt of thi* letter to withdraw your petitioo.
you have installed tn appropriate grcuni water f?onitcrii*>j
• yster ( & . ? . , in*pected and
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOh 9433.1987(20)
3 667
C.tf. Spalaris
Technical Director
Quadrex Recycle Center
10° riint Road
Oak Pidfe, TN 37030-7033
Deer IT. Cnaleris:
T have received your letter requesting a definition o*' th?
naxiiaum concentration limit for freon (trichloro trifluoroethrns)
in still bottoms thrt would be non-hazardous. I nave performed r.
calculation ucin? the Organic Leaching Model (OIK) and the Vert
and Horizontal Spread (VHS) model in order to reach a general
conclusion about the relative hazard posed by the iliepeep.l o'r' a.
- containing still bottom in a landfill.
The regulatory standard for 1 , 1 t2-trichlcro-1 ,2,?tri-n.uorc-f rhp.
that is in current use for delistin,-? p\3rposes is 1C5C mc/1 (ir
water), a relatively hi^h value that suggests a low toricity tc
huaan?. Eased on a rou*~h suproxination of waste volume, f'r .
tforae gave you a cut off of 6000 ra^/1. This was likely basei on
a reaoona^le worst-case where there may be a lar^e orount of
w&ste. In T.hln instance , the V?!£ moiel would assitrn a dilutior
of only «.? times to tne wastf leftcuete, allowing fc concentrst'or
o:' about 6,600 mg/1 in the still hottoir leachate. J^y keepine; the
toto.l content of 1 , 1 , 2-trioh3oro-1 ,2,2,-trif2uoroethan° in
the ?ctue.l waate helow 6.600 ppn (i.e.. 6000 ppm) any fotentip.!
] each In/: prctlrm would be circxuavenTTT.
Since you generate a small volume of waste (<475 tons/yr.),
th*1 VHS model would aaflign a dilution factor of about. 32.3 to yo^r
was^e, which means that your still bottom leachate could contain
almost 34, 000 »g/l of 1 , 1 ,2-trichloro1 ,2,2-trlfluoroethane and
still pass the VKC evaluation. Because 1 ,1 ,2-triehloro1 ,?,2-
trifluoroethane is only slightly solubl» in water (170 m.<:/l),
the total content of this compound in the etlll bottoms
could approach 100^ and fltill pass the Agency's evaluation
-------
t9t"f ir ainf. tnar otner cnjorlrmte* riuoroearbone «ay
significantly different Bolubilitiee and/or tOTlcltiea,
which could lead to different model reeulte for those compounds.
Since TOU mentioned your concern for continued eoapliarc*
with limits on landfillei vaetea, I have forwarded a copy of your
letter (and «y rear>on«e) to Steve Well, Chief of Z?A*8 Ian£
Diapoa&l Peatrictlone Branch, for bis office to answer separately.
They may be atle to identify any potential probrevs with the land
disposal of your freon still bottoas In conjunction with the
Agency's on-foing prograa of land disposal restrictions.
I hope this has addressed your concerns. If you have farther
questions, flease call a« at (202) 382-478J.
Sincerely,
/S/
Scott J. Raid
Variances Section (VE-5f5)
cc: Pteve Weil
-------
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROMCTJON AGENCY
9433.1987(21}
Mr. John P. Gay
Manager-Environmental Engineer
Aahlp.nd Petroleum Company ccp ?
Division of Ashlar.d Oil, Incorporated ocr *
P.O. Box 391
Ashland, Kentucky 41114
Dear Mr. Gay:
The Permits and State Programs Division has completed a
preliminary review of your petition (#0700), submitted on July
7, 19C7, which requested the exclusion of EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. K048 through K052 generated at Ashland's Kentucky facility.
Eased or our preliminary evaluation of your petition we will
recommend to the Administrator for Dolid Waste end i^ergency
Response that the petition be denied for the reasons discussed
telow.
We now require all petitioners who employ on-site land-baaed
management of petitioned waste(s) tc submit four quarters of
ground-water monitoring data collected from a monitoring system
;,ud^*ed to be adequate by the Regional EPA office or authorised
State (1.e., the system must comply with all of the 4C CFR §265
Subpart Y requirements). We note that your petition did net
contain any monitoring data characterizing the ground water et
the sedimentation basin, and therefore, your petition is incotnpletc
Submission of ground-water monitoring data which show no existing
contamination is not, in itself, sufficient grounds for the
exclusion of petitioned wastes. The Agency also evaluatec the
anelytiCRl data for the petitioned wastes to evaluate tiieir
potential to contpainate ground water.
Despite the fact that your petition is not complete,
the analytical data submitted for the sedimentation solids
is statistically sufficient to characterize the petitioned
wastes, and therefore, a preliminary evaluation of these data
was conducted. Eased on our evaluation of the EP leachate
data for lead and total constituent data for benzo(a)anthraccne
presented In your petition, your wsstes have the potential to
contaminate ground water at levels which exceed the regulatory
standards for these constituents. Our evaluation is based on
results computed by using the vertical and horizontal spread
(VKS) model (see 50 Federal Register 48886, November 27, 1985).
Ve use this model to predict constituent concentrations in the
ground water at the compliance point located 500 feet downaradier.t
-------
i roc tne disposal aitfl. me »ni/ BOQCI uses cne maximum annuaj
waste generation rat« to determine the amount of dilution that
•ay occur in an underlying aquifer. The results of the node!
are compared with the Agency's level of regulatory concern for
that particular constituent.
Ve also use, ic conjunction with the VES model, an organic
leachate model (OIK) that vas developed to predict the mobility
of organic toxicants from land-disj>oeed wastes (see 51 federal
Register 41084, November 13, 1986). The OLR generates leachAt«
values for each organic constituent which are used as inpute to
the VMS model. The calculated eomplianee-polr.t concentrations
are then compared with the Agency's regulatory standards for
each constituent. Tor lead and b«n*o(a.)anthracene we have
established the levels of regulatory concern as 0.05 •£/! s>nd
1.0x10*5 •£/!, respectively. Data presented in the petition
for the sedimentation basin solids reported a maximum Z? leachate
value for benio(a)anthraoene as 1.6 mg/kg. Deing these values
for our preliminary evaluation, the OLK/YHS model predicted a
mejcicuc lead and benic(«)anthracene concentration of O.C75 eg/1
and 5.98x10*5 mg/1, respectively, in the ground water at the
dovr^radlent compliance point. Two of the four 2P leachate
values for lead and two of the four total constituent values for
benso(«.)anthrac*ne valuee generate compliance-point concentratione
that exceed the Agency's ntandards. These faili&e values were .
derived from a sarrling scheae that involved cocroslting, thereby
Dilovinf the averaging of five separate saaples l;cr section) of
which» one or more may have exceeded the reported average values.
In order to prevent double avera^lnp, aft performed by your con-
tractors in their VHG model evaluation, ve do not allow the
averaging of coopoeite saeplce.
Bteed on our preliainary evaluation of your petition, we have
concluded that (1) your petition is not complete due to the lict 3
of four quarters of ground-water nonitorlng data, and (2) based on 5?
the analytical data subaitted as part of your petition, the wastes 5
could present a significant hazard to both human health and the ,_
«r.vironoent. Ve believe that the waste^should therefore be con- g,
sidercd hatardous, and subject to regulation under 40 CF2 Parts 8
262 through 26B and the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270. _
Ve will therefore recommend to the Assistant Administrator tt?.t a ""^
denial notice be published in the Federal Register.
It It our practice to Civ* petitioners the option of with-
drawing their petitions to avoid a negative publication in the
Federal Register when our preliminary evaluation determines
that the vmmtes will be denied exclusion. If you prefer this
option, yon nat mead ua a letter withdrawing your petition
and indicating that the vmetes are considered hazardous mad
will be managed as much. If you send euoh a letter, it should
be forwarded to this office vithlo two weeks of the date of
receipt of today's correspondence. If you choose not to
withdraw your petition, a denial decision will be published in
the Federal Register.
-------
If you have any questions regarding our preliminary findings,
please contact Kr. Syl«s Mor»e of ny staff at (202) 382-4785.
Sincerely,
Broce B. ¥«ddle. Director
Ptrmita an3 State Prograas Civiaion ^
I
ce: Tricia Herbert, Region 17
f
\>
I
B
s
£
o
-------
uNiTcD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!
9433.1987 (22)
OCT 2 1S3T
Mr. Richard Davis
RCRA Coordinator
Brush Wellman, Inc.
South River Road
Elmore, Ohio 43416
Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter is to inform you that the Permits and State
Programs Division (PSPD) has re-evaluated its earlier decision
regarding Brush Wellman's exclusion petition (#0573) submitted
October 25, 1984. Based on our original policy of considering
on-site management units as a single waste volume for purposes
of delisting, we had indicated to you (in correspondence dated
December 5, 1985) that our office would recommend a denial
decision to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Recent delisting policy changes, however,
now would allow for exclusion of separate waste treatment units
at a multi-unit facility.
Based on preliminary data in the petition, we are now
considering an exclusion for Lagoon #6 only. Based on the high
level of clay in the Lagoon #6 samples, however, we believe that
more sampling data from this lagoon are needed before a final
decision can be made. As stated in earlier correspondence, we
will recommend to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response that your petition to exclude wastes from
Lagoon #3 and the Triangular Lagoon be denied. You may wish
to withdraw your petition for these two Lagoons rather than have a
negative decision published in the Federal Register. If you choose
to do so, please advise us in writing within two weeks of
receipt of this letter.
As noted in Table 4 of Brush Wellman1s revised petition,
which was submitted on June 14, 1985, visual inspection of the
Lagoon #6 samples indicated the absence of sludge material;
samples appeared to be 100£ clay. Thus, these samples may not
be representative of the waste because of the dilution by the
clay substrata. We suggest that the samples be collected in a
horizontal plane, so that contamination and dilution by clay
are minimized. This will necessitate the use of a grab-sampling
device, e. g., "clam-shell" type sampler, to collect sludge
samples.Tne sample locations should be determined in the
random fashion used in your original petition. As described
in our previously published guidance document, Petitions to
Delist Hazardous Wastes—A Guidance Manual (EPA/530-SW-85-003,
-------
Ar. -1 193C), on» samp3e per each 10,000 square foot Increment,
or a total of tweoty-*ir samples, should be analysed for total
oil and grease, cyanides, and for total and if leacnable concen-
tratlona of the EP toxic metals, plus nickel and bervlliua.
In thin ease, the ?3PD Is willing to utlllte a "tiered* approach
to the BP analyses, whtreby the total metal concentration?
vlll flrat be evaluated to determine whether enough of each
•etal !• prevent in each eludgw sample to warrant further
analysis vlth the 2P teat. ?h» threshold value for araenlc,
lead, ehroalua, and silver is 3? mg/k£f for cadmium and seleniux,
(.4 ag/kg; for barloa, 640 *e/*ti for sjerowry, 1.28 «f/kg; for
Iterjllivvr 126 Ag/kg; for nickel, 224 ttf/kg. Sa*plet oontainln^
•ore thaa these sjiovnts of »etais fmst •« tested with the 5?
test (or toe Oily Waate I?, if «fts>l oil an< grease ia feond
to exceed oae percent).
Once this Information has been received, the eraluation
of the Lagoon 16 portion of your petition may proceed* After
review of these data, we will evaluate the analyses u«in£ tt-e
•axlmuc ralue obtained for each constituent, in accordance
our policy.
Ve voul4 also litre to Inform you of a related policy
change made by our office. In the past, when we requested
information from netitionere there would often be a eigniflcnnt
period of tlaa elapsed before the information would be presented
to the A*ency> Tbia delay h*B, in turn, contributed to delays
in petition reviews. In order to solve this recurring problem,
our office has instituted a six-month deadline for the sutclsrion
of requested information. Vhen requested information is not received
in thin time f raise, the petition will be dismissed for lack o'
inforzntior and the petition file will b* close*. Specific
iteam of information will only b« requested once. A petitioner mey
repetition the Agency with complete inforaation but it will ts
bandied a» a new petition in chronological order of receipt.
In Frush tfellaan'a ease, the additional waste analyses fron
Lagoon H6 should be submitted no later than April 1, 19&?.
Should the data not be submitted by that date, your petition
will be dismissed* Ve would provide written notification to
you at that time in the event of petition dismissal.
Should yon nave any questions or resulre any additional
Information, please oontaet Scott Maid, of my staff, at (202)
382*4783.
Sincerely,
Rudtinakl, Chief
Asnlstance Branch
cc: Allen Debue, EPA Region V
£111 Kuno, EPA Kefloo ?
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI
9433.1987(23)
OCT 5S87
Us. Nancy Stein
Radian Corporation
8501 rio-Pac Blvd.
P.O. Box 99^8
Austin, Texas 78766-0948
Dear Ms. Stein:
This letter Is In response to your August 14, 1987
Inquiry regarding the regulatory status of Thernex Energy
Corporation's surface impoundments located at their Brooksvllle,
PL; McCleansvllle, NC; and Casper, WY facilities. In that
letter you requested an interpretation of the regulatory status
of the surface Impoundments at these facilities which contain
K044 wastes that had been temporarily excluded. This response
addresses only the regulatory status of these units under the
Federal hazardous waste management system but does not address
whether the units have net the closure requirements of 40 CPR
Part 265.
Based on the Information provided by Thernex and reiterated
In your letter, the subject surface impoundments, which contain
wastes that were generated prior to and during the tine that the
temporary exclusion was in effect, stopped receiving these wastes
while the temporary exclusion was still in effect. Since the
impoundments at all three facilities stopped receiving wastes
prior to the effective date of the final denial decision, whlc.h
was November 8, 1986 (see 51 PR 25887, July 17,1986), the surface
impoundments at these facilities are not subject to hazardous
waste regulation other than would typically apply to solid waste
management units. The wastes in these units, however, are now
considered hazardous and must be handled in accordance with
Subtitle C requirements if the^ are ever managed in such a way
as to trigger Subtitle C regulation (I.e., they are removed,
excavated, shipped off-site, mixed with other wastes, or receive
further on-site treatment).
The States of North Carolina and Florida are authorized by
EPA to administer and enforce hazardous waste management programs
pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6926. The closure
requirements of Thermex'a Impoundments at the facilities in these
states, therefore, should be determined by the appropriate State
authorities. The State of Wyoming, however, Is not authorized
under the aforementioned statute and therefore, the disposal unit
at Thermex's Wyoming facility should comply with the applicable
Federal hazardous waste closure requirements of 40 CFR Part 265.
«,.$. CTO
-------
I hop* that this explanation has addressed your concerns
the, regulatory status of Therwei's petitioned wastes
and the osr*ite units in which they are contained. Should you
have any further Question*, please feel free to contact
-------
STAff* ENVIRON/MENTAL PROTf CT
9433.19C7(25)
OCT 26 1987
Kr. John Ramsey
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Hazardous Vaete Section
Forbes Field, Building 730
Topeka, Kansas 66620
Pear Mr. Ramsey:
In your telephone conversation on October 13, 1987 with
Kr. Scott Maid o* my staff, you requested a statement from our
office regarding the models used to evaluate wastes in surface
impoundments and how they differ from those used to evaluate
landfilled wastes. We are glad to comply with your request.
As you are aware, our office developed the Vertical and
Horizontal Spread (YHS) model based on a landfill scenario.
The site characteristics at the hypothetical site were fixed
at reasonable worst-case levels, which allovs the modrl to
operate using just two variables, leachate constituent concen-
tration and waste volume. Potential ground water impacts are
evaluated at a hypothetical drinking water well, called the
compliance-point, located 500 feet from the disposal site.
We have, as a matter of policy, used the YHS model as It
presently exists to evaluate wastes in surface Impoundments.
We have indicated in numerous Federal Register notices that
the VHS model was used in those instances where surface
impoundments were evaluated and that this use of the model
was justified in the evaluation process. We believe the YHS
model IB sufficiently conservative to provide a reasonable
degree of protection to human health and the environment
when used to evaluate Impounded wastes. For example, the VES
landfill model assumes no attenuation, no biodegradation, and
no photolysis; each of these mechanisms may be significant
in an impoundment scenario. The YHS landfill scenario also
assumes the use of the EP Leachate results (or the results of
the Organic Leachate Model (OLM) which is an empirical model
-------
- d. -
of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCI?) and
FT results); the FP assunes: an acetic acid leachinr ce-Me
fror a nunicipal landfill which renerallv will overesticpte
leaching potential in an aqueous impoundment, ac well PS a
20 to 1 dilution factor for a municipal landfill which will
underestimate the dilution which IB expected to occur in moat
impoundments and thus overestimates the l«*chete concentration
for impoundments. We therefore believe'that the VKS model is
the best model currently available to evaluate data included
In delietlng petitions. Until, in our Judgment, a more
suitable Model la developed for iapoundnentB ws will continue
to use the 7HS landfill aodel for delisting.
I hope that this letter addresses your concerns. If
you have other questions about delisting, please call ce at
(2C2) 3B2-47P?.
Sincerely,
wyl
-------
943 3 .1987 (26
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
OCT 2 8 :r7
OFFICE OF
SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENT -- = 5?-' SE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Delisting Petition Information Requirements
FROM: Suzanne Rudzinski, Chief
Assistance Branch (WH-563)
TO: Judy HecJonan, Chief
Management Support Staff (TS-769C}
The purpose of this memo is to outline the critical elements
of a delisting petition for the residues from the incineration
of the indemnified 2,4,5-T and Silvex pesticides. Other general
requirements are presented in the delisting petition guidance
document; I believe you already have a copy of this document.
The most important data requirements are summarized below:
o A discussion of history behind the petition (i.e., the
litigation) for inclusion in the Federal Register.
o Identification of all Appendix VIII constituents
present in the waste. This characterization is needed
for each different product formulation. We believe you
should be able to provide sufficiently detailed
information in the format of the confidential product
formulations and MSDS. We suggest that you supplement
these data with one full Appendix VIII scan of both the
major liquid product formulation and the Silvex
product.
o A catalog of the pesticides which will be burned,
including physical state (aqueous, organic
solvent-based liquid, solid, etc.), volume, and
origin. If other materials are going to be mixed with
the pesticides prior to incineration (e.g.,
contaminated soils), they must also be fully
characterized (including contaminant profiles,
volumes, origin, etc.).
-------
A list of any Appendix VIII constituents which may be
formed as products of incomplete combustion in the EPA
Mobile incineration System (MIS).
A detailed description of the high resolution GC/high
resolution mass spectrometry method which will be used
to analyze the incineration residues for PCDDs/PCDFs,
including a discussion of the analytical detection
limits which you intend to achieve and the
appropriateness of such detection limits.
Process information regarding the carbon filtration
unit which will be used to treat the wastewater and the
management of the resulting carbon- filter cartridges.
Also describe any other process changes which will be
made so that the MIS can effectively treat the
indemnified products.
Expected waste generation rates for each of the
petitioned residues, per batch and over the entire
incineration period. Also, provide a definition of
'batch' for each of the petitioned residues (i.e.,
solids from one day/week's run, one full tank of
wastewater, 10 drums of solids). We will use these
definitions in the development of the verification
testing requirements for the exclusion.
Describe the expected residue disposal scenarios if the
residues are successfully delisted.
cc: Bob Hall
Dick Valentinetti
Fred Lindsey
Steve Johnson
-------
9433.1987(27)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
WASHINGTON. D.C.
DEC f I
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Jordan Dern
Manager, Environmental Regulatory Programs
Koppers Company, Incorporated
436' Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Dear Mr. Dern:
The Permits and State Programs Division has reviewed your
September 21, 1983 petition (#0528) requesting an exclusion from
regulation for sludges, presently classified as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K035, generated at the Koppers1 Pollansbee, West Virginia
facility. We will recommend to the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response that your petition be denied.
There are two reasons for this recommendation: (1) groundwater
monitoring data indicates that the subject units and waste may
be contaminating groundwater; and (2) the waste has not been
sufficiently characterized to demonstrate that it is non-hazardous.
(Note: We have not previously requested some of the missing
information because of (a) confusion created by the petition as
to which wastes are treated In the system, and (b) the evolving
requirements of the Delisting Program). The specific bases for
our recommendation are further described below.
However, before further explaining our denial recommendation,
let us first address your contentions that the waste to be dellsted
is not subject to regulation.
Tour firm contended that its wastewater treatment system does
not generate or treat a listed hazardous waste. Specifically, you
argued that the waste Is a sludge generated from the biological
treatment of creosote production wastewaters and that the K035
listing (wactewater treatment sludges generated in the production
of creosote) Is not applicable to this waste because the listing
background document does not Include biological treatment sludges.
-------
-2-
The Agency disagrees. The K035 listing background document
specifically Includes biological sludges:
"2. Creosote Wastewater Treatment Sludge
The wastewater treatment sludges that remain after
biological treatment are alao hazardous. The carcinogenic
constituents of creosote, namely benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)-
fluoranthene, and benzo(a)pyrene, are especially likely to
be present in the treatment sludge since these constituents
absorb to sediments at very high levels (App. B). Where
treatment is incomplete, creosote (which is, however, somewhat
amenable to biodegradation (App. B)), is projected to be
present in the sludge as well. If these sludges are placed
in a leaking landfill, an unlined holding pond, or an Improperly
sited facility (i.e., as in an area with permeable soil), the
waste constituents may be released."
For this reason, the Agency concludes that the wastewater treatment
sludge generated at the Koppers1 Pollanabee, West Virginia facility
is a listed hazardous waste K035.
In addition, your firm contends that the aeration basins are
tanks, not surface impoundments, and are therefore exempt from
regulation under 40 CPR 261.4(c). As explained in the attached
October 11, 1985 letter from Stephen Wassersug (EPA Region III),
EPA examined the structural details of the aeration units and
found that the units do not meet the criteria for tanks. Therefore,
the §261.4(c) exemption does not apply.
Because the units and waste are subject to Subtitle C
regulations, we evaluated the merits of your delistlng petition.
As mentioned previously, our evaluation has resulted in our
decision to recommend the denial of your firm's petition. The
primary basis for this decision is that the submitted groundwater
monitoring data indicates that the waste units may have contributed
to groundwater contamination. Also, we are concerned about the
adequacy of your ground-water monitoring system. Finally, you
did not supply all of the data needed to fully characterize the
waste in th« treatment system. We address each of these concerns
in more detail below.
It Is EPA's policy not to exclude any waste until the
petitioner demonstrates that It poses no past or present threat
to the environment. For waste that has been treated, stored or
diposed of in a land-based 'unit, EPA will investigate the potential
for ground-water contamination. Our policy is to request four
consecutive quarters of groundwater monitoring data from a ground-
water monitoring system meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 265,
Subpart F. These data must show no exceedance of regulatory
standards.
-------
- 3 -
We reviewed the data that Koppers submitted and concluded
that two of the monitoring systems (wells in the R-A and R-B
series) were not adequate to monitor ground-water quality in the
uppermost aquifer underlying the aeration units because they
were Installed in shallow fill materials that are typically dry.
The R-C series wells which are downgradlent of the units and the
upgradient A-115 well, although not fully complying with the
Subpart F requirements, can be used to sample the uppermost
aquifer. Koppers submitted two quarters of data from these wells.
Data from the downgradient wells showed concentrations exceeding
background levels for the following hazardous constituents, which
are among those we would expect to find in K035 waste; cadmium,
barium, phenathrene, benzo(a)-pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene,
indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene
and phenol. In all cases, concentration levels at the downgradlent
wells exceeded the levels of regulatory concern that EPA usea to
evaluate dellstlng petitions. In some cases wells at the background
(upgradient) well also exceeded these delisting levels. Moreover,
the downgradient wells also showed higher concentrations of TOG,
pH, and specific conductants, three of the four general indicators
of ground-water contamination measured under the Subpart P
monitoring requirements. Appendix I presents these data in
greater detail.
We discussed the need for data on ground-water contamination
with representatives of Koppers in 1986. At that time, we focused
primarily on a CERCLA action that addressed ground-water problems
at a different part of the facility. We were concerned that
releases from the wastewater treatment units might be contributing
to that problem. In response to our letter of March 1986, Koppers
submitted information intended to show that the wastewater
treatment units were not contributing to the ground-water
contamination subject to the CERCLA response. We have serious
questions about this demonstration. More significantly, that
demonstration provides no basis for us to conclude that the
wastewater units are not contributing to the contamination closer
to the units at the three R-C series wells. Because samples from
these wells contained a large number of constituents frequently
found in K035 waste, and because the wells are located downgradient
of the units, we have tentatively concluded that the units are
contributing .to the contamination at those wells. Accordingly,
we must recosaend that the Agency deny your petition.
Furthermore, as mentioned briefly above, none of the wells
in the vicinity of the aeration units fully complies with the
monitoring standards in Part 265, Subpart P. For example,
two of the monitoring systems (the initial R series and the RB
series) were installed in fill materials that are typically
dry, and have been determined to be inadequate for monitoring
groundwater quality in the uppermost aquifer underlying the
aeration units. EPA's current dellstlng policy also requires us
to recommend denial of your petition on this basis.
-------
- 4 -
Finally, we must again recommend denial because your petition
does not fully characterize the wastes in the wastewater treatment
units. Without a complete understanding of the composition and
nature of these wastes, we can not exclude these wastes or assoc-
iated treatment units from regulation under 40 CFR Parts 262
through 268 and 270. Each of these deficiencies discussed
below".
First, Koppers requested that the waste in all units of the
wastewater treatment system (i.e., 2 aeration basins and 1 clarifier)
be delisted. Among other things, delisting procedures require
that the petitioner (1) properly sample and characterize the waste
in a_ll units seeking delisting; and (2) analyze the waste for factors
(including constituents other than those for which the waste was
listed) which may cause tha waste to be hazardous. The Koppers
petition is significantly deficient in both these areas.
Koppers provided sampling data only for the waste in
the clarifier. We do not consider the samples taken from the
clarifier to be representative of the waste that accumulated in
the two aeration basins because potentially hazardous organic
residues (that may be more dense than the wastewater) may be
settling out in the aeration basins. This may cause the waste
in the aeration basins to be substantially different from the
clarifier wastes. Therefore, the Agency has no basis to delist
the uncharacterized aeration basins.
Second, submitted data indicate that material other than
K035 waste was added to the wastewater treatment system. Your
firm added contaminated groundwater removed from other locations
at the facility (as requested under CERCLA) to the wastewater
treatment system before the units were sampled, but failed to
clearly document the source or contents of the added groundwater.
This information is essential under EPA's definition of "hazardous
waste." Mixtures of listed hazardous wastes, such as K035 and
another solid or hazardous waste, are hazardous wastes, see
40 CFR 5261.3(b)(2) ("the mixture rule"). EPA would need to
evaluate all of the constituents in the resulting mixture before
granting a delisting petition. To succeed, your petition would
have to demonstrate that the ground water that you added to the
units contained no wastes. Even if you could show that the
ground-water contained no RCRA wastes, you would need to perform
a full Apendix VIII analysis if you wanted to demonstrate that
any of the constituents found in the samples from the R-C series
wells originated in the contaminated ground-water from the CERCLA
action rather than the K035 waste.
Third, the constituent analyses you conducted were limited to the
constituents for which the waste was originally listed. However,
available data indicate that other processes at your facility
use pyridine, picoline, cyclohexane, or naphthalene. It is not
clear whether constituents from these processes may end up in the
petitioned wastewater. Further, contaminated groundwater
containing these and/or other constituents has been added to the
-------
- 5 -
wastewater treatment system. Consequently, your petition should
have included an evaluation of the aeration basin wastes (including
the volume of previously generated waste) and the clarifler
wastes for the total concentrations of the following constituents
as well as any other constituents that may be present from these
process waters and/or contaminated groundwater:
acenaphthalene
arsenic
barium
benzene
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo (2-choroisopropyl)ether
cadmium
chrysene
chroraulm
cyanide
cyclohexane
cresote
2,4-diraethyl phenol
2-methoxy-iJ-raethylphenol
dibenzoCa,h)anthracene
ethyl benzene
fluoranthene
indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
lead
mercury
naphthalene
nickel
phenol
picoline
pyrldine
silver
selenium
toluene
Fourth, a petitioner must also provide data indicating the
waste to be delisted would not be hazardous based on any charac-
teristic of the waste. You failed to provide such data despite
our requests for It. The aeration basin wastes should have been
analyzed for corrosivlty (pH), ignitabllity, reactivity, and EP
toxicity.
Finally, submitted data Indicate that mercury, although not
expected to be present in K035 waste, is present in the waste.
This fact further supports the Agency's position concerning the
Inadequacy of the waste characterization and analytical data you
provided. Specifically, we are concerned with the source of
this metal contaminant. The summary EP toxicity data submitted
on November 17, 1986 showed that the mercury concentration in
the March 12, 1986 sample, when subjected to the VHS model,
exceeds the regulatory level of concern (i.e., National Primary
Drinking Wat«r Regulation for Mercury).
We recognize that we have not previously requested that you
submit some of these missing data (e.g., aeration basin waste
characterization data). As we explained above, however, your
groundwater monitoring data and the status of your groundwater
monitoring well network provide independent grounds for denying
your petition. Therefore, even if you had supplied the missing
data, and if it had allowed us to predict that no constituents
in the waste exceeded a level of regulatory concern, we would
have recommended denying your petition. The missing data, although
potentially useful, is therefore not needed to support our decision,
-------
- 6 -
For all of the above reasons, we consider the waste to be
hazardous and subject to regulation under UO CPR Parts 262 through
265 and to the permitting standards of UO CFR Part 270. Accordingly,
we will recommend to the Assistant Administrator that a denial
notice be published In the Federal Register.
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of with-
drawing their petitions to avoid publication of a negative
finding in the Federal Register. If you prefer this option, you
must send us a letter withdrawing your petition and indicating
that the petitioned waste is considered hazardous and will be
managed as such. If you send such a letter, It should be forwarded
to me within two weeks of the date of receipt of today's correspon-
dence. If you choose not to withdraw your petition, a denial
decision will be published in the Federal Register. You and
other interested parties will be able to submit comments if you
disagree with the Agency's decision.
If you have any questions regarding our decision, please
contact Mr. Scott Maid of ray staff at (202) 382-U783.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Bob Greaves, Region III
Sharon Feldstein, Region III (Superfund)
Jenny Utz, SAIC
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 88 9433.1988(02
2. Used Oil Court Decision
On March 7, 1988, a petition was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia by the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, the
Association of Petroleum Re-Refiners, and the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., versus the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The petition
called for a review by the Court on a decision of the EPA concerning the
regulatory status of recycled used oils under RCRA. The Court issued a decision
on the petition on October 7, 1988.
Specifically/ on what decision were the petitioners asking the Court to rule?
What was the Court's decision?
In its final action of November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41900), the Agency decided not
to list used oil that is recycled as a hazardous waste. The Agency based this
decision on its finding that such a listing would attach the stigma of the label
"hazardous waste" to recycled oil, thereby discouraging recycling.
Furthermore, the Agency stated that its authority to regulate used oil under
RCRA is not dependent on a hazardous waste listing, under the authority of
the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980, which was redesignated as RCRA Section
3014 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. (See the
discussion at 50 FR 1691; January 11, 1985 and 51 FR 41900; November 19,
1986.)
The petitioners in this case were challenging this determination made by
EPA. The petitioners argued that the Agency acted contrary to law in basing its
determination on the stigmatic effects of listing. That is, the petitioners
argued that the RCRA statute does not give EPA the authority to not list a
waste based on the stigmatic effects of such a listing. Consequently, the
petitioners requested that the court order EPA to list recycled used oils as a
hazardous waste.
The Court agreed that EPA erroneously based its decision not to list recycled
used oils as hazardous wastes on the stigmatic effects of such a listing, a factor
not permitted by the statute. Thus, the Court is requiring EPA to determine
whether any recycled used oils meet the technical criteria for listing under the
law.
Source: Sarah Carney (202) 382-7932
Research: Chris Bryant
-------
9433.1990(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIROMMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY24B90
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Jim Sherman
U.S. Army
Watervliet Arsenal
Watervliet, New York 12189-4050
Dear Mr. Sherman:
We have received Mr. Russell Wells' letter of February 7th
concerning the proposed substitution of magnesium sulfate for
aluminum sulfate currently used as a flocculating agent for waste
soluble oils in your wastewater treatment system. As discussed
further below, such a substitution may result in a waste which is
not covered by your 1986 exclusion.
The substitution of treatment chemicals (or any change to
your 1986 exclusion) may be considered a major process change if
it significantly alters the composition of your waste. We
believe that the substitution of magnesium sulfate for aluminum
sulfate may significantly alter the composition of the petitioned
waste, particularly if the rationale for the substitution is to
reduce constituent concentrations in the resultant wastewater.
However, we cannot fully assess the impact this substitution
might have on the exclusion status of your wastewater treatment
sludge without knowing more about the flocculation step.
Therefore, if the substitution that you describe is
implemented, you may be producing a new waste that is not covered
under the existing delisting. In this case you would have to
submit an amended petition and we would have to reopen your
delisting petition for review and comment. Please note that
current delisting criteria are somewhat different than those used
in 1986. For example, the health-based levels used in delisting
decision-making may have changed for some hazardous constituents,
and petitioners with on-site units containing the petitioned
waste are now required to demonstrate that the petitioned waste
has not adversely impacted ground water.
If you still believe this change in process is not
significant and will not adversely impact your waste, you may
submit the following information to allow us to fully evaluate
this proposed change:
-------
o A description of the chemistry of the flocculation
procedure, a discussion of why you believe that it
would be beneficial to switch to magnesium sulfate, and
any other process information that you believe might be
pertinent
o An estimate of the new (using magnesium sulfate)
average and maximum sludge generation rates on a
monthly and annual basis
o Results of Oily Waste Extraction Procedure tests on
samples of the new sludge, if your bench-scale work has
reached this stage.
Please be aware that if you proceed with the substitution of
magnesium sulfate for aluminum sulfate in your treatment process,
the resulting sludge may no longer be excluded, and should be
handled as a hazardous waste. Should you have any questions
about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202)
382-2224.
Sincerely,
Robert Kayser, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Jim Kent, EPA HQ
Linda Cessar, EPA HQ
Andy Bellina, Region II
David Smith, SAIC
-------
9433.1990(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 3 1 1990
Ms. Christine A. Mathias,
Environmental Project Manager,
Heritage Remediation/Engineering, Inc.
P. 0. Box 51020
Indianapolis, IN 46251
Dear Ms. Mathias:
I have received your letter dated April 18, 1990 regarding
delisting of a soil contaminated with toluene diisocyanate (TDI).
In your letter, you l) described the spill that caused the soil
contamination, 2) submitted Material Safety Data Sheets for
Mondur 437 (65% to 75% TDI) and ortho-toluenediamine, 3)
presented results of soil analysis, and 4) requested that the
Agency specify delisting levels for your use in discussion with
the State of Indiana on site clean-up.
Please be advised that contaminated environmental media such
as the above TDI-contaminated soil must be managed as if they
were hazardous wastes until they no longer contain the listed
hazardous waste, or unless they are specifically excluded froa
RCRA regulation. Also note that this contaminated soil is
considered hazardous because it contains a substance (TDI) listed
as U223 waste, but not according to the "derived from" rule as
you cited. You should discuss the necessary clean-up activities
and appropriate clean-up standards with the permitting authority
(i.e. the State of Indiana). To have a hazardous waste excluded
(or delisted), a petition must be filed with EPA Headquarters.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22(k), any exclusion rendered by the
Agency will only apply to the specific waste generated at the
individual facility covered by the petition and detailed
demonstrations must be presented to show that hazardous
constituents listed on Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 that may be
present in the petitioned waste are not found at levels of
regulatory concern.
You should be aware that the Agency in its delisting
evaluation considers any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which a wast* was listed.
Accordingly, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does
not exhibit any of the hazardous characteristics, and does not
contain any constituents at hazardous levels. Typically, we
recruire the use of appropri«*miiiiiffii«» methods (EPA Publication
rrmou y "Test Mejthods for] Evaluating Solid Waste", third edittlon, I
**"" •«-|.««ipy ••••••••• ....f j j P j
-------
9433.1990(03
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN 14 690
•OLIO WASTE AND f MI nacNcv «M»ON«
Dear Petitioner:
The purpose of this letter i» to infom you that the Agency
has finalized the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule (published in
the Federal Baoister on March 29, 1990, see 55 IE 11798)* This
rule replaces the Extraction procedure (EP) Toxicity test found
in Appendix II to 40 CFR Section 261.24 with the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The TCLP is a more
sophisticated leaching procedure that predicts leaching and
expands the Toxicity Characteristic to include organic hazardous
constituents. The TCLP currently is used for other hazardous
waste programs, and the procedure has also been described in
Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 268. The intent of this letter is to
notify you that the TCLP will be required for all new testing
used to support petitions submitted by hazardous waste facilities
to exclude ("del1st") a waste pursuant to 40 CTR 260.20 and
260.22.
We have chosen to adopt the TCLP as a requirement for
delisting demonstrations in order to remain consistent with the
leaching procedure used to define a characteristic waste. We
believe this early notification to you of the changes will enable
petitioners to prepare in advance and adjust any future sampling
and testing plans accordingly. Petitioners who have recently
received correspondence from the Agency should have already been
informed of some of the information in this letter.
As noted in the preamble to the final TC Rule, we will soon
publish a notice of our intent to require TCLP data for all
delisting demonstrations. This forthcoming Federal Register
notice will discuss in more detail the effects of these changes
on required delisting petition information for both future and
pending petitions. A copy of that notice will be sent to you
upon its publication in the federal Register. We are taking this
opportunity, however, to briefly describe for you the key impacts
of the change to the TCLP.
In order to minimize the impact of this change on the
current schedules for individual delisting decision-making, we
are establishing an effective date of December 31, 1990, beyond
which we will no longer accept n«w petitions without TCLP data.
-------
For petition* submitted prior to December 31, 1990, if ve believe
the £P and total constituent data submitted prior to the
effective data are complete and are sufficient to support a
deliating decision by the Agency, then ve do not plan to require
retesting using the TCLP. For example, if the EP leachate data
for inorganic constituent* and the total constituent data for
organic constituents are judged to be complete, ve do not plan to
require retesting. However, additional data (including TCLP
data) say be requested at any time if ve believe the information
is needed to complete a petition or to address comments received
on a proposed decision. In any case, all petitioners should plan
to use the TCLP for any new sampling and analyses conducted for
delisting petitions.
As part of all delisting demonstrations, ve vill require
that the TCLP be used to predict the leaching potential of any
inorganic and organic constituents (listed in Appendix VIII to 40
CFR Section 261). Therefore, the TCLP extracts should be
analyzed for any inorganic or organic constituent that may be
present in the vaste. We vill continue to also require analysis
of total constituent concentrations of metals, cyanide, sulfide,
and any organic constituents which may be present in your vaste.
Please note, if your petition is for a liquid vaste fi.e.. less
than 0.5 percent solids), then the TCLP cannot be performed, and
the TCLP requirements vill not affect the delisting
demonstration. Total constituent data vill continue to be used
to determine if a liquid vaste should remain hazardous.
For vastes which have a total oil and grease content of more
than one percent and/or vhich are difficult to filter using the
TCLP apparatus fl.e.. tars), ve vill require use of the Oily
Waste Extraction Procedure (OWE?) (SW-846 Method 1330) in place
of the TCLP to determine the leaching potential of inorganic
constituents. The OWEP has been used in place of the EP in.the
past, and ve plan to continue to require its use for oily vastes
because the TCLP currently has no special provisions for oily
vastes. We vill evaluate the applicability of the TCLP for
organics in problem matrices (such as oily vastes) on a case-by-
case basis. For stabilized vastes, ve vill continue to require
use of the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP) (SW-846 Method
1320) in addition to the TCLP for inorganic constituents.
-------
Should you hava any quastions or raquira any additional
information ragarding this aattar, plaasa contact Linda Cassar of
«y staff at (202) 475-9828.
Sincaraly,
Davaraaux Barnas, Acting Oiractor
Parmits and Stata Programs
Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!!
9433.1990(04)
Mr. Dennis R. Parker
Conoco Inc.
Post Office Box 1267
Ponca City, Oklahoma 74603
Re: No-Migration Petition submitted for Conoco Inc.'s Ponca
City, Oklahoma Land Treatment Facility (F-90-NPCP-FFFFF)
Dear Mr. Parker:
I am writing in regard to your October 12, 1989 "no-
migration" petition, which requests a variance under 40 CFR
§268.6 to allow Conoco Inc. to continue the land treatment of
restricted wastes (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K049, K051, K052, and
D001) at Conoco's Ponca City, Oklahoma land treatment facility
(LTF). Based on our evaluation of your petition, we believe that
Conoco's soil-pore liquids and ground-water monitoring systems
are inadequate for the purposes of a no-migration variance and
that Conoco has failed to demonstrate, to a reasonable degree of
certainty, that constituents will not migrate beyond the land
treatment unit boundaries at hazardous concentrations. As a
result of our evaluation, we will recommend to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that the
petition be denied.
Our decision to recommend denial of the petition is based on
the lack of a monitoring plan that detects migration at the
earliest practicable time. In addition, the information
presented in the petition indicates that migration of hazardous
constituents beneath the treatment unit has already occurred.
Lastly, we believe that Conoco has failed to provide a
comprehensive characterization of the disposal unit site. We
discuss the results of our evaluation below.
Soil-Pore Liquid Monitoring System
Conoco has failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
§§268.6(a)(4). Specifically, the facility is required to have a
monitoring system capable of detecting migration of hazardous
constituents from.JjfiS.LTP at tft« aarULfiftt extant-Practicable..
-------
-2-
program. Conoco's petition indicates that only four lysimeters
were installed in the 38 acre LTF (of which approximately 24
acres are actively used) (Figure 5-19, "Location of Monitoring
Wells, Lysimeters, and Land Treatment Demonstration (LTD) Plots,
page 84). This means one lysimeter monitors approximately six
acres of active area. In addition, Figure 5-19 indicates that
the four lysimeters were installed in the upgradient corner of
Plot 1, the upgradient edge of Plot 7, and the two upgradient
corners of Plot 9. Based on the locations of these lysimeters
(assuming that wastes are actively applied in the LTD plots), we
are concerned that these four lysimeters are subject to edge
effects (e.g.. reduced loadings) and, therefore, do not believe
these lysimeters are capable of collecting representative samples
of the active areas within the LTF. Furthermore, as a result of
Conoco's anticipated closure of Plot 9, in the future there will
only be two lysimeters installed at the LTF.
Given the amount of time generally required for a
constituent to be detected at a downgradient ground-water
monitoring well (especially an inorganic constituent), lysimeters
are important in detecting constituent migration at the earliest
practicable time. Neither current reliance on four lysimeters
nor Conoco's reduction to two lysimeters in the future fulfill
the requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a)(4).
Ground-Water Monitoring System
Conoco has further failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
§268.6(a)(4) as the result of the anticipated closure of Plot 9,
which will result in the downgradient ground-water monitoring
well (8A) being located more than 610 feet from the "new" outer
edge of the LTF (Plot 7). The magnitude of the distance between
the unit and the downgradient monitoring well means, once again,
that Conoco's ground-water monitoring system for the Ponca City
LTF will be incapable of detecting hazardous constituent
migration at the earliest practicable time.
In addition, Conoco stated in its February 6, 1990 letter to
Ms. Karen Dihrberg (Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH))
that "a remediation plan is being developed for a part of Plot 9
where hydrocarbons and phenolics have been detected below the
treatment zone.1* Specifically, cresols, phenol, benzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes were detected below the
treatment zone (BTZ) at the concentrations summarized below in
Table 1.
-------
-3-
TABLti 1
Concentrations of Organic Constituents
Detected in the BTZ (ug/kg)
Constituents
Cresol
Cresol, o
Cresol , p
Phenol
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Xylene, m & p
Xylene, o
Bore Hole
BH-10-4
BH-17-4
Plot 9
Plot 9
BH-10-4
.BH-17-4
Plot 9
BH-11-4 I/
BH-11-4 I/
BH-11-4 I/
BH-11-4 U
Concentrations
9,000
35,000
43,000
96,000
5,000
19,000
210,000
300
14,900
119,200
39,500
KEY: Bore Hole data identified as "BH" were obtained from
the December 11, 1989 letter from D.R. Parker (Conoco)
to Mr. F. Rood (OSDH).
Bore Hole data identified as "Plot 9" were obtained
from the September 13, 1989 letter from D.R. Parker
(Conoco) to Mr. F. Rood (OSDH).
i/ Text presented by Conoco in their December 11, 1989
letter indicated that detectable levels of volatile
organic constituents were present in two bore holes
(BH-11 and BH-18). Tabulated data were not received
for BH-18.
The presence of these organic constituents below the
treatment zone and other organic and inorganic constituents in
the zone of incorporation and treatment zone presents several
problems. First, if these or other constituents continue to
migrate and are detected at the downgradient monitoring well
(8A), it will be impossible for the Ponca City ground-water
monitoring system to determine whether these hazardous
constituents migrated from the active or inactive plots. Second,
if Conoco were to install a new downgradient monitoring well,
this well would have to be installed inside Plot 9. As a result,
the new well would be drilled through contaminated media and
could possibly act as a conduit for additional ground-water
contamination. Again, we believe Conoco would be unable to
distinguish whether the contamination resulted from hazardous
constituents migrating from the active or inactive plots.
Lastly, the detection of the constituents listed above in Table 1
in the soils beneath the treatment unit raises the possibility
-------
-4-
that these constituents may be contained in the soil-pore liquids
and the ground water beneath the other plots at the LTF. As
discussed above, Conoco's deficient soil-pore liquid monitoring
system does not allow for the early detection of these
constituents. EPA, therefore, is unable to clearly conclude
whether these constituents are absent from the soil-pore liquids
and ground water beneath the LTF. For the Agency to determine,
with a reasonable degree of certainty, that no migration of
hazardous constituents has occurred, we must be able to clearly
conclude that these constituents are not present in the soil-pore
liquids and ground water.
Our concerns that the present ground-water monitoring system
is inadequate are also supported by the following information
regarding the presence of hydrocarbon plumes and monitoring well
construction. According to a memorandum sent by Mr. Bill Honker
(EPA Region VI) to Mr. Jim Michael (EPA HQ) dated November 27,
1989, there are numerous hydrocarbon plumes in the ground water
beneath the facility. Previous correspondence between the OSDH
and Region VI (dated November 2, 1988) stated that one of the
upgradient monitoring wells at the LTF was filled with an oily
fluid, which we note Conoco contends was not released from the
LTF, but rather that a hydrocarbon mound was encroaching upon the
LTF. Nonetheless, we are concerned that the hydrocarbon plume(s)
eventually will influence all of the upgradient monitoring wells
and that Conoco will no longer be able to clearly compare the
ground-water quality at monitoring wells 8A, 11, 13, and 14 to
the background levels as specified in Provision VI(5)(b) of the
facility's permit. Furthermore, with time, as the hydrocarbon
plume continues to move beneath the LTF, it will become
increasingly difficult for Conoco to differentiate whether
hydrocarbons detected in the monitoring program are coming from
the hydrocarbon plume or the wastes applied at the LTF. Again,
for the Agency to determine with a reasonable degree of
certainty/ that migration of hazardous constituents has not
occurred, we must be able to clearly conclude that any
hydrocarbons (if detected) originated from a hydrocarbon plume
and not the wastes applied at the LTF.
Lastly, in the petition, Conoco has assumed that the vast
majority of contaminants found in a refinery are lighter than
water and will be found at the unsaturated zone/water table
interface (Attachment 9, Page 10-3). The petition, however,
indicates that the monitoring wells are screened in the basal
coarse sand and gravel layer of the alluvial terrace sediments
overlying the shale bedrock. The depth at which the monitoring
well screens were installed, therefore, does not allow for the
detection of the "light" contaminants which Conoco assumed would
be found at the unsaturated zone/water table interface. These
inadequacies further impede the ability of the present ground-
water monitoring system to fulfill the requirements of
40 CFR §268.6(a)(4).
-------
-5-
Ability to Prevent Future Migration
Conoco's December 11, 1989 letter to the OSDH provided a
rationale and procedure for how Conoco will prevent future
overloading and subsequent migration of phenolic compounds. We
do not believe that the rationale provided by Conoco, or future
testing, as proposed by Conoco, will prevent future migration of
phenolic compounds or hydrocarbons (benzene, ethyl benzene,
toluene, and xylenes) below the treatment zone.
First, analytical data provided in the petition (Table 3-6,
page 20) indicated that phenol was not present in any of the
wastes sampled using the following detection limits: 10, 20,
100, 200, and 990 ug/kg. If these data are representative of the
wastes managed at the LTF, how can Conoco demonstrate which waste
had or will exhibit elevated levels of phenol. Second, we note
that many of the wastes sampled and analyzed contained
significant concentrations of benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene,
and xylene (Table 3-6, page 19); therefore, limiting phenolic
content may not be sufficient to prevent future migration of
these hydrocarbons (see Table 1). Lastly, assuming that Conoco
screens the wastes and is able to determine which wastes have
"excessive" concentrations of phenol, we do not believe that the
"water leaching" test, as proposed by Conoco, is adequate to
determine the leachable concentrations of phenol. The Toxicity
characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) should be used to
determine the leachable concentration of phenol (and the
hydrocarbon constituents). At a minimum, Conoco should conduct
the TCLP using distilled water. We note that Conoco should use
and adhere to the analytical methods and protocols established in
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical
Methods. Publication SW-846 (third edition), November 1986.
Incomplete Petition
Although the Agency limited its technical review to the
soil-pore liquids and ground-water monitoring portions of
Conoco's no-migration petition, we found that Conoco also failed
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a)(3). Specifically,
during our review, we noted that Conoco acknowledges that the
underlying geologic unit had not been completely characterized,
i.e.. Conoco recognizes that the thickness of the basal sand and
gravel unit and the top of the shale bedrock are still
incompletely defined (Attachment 9, Page 10-4). Conoco stated
that this data is scheduled to be collected in the near future,
however, a specific date was not given. Without this
information, we are unable to fully evaluate the design and
effectiveness of the ground-water monitoring program at the
facility. In addition, possible interconnections between the
upper and next lower aquifer have not been thoroughly explored.
-------
-6-
However, because the technical basis for denial already exists,
we are not requesting you to provide this, or additional
information on waste characterization, revised VIP modeling
results, or air monitoring and modeling for particulates, that
would be necessary for EPA to judge your petition to be
technically complete.
As discussed above, we believe that Conoco has failed to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a)(4) and that the results
of the unsaturated zone monitoring (soil -pores) show that Conoco
has failed to demonstrate, to a reasonable degree of certainty,
that hazardous constituents will not migrate beyond the land
treatment unit boundaries at hazardous concentrations. Conoco
has also failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR §268. 6(a) (3) .
We will therefore recommend to the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response that the no-migration petition
for your Ponca City facility be denied.
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of
withdrawing their petitions to avoid a negative publication in
the Federaj. Register. If you prefer this option, you must send
us a letter withdrawing your petition and acknowledging that the
petitioned wastes are still considered to be restricted wastes
subject to the Third Third Land Disposal prohibitions scheduled
to be effective November 8, 1990. This letter should be
forwarded to the following address within two weeks of the date
of receipt of today's correspondence:
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Chief
Assistance Branch (OS-343)
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
If you choose not to withdraw your petition, we will
recommend that a proposed denial decision be published in the
Federal Register.
-------
-7-
Any questions regarding our findings may be submitted in
writing to Mr. James Michael of my staff.
Sincerely,
Jeffery D. Denit, Deputy Director
Office of Solid Waste
Attachment
cc: Docket
Bill Honker, Region VI
Bill Gallagher, Region VI
Randy Brown, Region VI
Damon Wingfield, OSDH
C. Michael Swindell, Conoco
Elizabeth Cotsworth, EPA HQ
James Michael, EPA HQ
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9433.1990(05)
SEP 26 1990
Ms. Melinda Young
Viking Pump - Houdaille, Inc.
406 State Street
Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613
Dear Ms. Young:
I am writing to inform you of the Agency's review of your
sampling plan (#00811) that pertains to a petition which, when
submitted, will request exclusion of wastes from the treatment of
cyanide furnace crucibles, currently listed as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. FOIL The subject wastes are presently contained in
two slurry ponds and a flood control reservoir located at your
South Main Street Plant, Cedar Falls, Iowa.
Please note that, while EPA has granted exclusions for
wastes contained in land-based units, recent proposals to exclude
such wastes have led to negative public comments (e.g.. see 55 FR
11188, March 27, 1990). This opposition was based on the use of
delisting to supersede formal closure of the units under RCRA.
Therefore, to avoid the uncertainty associated with a petition
for the in-place wastes, we suggest that you excavate the units
and store the waste in question and pursue a delisting for the
excavated materials. Further details concerning this strategy
are given in Enclosure I. Excavation also more clearly defines
the aerial extent and volume of the petitioned waste. An
accurate estimate of the volume of the petitioned waste is
critical to the evaluation. If you desire to pursue this
strategy, we encourage you to confer with the State and EPA
Regional office to determine the regulatory status of the
residual soils remaining in the treatment units.
A key issue arising from the delisting of in-place waste is
the regulatory status of the unit after delisting. Typically,
when EPA delists a hazardous waste, the waste remains a solid
waste and must be managed according to all applicable State solid
waste regulations. If Viking is still interested in delisting
the in-place waste, we suggest you provide a full explanation of
the regulatory status of the unit after delisting. It would be
helpful if the petitioner can demonstrate that existing State
laws (or binding consent agreements) require that the unit (and
any delisted waste contained therein) remains a solid waste
manaaement unit and is subject to some level of reoulatoi
control. The distinction bCftWMMHaplean" closure an
Ain, .this {case woujd be clearer and 4asi«r to (justify.
-------
After reviewing our comments, you may find that many of our
suggestions overlap with State or Region requirements. In
particular, the State or EPA Regional office may have ground-
water monitoring, waste sampling, and soil sampling requirements
for closure. We encourage you to investigate the applicable
requirements for your units so that your sampling and analysis
program might fulfill both delisting and State or EPA Regional
requirements concurrently.
If you choose to pursue a delisting of the wastes, we
recommend that you consider our comments regarding spatial
variability, temporal variability, and sample collection
procedures. These comments are presented in Enclosure I.
In addition, we are concerned that your sampling and
analysis plan will not characterize all hazardous constituents
that may be present in the wastes. Specifically, additional
hazardous constituents are likely to be present as a result of
waste management practices that allowed non-hazardous wastes and
facility run-off to be discharged to the units. A discussion of
analytical parameters necessary to characterize the wastes is
presented in Enclosure II.
We also are concerned that issues which were grounds for our
dismissal of your previous petition (#0543) are not addressed in
the sampling plan. Specifically, your proposed sampling plan
fails to identify how representative ground-water sampling will
be conducted. The Agency has recently proposed a rule clarifying
the Agency's use of ground-water monitoring data in delisting
decisions (see 54 FR 41930, October 12, 1989). Our specific
requirements concerning ground-water monitoring are presented in
Enclosure III.
Should you have any questions concerning our review of your
sampling plan or need to clarify the information required for
submitting a revised sampling plan or formal petition, please
feel free to call me at (202) 382-2224.
Sincerely,
Robert Kayser, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Elizabeth Cotsworth
Bob Scarberry
Jim Kent
Chet McLaughlin, Region VII
Mike Sanderson, Region VII
Gary B. Enloe, JMM
Eileen Regan, SAIC
John Vierow, SAIC
-------
ENCLOSURE I
Waste Sampling Strategy
You may pursue one of two waste sampling strategies:
sampling the waste in the units, or excavation of the units and
subsequent sampling of the excavated materials. Regardless of
which strategy you choose, sampling must account for variability
resulting from historic process operations and the introduction
of other wastewaters to the units.
Spatial and Temporal Variation
Based on the information provided in your sampling plan, we
believe that you have chosen an adequate number of samples to
represent the spatial variability of wastes in each unit (i.e..
the collection of four composite samples from each slurry pond;
the collection of eight composite samples from the flood control
reservoir). We also recommend that five grab samples be drawn
from each section of each waste unit to form each composite
sample, as determined by random sampling methods discussed in the
Guidance Manual1. We believe this approach will result in the
collection of samples that are more representative of constituent
variability than the perimeter sampling approach presented in
your previous petition.
Variability over time, or temporal variability, must be
accounted for in your sampling plan. This is dependent upon the
operating characteristics of your units. For example, your
petition must specify whether facility run-off, process waters,
and non-process waters currently enter the units, whether liquid
is discharged or evaporated from the units, and the quantity of
standing liquid in the units. If the units are not presently in
use, then your wastes are expected to show little or no
variability in the future and thus you do not need to provide
further information in this regard.
Current influents will affect the future waste composition
of the units. Although waste classified as EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F011 is no longer introduced into the flood reservoir, other
influents will contribute sediment to the units and thus will
affect the variability of the petitioned wastes over time and
must be accounted for in the sampling plan. To address this
concern, you may be able to show that current influents are
similar in composition to influents of the past, due to similar
plant operations. If influents are expected to change, or have
recently changed, you must describe how these influents are
expected to influence the composition of the petitioned wastes.
Based on our evaluation of petition information, we may require
"Petitions To Delist Hazardous Wastes - A Guidance
Manual," Office of Solid Waste (EPA/530-SW-85-003), April
1985.
-------
additional sampling of the sediment or the influents in the
future.
Sample Collection
We are concerned that the full depth variability of the
wastes will not be sampled. For example, depth is dependent on
free liquid above the sediment, which in turn is dependent on
current influents to and effluents from the units. You must
demonstrate that the sampling equipment will penetrate the
sediment to the bottom of the units. You have not provided
sufficient information for the Agency to determine if a three-
foot Shelby tube would be of sufficient length to sample the
petitioned wastes. Because it is likely that the sediments are
not homogeneous due to settling and due to historic changes in
influents over time, it is important that the full-depth of the
wastes be sampled. Please also state the overall dimensions of
the petitioned units; the dimension information presented in
Figures 1-2, 2-1, and page 3 of your draft sampling plan are
inconsistent. Also include the waste depth and volumes in each
of the three units.
In addition, any liquids present in the units are also
classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. FOIL You must explain
whether a significant volume of free liquids is present above the
sediments and, if so, if these liquids are to be included in the
scope of the petition. If you desire to include the liquids as
part of your petition, you must collect and analyze samples of
the liquid in a manner similar to that described for the unit
sediments.
Samples to be analyzed for volatile organic compounds should
not be composited in the field due to the potential loss of
volatile compounds. We recommend that you either analyze grab
samples separately for volatiles, or carefully composite grab
samples in the laboratory prior to analysis.
The equipment decontamination procedures described in your
sampling plan (steam cleaning) are adequate to prevent cross-
contamination of the composite samples. However, we are
concerned that the use of Shelby tubes may not adequately
represent the volatile organic composition of the sediments due
to the necessary sample extraction procedure. Rather, we suggest
the use of a split spoon or coliwasa depending on the physical
state of the sediments. Sampling equipment should be constructed
of stainless steel, or be lined with other inert material, to
prevent metal contamination.
-------
ENCLOSURE II
Analytical Parameters
The selection of constituents for testing should be
dependent on the historical introduction of materials to the
units. In particular, our review is not limited to the
constituents in the FOll waste, but encompasses all influents
Ce.q.. process water and surface run-off) over the lifetime of
the units.
Therefore, you must provide descriptions of:
o All historic operations, including process and non-process
sources of wastewater, that contributed wastes to the three
units, and the composition or characteristics of these
streams. Please specify when the units were constructed and
when they began receiving wastes.
o The identification of sources of facility run-off, both from
your facility and surrounding areas that could have
contributed run-off to the units. We believe that run-off
nay contribute significant levels of hazardous organic
constituents to the petitioned wastes.
o Sources of oil and grease, including oils that are present
as contaminants in run-off and in process water as a result
of inplant use or from residual oils on metal received at
your facility.
o Sources of hazardous organic constituents that could be
present in additives to corrosion inhibitors, cleaners, and
treatment materials. All relevant material safety data
sheets (MSDSs) should also be included.
Based on the information submitted thus far, you have not
justified why organic analyses should be limited to the
constituents listed in Section 3 of your draft sampling plan.
Analytes should include all constituents listed on 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix VIII, acetone, ethyl benzene, isophorone, 4-methyl-
2-pentanone, styrene, and xylene (total) that may potentially be
present in the wastes. You may determine that some hazardous
constituents are not expected to be present in the petitioned
wastes because the constituent was not used as a raw material at
the plant, is unlikely to be present as a raw material
contaainant, and is not likely to be formed as a byproduct in the
plant processes. You must include a justification for not
analyzing other Appendix VIII constituents.
Your ability to characterize the past and present influents
to the units will affect your choice of analytical parameters.
Based on the process descriptions provided above, you may be able
to limit the required analytical parameters. However, in
-------
limiting constituents for testing, it is not sufficient to just
state that a constituent is not likely to be present. Based on
the numerous historic processes contributing wastes to the units,
we do not believe that you would be able to limit constituents
for testing (except perhaps for special constituents, such as
dioxins).
We recognize that the Appendix VIII list presents a number
of analytical problems for some constituents. However, we
request that any available information concerning the presence of
these constituents be included as part of a complete petition.
For analytical testing purposes, you must analyze the samples for
those compounds which can be accurately quantified using
appropriate methods from "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes - Physical/Chemical Methods," (third edition), EPA
publication SW-846, November 1986. It should be noted that
SW-846 analytical test methods exist for all constituents listed
in 40 CFR Part 264, Appendix IX.
Representative samples of the petitioned wastes should be
analyzed for the following parameters:
o Total oil and grease content
o Total constituent concentrations of all the TC metals,
nickel, cyanide, sulficlo, and any hazardous constituents
that are potentially prc~cnt in the wastes
o Leachable concentrations of all the TC metals, nickel, and
cyanide. Use distilled water in place of the acetate buffer
in the cyanide extraction. For waste samples that contain
less than one percent oil and grease, use the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311,
see the TC rule in 55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990). For waste
samples that contain greater than one percent oil and
grease, use the oily Waste Extraction Procedure (OWEP, SW-
846 Method 1330) and substitute the TCLP for the extraction
procedure in Step 7.9 of the OWEP. We plan to continue to
require the OWEP for d:list ing demonstrations because the
TCLP currently has no special provisions for oily wastes.
In all cases, the TCLP cl-.ould be used to determine the
leaching potential of hazardous organic constituents that
are potentially present in the wastes. Please note that for
liquid wastes, the leach^ble concentration of a constituent
is equivalent to the tot?. 1 concentration of that
constituent.
o Total concentrations of reactive sulfide and reactive
cyanide, if total sulfi.li or.d total cyanide levels exceed
500 and 250 ppm, respectively.
o Characteristics of ign i t-.!:ility, corrosivity, and
reactivity. In lieu of tc-ting for a particular
-------
characteristic, you nay provide a detailed explanation as to
why the wastes do not exhibit, the characteristic.
Appropriate quantification limits are given in SW-846? these
limits should be met for all extract and ground-water samples.
SW-846 also gives practical q'.:antitation limits (PQLs) for other
matrices. As stated in ycur campling plan, the reported
laboratory detection lir.its should be as close as possible to
established drinking water rtindards.
The following inforr.aticn also should be provided:
o A detailed description of procedures used to collect,
prepare, preserve, r.r.cl c.:-.~.iyze each sample. Include the
names and qualifications (a brief resume will suffice) of
all personnel involve:: in the sampling and analysis program.
Also crovide a list: r.: •' •: ::a-.cs and model numbers of all
ic:i, preservation, and analytical
extraction, and
sample collection, p"' "
instruments used. ?-'
analyses should to p.-:-.-'
A description of all C""'. ity Control (QC) procedures
followed during collc~•.'-:•; and analyses of samples. This
should include, as e.rprc-riate: 1) method blank analyses, 2)
field QC analyses (.i_.^.., :?:ol'J blanks, equipment blanks and
trip blanks], 3) rat. ' :-.c and matrix spike duplicate
analyses, and 4) cr.e . ': or C'.'EP) toxicity test run for
each cf the TC r.ct.-.l.-. ~ ol, and cyanide using the method
of standard additicr. -. rr~c.!vres for these and other
appropriate QC procr '•:-- -re fully described in Chapter One
of S'.."-:'.6. Each a.-.-.' '. t:rt method in SW-846 notes
laboratory QC prccc: prcpriate for that particular
test r.cthcd. In a:'.:'1. , all of the sample preservation
procedures and her.'.; -3 required by SW-846 must be
fn~l 1 rv..-.-:!.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9433.1990(06)
Mr. George Mavris
Roy F. Weston, Inc. Kjg^ 2 7
44 Burlington Mall Road
Suite 604
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803
RE: Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan for New Hampshire Plating
Company/ Merrimack, New Hampshire
Dear Mr. Mavris:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that we have
completed our review of your draft sampling and analysis plan for
the New Hampshire Plating Company (NHPC), submitted to the Agency
on October 29, 1990. This letter also confirms our initial
response to your plan provided in a conference call on November
8, 1990. The proposed sampling and analysis plan will be used to
collect representative samples of both untreated and treated
soils/sludges. These materials are presently listed as EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F006. We note that these materials also may
be listed as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F007 - F012; however, due
to the limited information provided we were unable to make a
determination as to the exact classification of these materials.
We discuss below the results of our review.
Chemical Stabilization Process
Your draft sampling and analysis plan indicates that between
1962 and 1985, NHPC used three unlined lagoons to dispose of
electroplating wastes consisting of various heavy metals,
cyanide, acids, and chlorinated solvents. You also indicate that
EPA is currently remediating the site and chemically stabilizing
the contaminated soils and sludges removed from the site. First,
the contaminated soils are mixed with the sludges in a pugmill at
a ratio of 4:1 (soil:sludge). The mixture of soil/sludge then is
mixed with Type I Portland Cement (presumably in another pugmill)
at a ratio of 3:1 (soil/sludge mixture:Type I Portland Cement).
The chemically stabilized residue is transferred via a six-yard
dump truck to a lined storage cell. The sampling plan states
that between 24 to 38 loads are generated daily; therefore,
approximately 144 to 228 cubic yards of chemically stabilized
residue are generated daily.
-------
-2-
Your description of the chemical stabilization process is
not complete. A complete description should include information
regarding:
• The maximum total volume of stabilized waste you expect
to generate (an accurate measure of waste volume is
critical to our evaluation);
• Addition of other reagents and/or water, including
source of water (or does the process rely on the
moisture content of the soil/sludge mixture?);
• Physical nature of chemically stabilized treatment
residue (solid, monolithic, friable, etc.,);
• Length of time soil/sludge mixed and length of time
soil/sludge mixture mixed with Type I Portland Cement;
• Size of pugmills used to mix soil/sludge and
soil/sludge mixture with Type I Portland Cement;
• Procedure for measuring/metering quantities of soil,
sludges, and reagents to ensure proper mixture ratios;
Safeguards (if any) to prevent short-circuiting (e.g.,
inadequate mixing or insufficient quantity of
reagents);
• Initiation and completion of chemical stabilization
process (i.e., start date, end date, elapsed time
required to treat all of the material).
• Elapsed time required for reaction to occur, and
elapsed time required for material to fully cure;
• Explanation for why treatment residue generated between
August 1, 1990 and September 12, 1990 were placed back
into the lagoon system;
• Clarification of whether the treatment system was down
during the period of September 12 and September 17,
1990; and
• Procedure for removing chemically stabilized treatment
residue from storage cell.
Sampling and Analysis
Sampling Performed To Date
Your draft sampling and analysis plan states that prior to
October 22, 1990, representative composite and grab samples of
-------
-3-
the chemically stabilized treatment residue were collected at
various frequencies. Initially, aliquots of treatment residue
were collected from each truck and composited every five
truckloads, resulting in the generation of one composite sample
representing 30 cubic yards of treatment residue. Individual
grab samples also were collected, one from each truckload. It is
unclear whether composite and grab samples were collected
concurrently or separately (i.e., collection of composite samples
and then at a later date, collection of grab samples). The draft
sampling and analysis plan states that between August 1, 1990 and
September 12, 1990, the treatment residue was analyzed for the
TCLP extraction concentrations of cadmium, chromium, lead,
nickel, and zinc.
The draft sampling and analysis plan then states that
beginning on September 18, 1990 aliquots of treatment residue
were collected from each truckload and composited every ten
truckloads, resulting in the generation of one composite sample
representing 60 cubic yards. Individual grab samples also were
collected at a rate of one every five truckloads. Again, it is
unclear whether composite and grab samples were collected
concurrently or separately (i.e., collection of composite samples
and then at a later date, collection of grab samples). The draft
sampling and analysis plan states that starting October 4, 1990,
the list of analytes analyzed using the TCLP increased to nine
with the addition of arsenic, barium, mercury, and selenium. On
September 21, 1990, analyses were again modified to include TCLP
analyses for cyanide and volatile organics. (Due to the
chronological progression of your draft sampling and analysis
plan, we question whether the date should be October 21, 1990.)
Lastly, samples of the treatment residue also were analyzed for
total, amenable, and reactive cyanide. Unfortunately, we do not
know how many samples were analyzed for TCLP concentrations or
total concentrations, nor do we know the size of each aliquot or
grab sample. We also note that TCLP concentrations of silver do
not appear to have been completed. Lastly, the draft sampling
and analysis plan does not identify the volatile organic
constituents tested for using the TCLP.
Sampling to be Implemented
The draft sampling and analysis plan states that a 16-ounce
aliquot of treatment residue will be collected from every
truckload and an 80-ounce composite sample will be generated. As
we discussed in our conference call, please confirm that the 80-
ounce sample will be taken from a composite sample of all
truckloads generated daily. The plan goes on to state that the
80-ounce composite sample will be divided into three samples: 1)
32-ounce sample for analysis by primary laboratory; 2} 32-ounce
sample for archiving; and 3) 16-ounce sample for QA/QC check by
secondary laboratory. A minimum of four samples will be analyzed
for:
-------
-4-
TCLP for the TC metals, nickel, and zinc;
TCLP for the volatile organic compounds;
TCLP for amenable cyanide;
Characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and
reactivity;
Total metals and volatile organic compounds;
Cyanide (total, amenable, and reactive);
Reactive sulfide?
Total organic carbon (TOO); and
Oil and grease.
Although it is stated that a minimum of four samples will be
analyzed, the draft sampling and analysis plan also states that
daily composite samples of the treatment residue will be
collected and analyzed for the TCLP analyses for the TC metals,
nickel, zinc, and cyanide. In addition, it states that one
composite sample of treatment residue vill be analyzed for TCLP
analyses for the volatile organic constituents every five days,
or as deemed necessary following screening of soil and sludge
with a photoionization detector (PID). As a result, we are
unclear as to the total number of samples of the treatment
residue to be collected and analyzed.
As we discussed in our recent conference call, we believe
that the above sampling and analysis procedures are inadequate.
Specifically, we believe that the proposed list of analytes is
insufficient. Based on the information provided in your plan and
our telephone call, we recommend that the following analyses
should be performed:
• Total oil and grease content.
• TCLP extractions for all of the TC metals, nickel, and
cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide
extraction). However, in the unlikely event that the
treatment residue exhibits a total oil and grease
content in excess of one percent, the TCLP must be
replaced with the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure
(OWEP). See SW-846 method number 1330. Lastly, the
draft sampling and analysis plan does not specify if
the TCLP analyses will be performed on the cured or
uncured CSEAFD. If your demonstration is based on
analyses of the fully-cured material, the exclusion (if
granted) would only apply to the fully-cured material.
If you wish the demonstration to be for the uncured
material, the TCLP analyses must be performed on the
uncured material.
TCLP extractions for all of the 40 CFR §261, Appendix
VIII constituents likely to be present in the waste (we
note that an analytical feasible subset, such as 40 CFR
§264, Appendix IX, may be used).
-------
-5-
Total concentrations of all the TC metals, nickel, and
all of the 40 CFR §261, Appendix VIII constituents
likely to be present in the vaste (we note that an
analytical feasible subset, such as 40 CFR §264,
Appendix IX, may be used).
Total concentrations of cyanide and sulfide. If the
total concentration of cyanide exceeds 250 mg/kg,
analyses for reactive cyanide must be performed; and if
the total concentration of sulfide exceeds 500 mg/kg,
analyses for reactive sulfide must be performed.
Multiple Extraction Procedure (HEP) concentrations of
all the TC toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide (using
distilled water in the cyanide extraction) on
representative samples. The HEP analyses should be
modified by using the TCLP to generate the initial
extraction (see SW-846 Method 1320). However, in the
unlikely event that the treatment residue exhibits a
total oil and grease content in excess of one percent,
instead of using the TCLP, you must perform the initial
extraction using the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure
(OWEP). Furthermore, the samples of chemically
stabilized treatment residue must be ground and passed
through a 100X mesh screen prior to the TCLP and HEP
analyses. Lastly, If you wish the demonstration to be
for the uncured material, the MEP analyses must be
performed on the uncured material.
Characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and
reactivity.
We note that analyses for TCLP and total concentrations of zinc
and total concentrations of TOC are not necessary.
You must perform all of the above analyses on representative
samples of the stabilized waste. Based on the limited
information you provided to date, we suggest that you complete
the above analyses on a minimum of 8 representative composite
samples collected over the course of the stabilization process.
In addition, we recommend that you expand your routine analysis
of all daily composite samples to include the following:
• TOG; as noted above, if >1%, OWEP should be used to
measure leachable metals.
• TCLP analyses for all TC toxic metals, nickel, and
cyanide (using deionized water for cyanide).
« TCLP analyses for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
likely to be in the waste.
-------
-6-
The above recommendations assume you will be able to document
that the key analytes of concern are the metals, cyanide, and
selected organics (e.g., vocs). Therefore, you must demonstrate
(through all available data on the site, the production processes
operating on the site, etc.) that the metals and selected VOCs
are the only constituents likely to be in the waste. Such
arguments would appear to be most persuasive for the absence of
certain classes of compounds (e.g., herbicides/pesticides,
dioxins, PCBs, etc.).
The draft sampling and analysis plan also states that
samples of the untreated soils, sludges, and soil/sludges will be
collected using the above sampling procedure, and analyzed using
the same set of analyses and parameters. The plan states that
this information will be used to assess the effectiveness of the
onsite treatment process. We agree that samples of the untreated
materials should be collected and analyzed to better characterize
the waste feed. We, however, believe that it is more important
to fully characterize the treatment residue. We, therefore,
suggest that only four representative samples of the soil/sludge
mixture be collected and that the analyses be limited to the
total concentrations of the TC metals, nickel, cyanide, and the
40 CFR §261, Appendix VIII constituents likely to be present in
the waste. You may prefer to perform more extensive testing of
the untreated wastes to support treatability studies.
Ground-Water Monitoring Data
The draft sampling and analysis plan states that historical
analytical data including ground-water data will be used to
document the absence of Appendix VIII constituents. We do not
believe that ground-water monitoring data are sufficient to
document which constituents were not present in the waste.
Specifically, we are concerned that the wells may be improperly
installed or insufficient in number, the list of analytes
monitored may be incomplete and the concentrations and
solubilities of the materials potentially in the waste vary
widely. Therefore, the mere absence of a specific constituent in
ground-water is not sufficient basis to determine that it was
never in the waste. A more suitable procedure for excluding
potential analytes, is to review the list of chemicals, products
and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all trade name
products used at the facility to determine if a specific chemical
was or was potentially present. As noted above, you also may
rule out the presence of specific classes of chemicals if these
chemicals were not used or generated at the site. We do request
that any ground-water monitoring data that may be collected from
wells installed to specifically monitor the storage cell be
submitted. Bai.ed on our recent conference call, however, such
data apparently are not available.
-------
-7-
Conclusioa
We not* that a complete review of your draft sampling and
analysis plan was difficult due to the limited nature of the
information presented. Nonetheless, we believe that your draft
sampling and analysis plan, with the above modifications, is
adequate. We also believe that we have addressed to the fullest
extent your draft sampling and analysis plan; therefore, we are
closing your petition file (ID0828).
If you choose to submit a formal petition in the future,
your petition will be assigned a new petition number and reviewed
in chronological order along with all new petitions. We remind
you that your formal petition (if submitted) must contain all of
the information discussed in the "Petitions to Delist Hazardous
Wastes - A Guidance Manual," U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
(EPA/530-SW-85-003), April 1985. Please forward any petition to
the following address:
Mr. James Kent
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mail Code: OS-333
Should you have any questions regarding today's
correspondence, please call me at (202) 382-2224, or the
technical reviewer of your draft sampling and analysis plan,
Howard Finkel of ICF Incorporated, at (703) 934-3656.
Sincerely your
Robert Kayser, thief
Del 1st ing Section
cc: Linda Murphy, Region I
Andrew Miniuks, Region I
Janis Tsang, Region I
Bob Scarberry, EPA HQ
Narendra Chaudhari, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
Howard Finkel, ICF Incorporated
-------
9433.1990(7)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC 2 ! 1990
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. James D. Phillips
Director of Engineering Development
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
John T. Kennedy Space Center
Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899
Dear Mr. Phillips:
We have completed our review of your delisting petition
(#0823) which requests the exclusion of nitrogen tetroxide (N2OJ
rinsate generated from draining and rinsing operations associated
with N,04 propellant use at the Kennedy Space Center facility
located on Merritt Island, Florida. This waste is currently
classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. P078. Based on our
evaluation of the petition, we will recommend to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that the
petition be denied.
Our decision to recommend denial of the petition is based on
the results of the corrosivity analyses for two of the four
samples collected on July 26, 1989. The pH of these two samples
was reported to be 2.0, which indicates that the petitioned waste
exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity. Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) , liquid wastes which exhibit
a pH of less than or equal to 2.0 or greater than or equal to
12.5 are considered to exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity.
See 40 CFR §261.22. As stated, in 40 CFR §260.22 (e) (3) , the
petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any
pf the characteristics defined in §§261.21 through 261.24, which
include the characteristic of corrosivity.
Therefore, we conclude that the analytical data submitted as
part of your petition show that the waste exhibits the
characteristic of corrosivity. We believe that the waste should
be considered hazardous and subject to regulation under 40 CFR
Parts 260 through 268 and the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part
270. Accordingly, we will recommend to the Assistant
Administrator that a notice proposing to deny your petition be
published in the Federal Register.
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of
withdrawing their petition to avoid a negative publication in the
Federal Register. If you prefer this option, you must send us a
letter withdrawing the petition and acknowledging that the wastes
are considered hazardous and will be managed as such. If you
friMtd on RtcycUd Paptr
-------
send such a letter, it should be forwarded to this office within
two weeks of the date of receipt of today's correspondence. If
you choose not to withdraw the petition, we will recommend that a
proposed denial decision be published in the Federal Register.
Please forward any correspondence to the following address:
Mr. Janes Kent
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code OS-333
Please realize that you also have the option of resubmitting
a new petition, at a later date, if you can treat the waste such
that it no longer exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity.
Enclosure 1 to this letter outlines the deficiencies in the
information provided in your present petition that would need to
be addressed should you re-petition the Agency. We suggest that
you contact us if you do plan to submit a new petition so that we
can inform you of any revisions to the petition review process
that may be relevant to your petition effort.
If you have any Questions regarding our findings, please
contact Narendra Chaudahari of my staff at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
Enclosure
cc: Doug McCurry, Region IV
James Scarbrough, Region IV
Bob Scarberry, EPA HQ
Robert Kayser, EPA HQ
Narendra Chaudahari, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
Howard Finkel, ICF Incorporated
-------
ENCLOSURE 1
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
DELISTING PETITION I 0823:
LIST OF DEFICIENCIES IN THE PETITION
The following is a list of information that was either not
included or not sufficiently presented in the delisting petition
submitted in July, 1990.
(1) General description and schematic of all cleaning, treating,
decontamination, maintenance, handling and all other
processes associated with the application of nitrogen
tetroxide (N204) (i.e., all procedures and activities prior
to, during, and following application of N204 propellant):
• Documentation of the use and location of use of
sampling equipment (e.g., containers, hoses),
mobile equipment (e.g., tankers, drums,
cylinders), transfer equipment, drums and other
containers, storage and transfer systems,
propellant components and hoses, and any other
equipment used; and
• Documentation of any hazardous constituents
associated with surfaces treated with N204 or with
equipment used in cleaning, treating,
decontaminating, and handling treated surfaces
that could potentially enter the rinsate waste
stream.
(2) Specific description of the cleaning/passivation processes:
• Explanation of the types of products/surfaces that
undergo each of the cleaning/passivation
processes;
• Description and quantity of all substances and
materials used (provide Material Safety Data
Sheets for constituents considered hazardous by
the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration), including trichloroethylene
(listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR §261 as
hazardous) and substances described/identified in
the petition as "caustic", "detergent", and
"deoxidate"; and
-------
• Justification that undergoing the
cleaning/passivation processes precludes the
introduction of residual solvents or other
cleaning agents in the waste stream.
(3) Specific description of all types of surfaces on which N204
is applied.
(4) Specific description of surface and equipment
preparation/decontamination processes following N204
application, including draining, rinsing with water,
decontamination, validation, certification, maintenance, and
cleaning.
• Description of the location(s) at which the
petitioned waste rinsate is generated; and
• Explanation of method(s) of draining waste
rinsates from equipment and surfaces and
subsequent handling of the petitioned waste prior
to drum storage.
(5) Specific description of spillage collection system:
• Explain type of system(s) (e.g., floor drainage);
• Discussion of potential for substances other than
the petitioned waste to enter the system,
including a list of these substances and
quantities entering the waste stream annually; and
• Explanation of the way in which the spillage
collection system operates in conjunction with
cleaning/passivation, N204 application, and post-
application cleaning, decontamination, handling,
etc.
(6) Description of waste stream generation and management:
• Length of time that the petitioned waste has been
generated;
• Explanation of the difference between drum
accumulation and "bulk11 accumulation;
• Explanation of the method and length and location
of bulk accumulation;
• Documentation of storage equipment used for drum
and bulk accumulation and method(s) of
transferring accumulated wastes to drum storage;
-------
• Description of treatment method used on petitioned
waste generated in the past;
• Explanation of means of on-site storage of the
entire volume of the petitioned waste that was
generated in the past (if the waste rinsate has
been stored in surface impoundments or any other
type of land-based unit, you are required to
submit ground-water monitoring data); and
• Specify which of the waste management options will
be used if the petitioned waste is delisted.
(7) Description of waste sampling procedures followed:
• Description of strategy for sample collection
(i.e., frequency, duration, method of sampling,
number of drums sampled, location of waste
sampled);
• Justification of sampling frequency given facility
use of N20^ during launch schedules;
• Justification of claim that rinsate generated from
water and residual N204 is uniform given that
different types of equipment are used to apply
N204 propellant at different locations in the
facility (i.e., prove that the type of equipment
used in N204 application and the location of use
do not cause the petitioned waste to vary
significantly);
• Discussion of the potential for waste rinsates to
settle in temporary storage and final drum
storage; and
• Documentation of chain-of-custody procedures.
(8) Description of waste testing procedures followed:
• In the absence of adequate procedures to test for
the presence of NO2 in the petitioned waste, the
petitioner must provide a convincing demonstration
to account for the complete conversion of N02 to
other compounds upon contact with water;
• Justification that the petitioned waste does not
exhibit the characteristic of reactivity (pure
N204 is known to react with various organic
substances, solvent residues, chlorocarbons,
alcohols, and other chemicals, resulting in
spontaneous ignition). You should provide
-------
evidence that the petitioned H204 rinsate is not
capable of reacting violently with any chemicals.
This argument can be based on the documented
absence of N204 and N02, as required above.
• Justification that the petitioned waste does not
exhibit the characteristic of ignitability (the
petitioner is required to show that the flash
point is not less than 60 degrees Celsius; in this
petition, it is stated that the testing laboratory
extinguished the flame at approximately 60 degrees
Celsius; the petitioner must specify exactly when
the flame was extinguished in order to determine
whether the testing method was in accordance with
test required as specified in 40 CFR §261.21); and
• Provide testing date(s) for all samples collected
on October 10, 1989.
(9) Description of quality assurance and control procedures
followed:
• Collection and testing of field, trip, equipment,
and laboratory blanks to ensure that contaminants
were not introduced during sample collection and
transportation (the petition states that seals
were not used on the samples because of adhesive
problems).
(10) Assuming you somehow treat the waste to ensure that the
waste does not exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity
(i.e., pH of 2.0 or less), you must analyze at least 4 more
representative samples for the total concentrations of all
the TC metals, nickel, cyanide, sulfide, and any
constituents in 40 CFR §261 Appendix VIII or 40 CFR §264
Appenidix IX likely to be present (see #2 above), and for
the characteristics of ignitability and corrosivity. You
must explicitly justify that the samples are fully
representative of any variation in constituent
concentrations over time.
(11) Description of the procedures used to collect and analyze
the newly collected samples. The petitioner is reminded
that the samples must be analyzed as soon as possible
following collection. Please provide resumes for any new
personnel involved in the collection or analysis of the
waste.
-------
„ ^ 9433,1991(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Johnny S. Udo
Safety/Environmental Engineer
Fuji Photo Film, Inc. >1
-------
-2-
processes are neutralized on-site. The neutralized wastewaters
then are clarified, and dewatered using a filter press and a
sludge dryer. The resulting material is the subject of Fuji's
delisting petition. We note that wastes generated from the
subsequent surface coating operation (utilizing organic solvents)
do not enter the petitioned wastestream.
Wastewater treatment sludges generated from (1) sulfuric
acid anodizing of aluminum, and (2) chemical etching and milling
of aluminum are specifically exempt from the EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F006. Although wastewater treatment sludges generated from
the chemical conversion coating of aluminum are listed as EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F019, none of Fuji's processes (including its
silicate process) utilize any chromate compounds or involve an
oxide-conversion, phosphate-conversion, or chromate-conversion
coating process. Therefore, we are not convinced that Fuji's
surface preparation processes (including its silicate process)
fall within the scope of the chemical conversion coating
processes regulated by the EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019 listing
(see "Background Document, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, Subtitle C - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,
November 14, 1980). We suggest you contact South Carolina's
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management to confirm whether
or not the waste you generate is Hazardous Waste No. F019.
Based on our review of Fuji's manufacturing processes, we do
not believe that the petitioned waste is a listed hazardous
waste, and therefore, have closed the petition file. However, we
note that in accordance with 40 CFR §262.11, Fuji still is
required to determine whether this waste exhibits any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste in 40 CFR §§ 261.21 to
261.24 (e.g.. ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or TC
toxicity).
If you have any questions regarding the closing of your
petition file, please call Narendra Chaudhari, of my staff at
(202) 382-4787.
Sincerely yours,
Robert Kayser, Chief
Delisting Section
cc: Doug McCurry, Region IV
James Scarbrough, Region IV
Narendra Chaudhari, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
Howard Finkel, ICF Incorporated
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9433.1991(02)
Mr. Lloyd Williams
Plant Engineer April 26, 1991
Davis Pipe and Metal Fabricators, Inc.
Birch Street
Blountville, Tennessee 37617
Dear Mr. Williams:
I am writing in regards to your delisting petition (#0758),
which requests the exclusion of the liquid phase obtained from
the lime neutralization of spent pickle liquor and associated
rinse waters generated at Davis Pipe and Metal Fabricators,
Inc.'s (Davis Pipe) Blountville, Tennessee plant. This waste is
currently classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062.
On February 26, 1991, I was contacted by Davis Pipe's
attorney, Ms. Gladys Smith of Caldwell, Heggie & Helton. Ms.
Smith requested that we postpone any decision regarding your
petition until after Davis Pipe had collected and analyzed weekly
samples generated over a six- to eight-month period. In light of
our concerns regarding the apparent variability in both the total
concentrations of chromium and nickel and the volume of waste
generated annually, we agree that it would be useful for Davis
Pipe to collect additional data. We also believe that
representative weekly samples collected over the course of six to
eight months (roughly 26 to 35 weekly samples) will allow us to
characterize completely any variations in total concentrations of
chromium and nickel. Therefore, we have decided to give Davis
Pipe an additional six months to fully respond to our previous
request for analytical data representative of the petitioned
waste.
During this six-month period, we expect Davis Pipe to
collect samples of the waste on an as-generated basis and to
produce weekly composite samples representative of all the waste
generated during that particular week. Each weekly composite
sample should be analyzed for pH and the total concentrations of
all the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals, nickel, and cyanide.
Davis Pipe also should:
• Demonstrate that the waste does not contain any of the
TC organics by analyzing a minimum of four weekly
composite samples for the total concentrations of all
the TC organics. See 40 CFR §261.24 for a list of the
organic analytes. Note that delisting levels may be
somewhat lower than TC levels. Therefore, we require
-------
-2-
detection levels to be well below TC levels. (We
suggest that your laboratory reach the PQLs for a water
matrix as defined in SW-846.)
Record the volume of wastewater generated and update
(finalize) its estimate of the maximum annual
generation rate. Note that, if delisting is granted,
the waste volume excluded will be specified in the
regulatory language.
• Provide a detailed description of the sampling strategy
and explain why you believe the collected samples
adequately capture the waste stream's variability.
• Provide the professional qualifications (e.g.., a brief
resume) for all new personnel (if any) involved in the
planning and execution of the sampling and analysis
plan.
Document the analytical methods and equipment used, the
sample collection and analyses dates, and the sample
weights.
• Provide analysis with appropriate detection limits, and
include all of the quality control (QC) information
associated with the analytical procedures conducted.
This should include information on method blanks,
matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, and standard
additions curves. Information on appropriate QC
procedures can be found in Chapter One of SW-846 (third
edition). Quantification limits (PQLs) for an aqueous
matrix are given in the appropriate chapter for the
individual method.
• Provide schematic diagrams documenting any changes made
to the wastewater treatment system, treated wastewater
storage system, and waste management practices, and
fully discuss such changes.
In order for us to complete our evaluation of your petition
in a timely manner, you must fully respond to this request for
additional information within six months of the date of receipt
of today's correspondence. If we do not receive a complete
response from you within six months, in accordance with EPA
policy, we will dismiss your petition from the petition review
process (see 53 FR 6822, March 3, 1988). In that case, we will
notify you of dismissal by letter.
Please note that it is to your advantage to submit the
requested information before the six months expire, so that any
remaining deficiencies identified by the Agency subsequent to
your submittal can be remedied within the six month time frame.
-------
-3-
If you do not believe that you can fully respond within six
months, you may wish to withdraw your petition now and submit a
complete new petition later at your convenience. If you prefer
this option, you must send a letter to EPA withdrawing your
petition and indicating that the petitioned waste is considered
hazardous and will be managed as such. This letter should be
forwarded to:
Jim Kent
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Mail Code OS-333
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Should you have any questions regarding the information
requested in this correspondence, please contact either Narendra
Chaudhari, of my staff at (202) 382-4787, or Howard Finkel, of
ICF Incorporated, at (703) 934-3656.
Sincerely,
Robert Kayser, Chief
Delisting Section
cc: Doug McCurry, Region IV
James Scarbrough, Region IV
Narendra Chaudhari, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
Howard Finkel, ICF Incorporated
Gladys F. Smith, Caldwell, Heggie & Helton
-------
9433.1991(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Ramon Marrero, p.E.
Environmental Engineer
Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
P. 0. Box 628
Barceloneta, PR OO617
Dear Mr. Marrero:
This letter concerns delisting petition No. 0801 submitted
by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the exclusion of ash
generated from the incineration of F002, F003, and F005 process
wastes at its Barceloneta, Puerto Rico facility. Six months have
passed since our November 20, 1990 letter requesting additional
information was sent out to you, and we have not yet received the
information requested in that letter.
On May 7, 1991, we met with you and your contractor (ERM) to
discuss the deficiencies in your petition and the information
required for a complete petition. At this meeting you indicated
that, in the future, Pfizer plans to incinerate several new non-
liquid waste streams, as well as the liquid wastes currently
incinerated. Furthermore, you raised the prospect of upgrading
the incinerator in order to burn the new wastes. We discussed
several options for gathering sufficient data to support a
delisting. Moreover, you and your contractor suggested that you
needed to consider the options further before deciding whether to
pursue the existing petition, or withdraw and resubmit a new
petition in the future. As a result of this meeting, as well as
several follow-up telephone conversations with ERM and other
Pfizer representatives, we expected Pfizer to either withdraw its
petition, or attempt to provide sufficient information to support
the existing petition. However, we have received neither a
withdrawal, nor any further information.
As indicated in our November 20 letter, the Agency published
in the Federal Register its policy to dismiss petitions that are
either seriously deficient upon receipt or still incomplete six
months after an Agency request for additional information (53 F_B
6822; March 3, 1988). This policy was developed to facilitate
processing of complete petitions by avoiding burdensome,
iterative requests for needed information. In accordance with
this policy, I am writing to inform you that we have dismissed
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
your petition from the delisting petition review process since
you have not responded to our information request within the
specified six months. The effect of this dismissal is to close
your petition file (No. 0801). Please note that your petitioned
waste is considered hazardous and must be still managed as such.
If you choose to submit a new petition in the future, you
should provide the information outlined in our November 20, 1990
information request letter. Any new petition would be assigned a
new petition number and reviewed in chronological order along
with all new petitions. Please forward any new submittal to the
following address:
Mr. Jim Kent
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste (Mail Code OS-333)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
If you have further questions regarding the dismissal of
your petition or require any information on hazardous waste
delisting, please feel free to contact Chichang Chen of my staff
at (202)382-7392.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: Ed Abrams, EPA HQ
Bob Kayser, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
John Gorman, EPA Region II
Andy Bellina, EPA Region II
Henry Huppert, SAIC
Sarah Bennett, SAIC
Basilis Stephanatos, ERM
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9433.1994(01)
October 12, 1994
Ms. Stephanie C. Akers
Quality Assurance Assistant
Analytical Technologies, Inc.
11 East Olive Road
Pensacola, Florida 32514
Dear Ms. Akers:
I am writing in response to your letter of September 29, 1994,
inquiring as to whether or not your laboratory must use the "SW-846
'A' organic methods which were recently promulgated". The Office
of Solid Waste believes that the Federal Register Notice of August
31, 1993, which promulgated Update I (58 FR 46040), is very clear
in stating that "Any reliable analytical method may be used" to
meet the requirements of RCRA 40 CFR parts 260 through 270 which do
not require the use of a specific method for a particular
application, or the use of appropriate SW-846 methods in general.
In addition, the Disclaimer and Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of Chapter
Two of SW-8'46 allow for flexibility in using methods already
included in SW-846.
However, as a chemist, I do not understand why your laboratory
would not wish to use the most current methods available. If you
have any additional questions, please call me at 202-260-4761.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
OSW-Methods Section (5304)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
-------
A
iyfiCGiTechnologieS/inC. 11 East Olive Scad Pensacola. Florida 32514 (QC^; J74-1C01
September 29, 1994
Mr. Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (OS-331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
USEPA
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Lesnik:
I have a question regarding the SW-846 "A" organic methods which were recently promulgated.
Do we, as a laboratory, have a choice as to whether or not we use the new methods, or may we
continue to use the original methods?
Please respond in writing so I may have documentation of your reply.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Stepnanie C. Akers
Quality Assurance Assistant
cc: K. S. Hered - QA Manager
O. Taffe - QA Assistant
sea
\wpdoC3\q«\sw846\sw84Sa.!et\3C»
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9433.1994(02)
NOV I 5
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Variances from Classification as a Solid Waste under 40
FROM:
TO:
Director
of Solid Waste (5301)
Allyii M. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
U.S. EPA Region VI
This memorandum responds to your September 1, 1994 letter
requesting my office to evaluate the appropriateness of a
variance from the definition of solid waste granted by the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). TNRCC granted
the variance pursuant to a provision in the Texas Administrative
Code which closely tracks a variance provision in the federal
regulations (40 CFR 260.31(b)).
Following is a general discussion of how we believe the
federal regulation was intended to be interpreted. Because I
have not reviewed all of the information that TNRCC evaluated,
including possible case-specific considerations, this memorandum
is intended as general guidance on the variance criteria, rather
than a specific opinion about the Texas decision.
This variance applies to secondary materials that are
reclaimed and then reused within the original primary production
process in which they were generated. EPA promulgated the
variance on January 4, 1985 (50 PR 662) to address those
situations that are very similar to "closed-loop" recycling but
are not excluded under 40 CFR 261.2(e)(l) because the secondary
materials are reclaimed before they are reused in the production
process.
As the preamble to this rule states, the Regional
Administrator (or the authorized state) is to decide whether the
reclamation operation is an essential part of the primary
production process. The preamble then discusses the criteria
which bear on that decision (50 FR 654-5). If a variance is
granted, the facility receiving the variance is not subject to
any RCRA requirements, including those for incinerators.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed wim SoyJCanola Ink on paper tn»i
conulni it least 5Wi recycled fiber
-------
The preamble also states that there are some conditions an
applicant must meet before he is eligible for the variance (50 FR
654). First, the material must be returned as feedstock to the
original primary production process. In addition, the material
must be "reused" when returned to the original process, meaning
that the material must contribute directly to the production
process as an ingredient, reactant, or an alternative feedstock.
While a catalyst is not used in a production process as an
ingredient or reactant, it is generally considered to contribute
directly to the production process by facilitating chemical
reactions. Therefore, we would consider the reuse of a reclaimed
spent catalyst to be "reuse" for the purposes of this variance,
assuming the catalyst is actually reused in the original primary
production process (rather than an ancillary process) for its
original purpose.
Another condition of eligibility is that the reclamation and
reuse must be conducted by the same "person" as defined in 40 CFR
260.10, i.e., a single corporation or other legal entity (50 FR
655). If the spent catalyst is reclaimed by a legal entity other
than the generator (e.g., a third-party recycler), it would not
meet this condition.
In addition to the conditions for eligibility, the preamble
to the January 4, 1985 rule also discusses criteria which the
Regional Administrator (or the State) can consider and weigh as
appropriate. These criteria are not discussed at length, but I
will briefly state what we believe are some factors which should
generally be weighed and which seem especially relevant to spent
catalyst regeneration.
One consideration is the extent to which the material is
handled before reclamation to minimize, loss (see 40 CFR
260.31(b)(3)). In most cases, this would include an examination
of how the material is handled at the generating facility as well
as the reclaiming facility. Another consideration is the time
period between generating the material and reclaiming it, and
between reclaiming it and returning it- to the original process
(see 40 CFR 260.31(b)(4)). This consideration would include an
evaluation of the time elapsed between generating the material
and transporting it to the reclaimer, as well as the time elapsed
between receipt of the regenerated material by the generator and
its actual reuse in the original production process.
Another factor which should be examined is the location of
the reclamation process in relation to the production process
(see 40 CFR 260.31(b)(5)). Although the reclaiming facility does
not have to be located at the same site as the generating
facility, it should be in reasonably close proximity. I realize
that this factor is necessarily subject to subjective
interpretation, but a distance of halfway across the United
-------
States would normally mitigate against the regeneration being
considered a form of closed-loop recycling.
You should note that the preamble states that "the Regional
Administrator can rely on any or all of these criteria, and can
weigh them as he deems appropriate" (50 FR 654). Because the
criteria include "other relevant factors" (40 CPR 260.31(b)(8)),
TNRCC is accorded much flexibility in granting such variances.
However, insofar as TNRCC based its decision on the criteria
promulgated by the Agency, this memorandum should provide
guidance on how EPA intended these criteria to be evaluated.
I hope that the considerations discussed above will prove
useful in evaluating applications for variances under the State
counterparts of 40 CFR 260.31(b). If you have further questions
on this issue, please call Mitch Kidwell of my staff at (202)
260-8551.
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
November 1994
9433.1994(03)
2. Dellstlng Petitions for Hazardous
Wastes From The Petroleum
Industry
A petroleum refinery is submitting a
delisting petition to EPA for its listed refinery
hazardous waste. Does EPA provide a list of
constituents typically found in petroleum
refinery wastes that should be used in
developing such a delisting petition?
The EPA publication, Pennons To Delist
Hazardous Wastes: A Guidance Manual
(EPA/530-R-93-007, March 1993) contains a
list of constituents of concern for hazardous
wastes from the petroleum industry (Exhibit
6-3). This list (referred to as the delisting
"petroleum list") identifies the specific
hazardous constituents of concern that
typically may be found in petroleum wastes.
As delisting is "generator-specific", individual
petitioners should also investigate if other
hazardous constituents arc present in their
particular wastes. The guidance manual
provides details about developing an
analytical plan.
EPA initially provided such a petroleum
list in the first edition (1985) of the delisting
guidance manual. This list was based on the
"Skinner List" developed by OSW in 1984 for
land treatment associated with petroleum
refinery wastes. The 1985 version of the
delisting petroleum list has since been
modified based on new data from various
sources. The current petroleum list in the
1993 dclisting manual provides the most
recent federal guidance for submitting a
delisting petition. States that arc authorized
for delisting implement the RCRA dclisting
program in lieu of the Federal program;
therefore, petitioners in these states may have
additional requirements. Furthermore,
facilities should consult with other appropriate
EPA and/or state regulating authorities to
determine if this list should be used in other
aspects of the RCRA program, such as RCRA
permitting.
-------
9434 — OTHER
FEDERAL
FACILITIES
Part 260
A.T. Kearney 1/3590/1 cr
-------
UNITED ATES ENVIRONMENTAL 9434.1989(01
Mr. Joseph E. Cothern
Environmental Protection Specialist
Department of the Air Force
HQ Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center (AFLC)
Newark Air Force Station, Ohio 43057-5000
Dear Mr. Cothern:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 2,
1989, in which you requested an assessment and characterization
of beryllium wastes generated at Newark Air Force Station.
In follow-up conversations with you on February 10, 1989 and
February 13, 1989 to obtain more information related to the
process involved, you indicated that the beryllium is generated
in the form of a very fine dust. In order to meet the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) worker
protection standards and the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), the airborne dust is
collected by vacuum hoods and directed through a two stage
filtration system. As I understand the vacuum-filtration
process, the system consists of the following components:
vacuum hood
10-foot tube
air trap
cyclone hopper (with a bag filter located on top of hopper)
collection container
vacuum unit (with three filters inside)
The dust-laden air initially enters the vacuum hood located
on the ceiling of the grinding/polishing room and travels up the
10-foot tube. It then enters an air trap in which heavier
particulafee matter is collected. The lighter air-suspended
particle* are then channeled into a cyclone hopper. A bag filter
is situated at the top of the hopper. This is the first
-------
-2-
filtration stage. The vacuum unit, which provides suction for
the entire system, is attached to the outside of the hopper. The
vacuum unit houses the final filtration element, which consists
of three filters. This second filtration stage traps the
remaining dust in the air before it is discharged into the
ambient air.
The collection container is detached from the hopper and
vacuum unit when it is filled to capacity with dust, two percent
of which is beryllium. It is then replaced with a new container.
The subsequent management practice is to stabilize/solidify the
dust in cement prior to disposal. The container filled with
concrete (stabilized dust) is then sent off site to a disposal
facility.
The final filtration element, on the other hand, has never
been replaced since the start-up of the operation. As I
understand the current operating procedures, the final filtration
element will eventually be discarded when gross dust
contamination renders it useless.
The materials that you wish to characterize are the final
filtration element, the beryllium dust, and the dust collection
container. To identify the materials as hazardous waste under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act , they
must first be classified as solid wastes under 40 CFR section
261.2. Based on information you provided over the phone, the
final filtration element, the solidified dust (concrete), and the
container holding the concrete are abandoned by land disposal
and, therefore, meet the definition of solid waste [40 CFR
Section 261.2(b)(1)]:
Based on the additional information you provided over the
phone about the subassembly grinding/polishing and air filtration
process, I have concluded that the dust is not a commercial
chemical product (i.e., P015) and is not any other listed
hazardous waste identified in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D. The
solidifie* dust, the container holding the solidified dust, and
the fina3»filtration element contaminated with dust also are not
RCRA lisfcjjte hazardous wastes. If the dust does not exhibit a
hazardoi»waste characteristic (prior to solidification) as
defined in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, the dust is not a
hazardous waste and is not regulated tinder RCRA Subtitle C.
Also, if the filter element contaminated with the dust does not
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic once rendered useless,
it is not regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA.
-------
DISCLAIMER
The compilation of documents in this Compendium, as well
as the policies, procedures and interpretations outlined
in the documents themselves, is intended solely for the
guidance of employees of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This compilation may not include all
documents discussing Agency views on particular subjects.
In addition, these documents are not intended and cannot
be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with
the United States. The views expressed in these
documents do not necessarily reflect the current position
of the Agency, and EPA reserves the right to act at
variance with these views or to change them at any time
without public notice.
-------
Identification And Listing Of
Hazardous Waste (Part 261)
-------
General
SO
-------
9441 - GENERAL
Part 261 Subpart A
ATKl/l 104/16 kp
-------
9441.1980(02)
«OG 1 0 1330
Dr. William Connors
Public Intervenors Office
114 E. State Capitol
Madison, Wisconsin ^3702
Dear Dr. Connors:
This is in response to your telephone conversation of
nay 30 with Susan Absher of the EPA Office of Solid Waste.
You asked about EPA's interpretation of the agricultural
waste exclusion of 40 CFR Part 257.
The agricultural waste exclusion in Part 257.1 (c)(l)
reads:
"The criteria do not apply to agricultural wastes,
including manures and crop residues, returned to
the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners."
This exclusion stems from the House Report (H.R. Rep.
Mo. 04-1401, 94th Conn., 2nd session (1976) which states
that "agricultural wastes which are returned to the soil as
fertilizers or soil conditioners..." (are -not -meant to be
covered by the program). The relevant page of the report
is attached.
You specifically asked whether EPA intended food
processing wastes which are land ppread to come under the
agricultural waste exclusion. EPA intended the exclusion
to apply mainly to manures and crop residues used to enhance
the quality of the land. In general, EPA considers food
processing waste to be commercial or industrial waste and
not to come under the agricultural waste exclusion. '-Where
large quantities of food processing 'wastes are land spread,
this procedure can have adverse environmental effects.
(WH-5G3)Susan/kw/x59145/2624/R-14-BO
-------
9441.1980(03)
OFFICt CT 'JCi.i:> k'A
4 1980
r
c
u
0
Mr. Star, ley L. £wlck«»r
Union Oil Conpany of California
L'nion Oil Canter, Box 7600
Los Angeles, California 90051
Dear Mr. Zvickert
This is In res-ponse to your Inttnr of August 18, 1980,
in which you ougzost that certain t-astrs fron drilling op-
erations (other than fron oil, natural gas, or geothereal
energy exploration) should be excluded fro* control as
hazardous vast«a. Also, you indicated you did not feel it
necessary to file a notification of hazardous vast*
activity.
The specific exclusions citorf in *261.4(b)(5) of the
regulations (45 ££ 33120, May 19, JS«C) were included since
the Con;:r«G8 has included such Inususce. in its pending billa
(see Cho discussion In the preamble, i 3 T_& 33089). This
exclusion applies only to oil, natural gas or r.eothernal
exploration. Thus, siuilar wastes resulting froe other
operations are not specifically excluded; to the extent
these other waste* exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste they are include'* in eh* regulatory program.
Section 2Ctl.ll defines a gensrctor'e responsibility to
determine whether his waste i« h-\r»rdo-,i«. This section does
not nanJate testing and doe* allow the generator to aake the
de ternlna t loa Saaod on knowledge o'f rho oaterials and
rroceases involved. iour decision to not notify is appropri-
ate if :r>ade for thi.s reason, rather tlun the analogy to
energy exploration wastes.
If you have any question* fleare call Alan Corsoo of ny
staff. u* oay be reached at (20?) 755-9187*
Sincerely yourr,
John P. Lthna*
Director
;^zardot« and Industrial ='8fltr ^'vision (UK-565)
-------
9441.1980(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
flOV 1 ? 1980
Mr. Williaa S. Stove
Boston Edison Ccrapany
800 Boyleston Street
Boston, Kassacnusetts 02199
Dear Mr. Stowe:
This is in response to your letter of Septeaber 5, 1980, requesting
the issuance of regulation.interpretation seaoranda (RIMs) on three
questions you have about our RCRA. hazardous waste taanageaent regulations.
Although we may consider Issuing RIMs or amendments to our regulations
of these issues at sone point in the future, I do not wish to further
delay cur response to you. Therefore, I an providing answers to your
questions in this response.
First, you raise the question about whether the nirture rule of
5261.3(a)(2)(ii) causes railroad ties to be hazardous wastes because
they contain creosote which is listed in <261.33(f) or causes insulating
materials to be hazardous wastes when and because they contain asbestos"
which also is listed in $261.33(f). The answer is no. The intent and
purpose of $261.33 is to list ccnnercial chemical products and
manufacturing chemical intermediates as hazardous wastes when and only
when they are discarded or intended to be discarded. Thus, w« are
interested in crecsate and asbestos in thoir cccuion commercial fona as
hazardous wastes if discarded. If we should ever be interested in
listing railroad tics or insulation materials as hazardous wastes, when
discarded, because of their content of creosote, asbestos or other
chemicals, we will specifically list them in $261.33 or in a similar
section. Similarly, if we should ever be interested in listing used
railroad ties or used insulation materials (insulation material removed
from buildings) as hazardous wastes because of their content of
chenicals, we will list then in $261.31.
The mixture rule of |2€1.3(a) (2) (ii) does apply in a limited way
to $201.33 chemicals. It these listed chemicals are discarded by being
nixed into a solid waste* then the resulting solid waste nixture becomes
a hazardous waste. Examples are dumping excess acetone into a w&stewater
sewer or dumping excess inventory or expirsd-date inventory of pesticide
into a refuse bin.- IB these esses, the commercial chemical becomes a
hazardous waste instantly When the act of discarding takes place. As a
hazardous waste at that point, the mixture rule operates to cause the
nixture to become a hazardous waste. Incorporating creosate into
railroad ties or asbestos into insulation materials is not an act of
isc&roing. these chemicals» thus, these chenicals do not. at that point.
-------
Vcur second question is whether the s!r\all quantity generator
special requirement of §261.5 apply to each facility? a facility being
manufacturing plant or, possibly, several manufacturing or other
operations on the sane or geographically continguoua site (see definition
of "on-aite* in §260.10(a)). The tern "person" was erroneously used
in §261.5. The Agency meant to use the term "generator" which by its
definition in §260.10(a) means "any person, by site, . . . ." We will
be correcting thia error in a forthcoming amendment of $261.5. The
terras "person" as defined in §260.10(a) includes whole companies and
this causes $261.5 to b« applicable only on a ccnpany-wide basis. Thus,
for example, a company that operates several plants/ each of which
could qualify for the small quantity generator special requirements
because each generates slightly loss than 1000 kilograms of hazardous
waste each month, could not qualify, under a literal reading of the
provision as now written, because the company's aggregate generated.
quantity of hazardous waste exceeds 1000 kilograms each month.
Finally, you ask whether the full regulations apply to intermittent
or very small quantities of hazardous waste generated by a facility that
cnnnot qualify for the small generator special requirements because it
also generates one or more large quantities of hazardous waste. The full
regulations apply to these intermittent and very small quantities of
hazardous waste as they do to all other quantities of hazardous waste
generated by a "large quantity generator."
I hope I have clearly answered your questions and apologize for
the tardiness of this response—we have sinply been overburdened with
questions, requests for RIMs and ether demands.
Sincerely yours,
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
bcc: Filotnena w/incoming
Regional AfcRM Division Directors w/incoming
Jack Lehman w/ incoming
WH:GDietrich.:bm:ll/13/80:401 M
-------
9441.1980(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOV 1 7.1980
Mr. William A. McClintic
Defense Division
Brunswick Corporation
150 Johnston Road
Marion, Virginia 24354
Dear Mr. McClintic:
This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1980, asking
for clarification of the applicability of our hazardous waste nanageraent
regulations to very small quantities of hazardous wastes generated
by a generator who also generates a large quantity of "hazardous waste.
Tne snail quantity generator special requirenents of §261.5 of our
regulations are only available to generators that generate an aggregate
mount of hazardous wastes of less than 1000 kilogram* per nonth at any
:ne sit* or facility. If the aggregate amount of hazardous wastes
generated at a site or facility exceeds this monthly anount, then the
special requirenents of $261.5 do not apply to any of the hazardous
wastes generated at that site or facility. I air. afraid, therefore,
that the very snail quantities of hazardous waste generated at your
Marion facility are subject to the "full" regulations because the single
large quantity of harardouo waste disqualifies the facility for the
special small quantity generator requirenents.
x ho-** this surTiciwatiy answers your questions.
Sincerely yours/
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrate:
for Solid Uaste
bcc: rilomena Chau w/incoming
WH•
-------
9441.1981(01)
January 13, 1981
Mr. Paul Emler, Jr.
Chairman
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Suite 700
1111 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Emler:
This is a response to your letter of October 10, 1980 to
Administrator Costle, regarding the recent Solid Waste Disposal
Act Amendments of 1980 and their relation to the electric utility
industry. In your letter and its accompanying document, you
discussed the specific amendments which address fossil fuel
combustion wastes, and suggested interpretive language which EPA
should adopt in carrying out the mandate of the amendments. You
requested a meeting with our staff to make us more fully aware of
the solid waste management practices of the electric utility
industry, and to discuss the effect of the amendments on the
utility solid waste study which EPA is currently conducting.
I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you, in your
capacity as chairman of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
(USWAG), on November 21 to discuss your concerns. I am taking
this occasion to share with you the most recent EPA thinking on
the exclusion from our hazardous waste management regulations of
waste generated by the combustion of fossil fuels, and to confirm
certain agreements which were reached during our meeting. The
language contained in this letter should provide you and your
constituents with an adequate interpretation of the fossil fuel
combustion waste exclusion in Section 261.4(b)(4) of our
regulations. This letter is also being circulated to appropriate
Agency personnel, such as our Regional Directors of Enforcement,
for their information and use. We intend to issue in the Federal
Register an official Regulations Interpretation Memorandum
reflecting the policies articulated in this letter.
In our May 19, 1980 hazardous waste management regulations,
we published an exclusion from Subtitle C regulation for those
fossil fuel combustion wastes which were the subject of then
pending Congressional amendments. The language of that exclusion
in §261.4(b)(4) of our May 19 regulations is identical to
pertinent language of Section 7 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-482) which was enacted on October 21,
1980 and which mandates that exclusion. Specifically, the
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
exclusion language of our regulations provides that the following
solid wastes are not hazardous wastes:
"Fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas
emission control waste generated primarily from the
combustion of coal or other fossil fuels."
Residues from the Combustion of Fuel Mixtures
The first point which you raise in your letter and your
"Proposed RIM Language" is the interpretation of the term
"primarily" used in this exclusion language. EPA believes that
Congress intended the term "primarily" to mean that the fossil
fuel is the predominant fuel in the fuel mix, i.e., more than 50
percent of the fuel mix. (See Congressional Record, February 20,
1980, p. H1103, remarks of Congressman Horton and p. H1102,
remarks of Congressman Bevill.) Therefore, EPA is interpreting
the exclusion of §261.4(b)(4) to include fly ash, bottom ash,
boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes (hereinafter
referred to as "combustion wastes".) that are generated by the
combustion of mixtures of fossil fuels and alternative fuels,
provided that fossil fuels make up at least 50 percent of the
fuel mix.
This interpretation begs the guestion of whether the
exclusion also extends to combustion wastes that result from the
burning of mixtures of fossil fuels and hazardous wastes. We
have limited data which indicates that spent solvents listed in
§261.31 of our regulations, certain distillation residues listed
in §261.32, waste oils that may be hazardous wastes by virtue of
characteristics or the mixture rule, and other hazardous wastes
are often burned as supplemental fuels—sometimes in
proportionally small amounts but sometimes in significant amounts
(comprising 10 percent or more of the fuel mix ratio)—
particularly in industrial boilers but sometimes in utility
boilers. EPA is concerned about the human health and
environmental effect of the burning of these hazardous wastes:
both the effect of emissions into the atmosphere and the effect
of combustion residuals that would be contained in the fly ash,
bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes.
We intend to address the first of these concerns in our
future development of special requirements applicable to
hazardous wastes that are beneficially used or legitimately
recycled. In §261.6 of our May 19, 1980 regulations, we
currently exempt from regulatory coverage hazardous wastes that
are beneficially used or legitimately recycled, except that,
where these wastes are listed as hazardous wastes or sludges,
their storage or transportation prior to use or recycle is
subject to our regulations. We clearly explained in the preamble
to Part 261 of our May 19 regulations that we fully intend to
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
eventually regulate the use and recycling of hazardous wastes
and, in doing so, would probably, in most cases, develop special
requirements that provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment without unwarranted discouragement of resource
conservation. Consequently, although the burning of hazardous
waste as a fuel (a beneficial use assuming that the waste has a
positive fuel value) is not now subject to our regulations
(except as note above) it may well be subject to our regulation
in the future.
Our second concern with combustion of fuel mixtures is the
one at focus in this interpretation. It must first be noted that
we do not intend for §261.6 to provide an exemption from
regulation for combustion wastes resulting from the burning of
hazardous wastes in combination with fossil fuels; it only
provides an exemption for the actual burning of hazardous wastes
for recovery of fuel value. Thus, if these combustion wastes are
exempted from our regulation, such exemption must be found
through interpretation of §261.4(b)(4). Secondly, we note that
although the pertinent language in Section 7 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 and the related legislative
history on this matter speak of allowing the burning of
alternative fuel without precisely defining or delineating the
types of alternative fuel, the only examples of alternative fuels
used in the legislative history are refuse derived fuels.
Therefore, a literal reading of the legislative history might
enable us to interpret the exclusion to include combustion wastes
resulting from the burning of fossil fuels and other fuels,
including hazardous wastes. However, since each of these
legislative comments was made in the context of refuse derived
fuels or other non-hazardous alternate fuels, we do not believe
the Congressional intent compels us to make such an
interpretation if we have reason to believe that such combustion
wastes are hazardous.
Presently, we have little data on whether or to what extent
combustion wastes are "contaminated" by the burning of fossil
fuel/hazardous waste mixtures. The data we do have (e.g.,
burning of waste oils) suggests that the hazardous waste could
contribute toxic heavy metal contaminants to such combustion
wastes. When coal is the primary fuel, the amount of resulting
contamination is probably in amounts that are not significantly
different than the metals that would be contributed by the fossil
fuel component of the fuel mixture. This may not be the case
with oil and gas, where huge volumes of waste are not available
to provide a dilution effect. We suspect that the other
hazardous constituents of the hazardous wastes that typically
would be burned as a fuel are either thermally destroyed or are
emitted in the flue gas (and therefore are part of our first
concern as discussed above). If these data and this presumption
are true, then combustion wastes resulting from the burning of
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-4-
coal/hazardous waste mixtures should not be significantly
different in composition than combustion wastes generated by the
burning of coal alone. Because the Congress has seen fit to
exclude the latter wastes from Subtitle C, pending more study, we
feel compelled to provide the same exclusion to the former
wastes.
Accordingly, we will interpret the exclusion of §261.4(b)(4)
to include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission
control wastes generated in the combustion of coal/hazardous
waste mixtures provided that coal makes up more than 50 percent
of the fuel mixture.
We offer this interpretation with great reluctance and with
the clear understanding it is subject to change, if and when data
indicate that combustion wastes are significantly contaminated by
the burning of hazardous wastes as fuel. We also offer this
interpretation with the understanding, as discussed at our
meeting of November 21, that the utility industry will work with
us over the next several months to improve our data on this
matter. We believe it is essential that we make a more informed
judgement and possible reconsideration of our interpretation of
the exclusion as soon as possible and before completion of our
longer-term study of utility waste which is proceeding.
Accordingly, we would like you to provide to us all available
data on the following questions by August 1, 1981:
1. What types of hazardous wastes are commonly burned as
•fuels in utility boilers? In what quantity? In what
ratio to fossil fuels? How often? what is their BTU
content?
2. Does the burning of these wastes contribute hazardous
constituents (see Appendix VIII of Part 261 of our
regulations) to any of the combustion wastes? If so,
what constituents, and in what amounts? How does the
composition of combustion wastes change when hazardous
wastes are burned?
Co-disposal and Co-treatment
The second issue raised in your letter was whether the
exclusion extends to wastes produced in conjunction with the
burning of fossil fuels which are co-disposed or co-treated with
fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control
wastes. As examples of such wastes, you specifically mention
boiler cleaning solutions, boiler blowdown, demineralizer
regenerant, pyrites, cooling tower blowdown, or any "wastes of
power plan origin whose co-treatment with fly ash, bottom ash,
slag and flue gas emission control sludges is regulated under
State-or-EPA-sanctioned management or treatment plans."
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-5-
The legislative history on this matter clearly indicates
that the Congress intended that these other wastes be exempted
from Subtitle C regulation provided that they are mixed with and
co-disposed or co-treated with the combustion wastes and further
provided that "there is no evidence of any substantial
environmental danger from these mixtures." (See Congressional
Record, February 20, 1980, p. H 1102, remarks of Congressman
Bevill; also see remarks of Congressman Rahall, Congressional
Record, February 20, 1980, p. H1104.)
We have very little data on the composition, character and
quantity of these other associated wastes (those cited above),
but the data we do have suggest that they are generated in small
quantities relative to combustion wastes, at least when coal is
the fuel, and that they primarily contain the same heavy metal
contaminants as the combustion wastes, although they may have a
significantly different pH than the combustion wastes. These
limited data therefore suggest that, when these other wastes are
mixed with and co-disposed or co-treated with the much larger
quantities of combustion wastes, their composition and character
are "masked" by the composition and character of the combustion
wastes; that is, they do not significantly alter the hazardous
character, if any, of the combustion wastes.
Given this information base and given the absence of
definitive information indicating that these other wastes do pose
a "substantial danger" to human health or the environment, we
believe it is appropriate, in the light of Congressional intent,
to interpret the §261.4(b)(4) exclusion to include other wastes
that are generated in conjunction with the burning of fossil
fuels and mixed with and co-disposed or co-treated with fly ash,
bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes.
We offer this interpretation with some reluctance because it
is made in the absence of definitive information about the
hazardous properties of these other wastes or their mixtures with
combustion wastes. We therefore believe it is imperative that we
proceed to collect all available data on this matter within the
next several months and reconsider this interpretation when these
data are assessed. Toward that end and consistent with the
discussion at our meeting of November 21, we are asking that you
assist us in collecting these data. Specifically, we ask that
you collect and submit by August 1, 1981, any available data on
the following questions:
1. What are the "other" wastes which are commonly mixed
with and co-disposed or co-treated with fly ash, bottom
ash, boiler slag or flue gas emission control wastes?
What are their physical (e.g., sludge or liquid) and
chemical properties? Are they hazardous wastes in
accordance with Part 261?
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
-6-
2. What are the co-disposal or co-treatment methods
employed?
3. How often are these wastes generated? In what
quantities are they generated? Are they commonly
treated in any way before being co-disposed?
4. Does the industry possess any data on the environmental
effects of co-disposing of these wastes? Groundwater
monitoring data? What are the results?
The interpretation on other associated wastes provided in
this letter is limited to wastes that are generated in
conjunction with the burning of fossil fuels. We do not intend
to exempt hazardous wastes that are generated by activities that
are not directly associated with fossil fuel combustion, steam
generation or water cooling processes. Thus, for example, the
§261.4(b)(4) exclusion does not cover pesticides or herbicide
wastes; spent solvents, waste oils or other wastes that might be
generated in construction or maintenance activities typically
carried out at utility and industrial plants; or any of the
commercial chemicals listed in §261.33 which are discarded or
intended to be discarded and therefore are hazardous wastes.
Further, the exclusion does not cover any of the hazardous wastes
listed in §§261.31 or 261.32 of our regulations. None of these
listed wastes were mentioned in your letter or our discussions.
The interpretation on other wastes is also limited to wastes
that traditionally have been and which actually are mixed with
and co-disposed or co-treated with combustion wastes. If any of
these other wastes (e.g., boiler cleaning solutions, boiler
blowdown, demineralizer regenerant, pyrites and cooling tower
blowdown) are segregated and disposed of or treated separately
from combustion wastes and they are hazardous wastes, they are
not covered by the exclusion. In the same vein, the exclusion
does not cover other wastes where there are no combustion wastes
(or relatively small amounts of combustion wastes) with which
they might be mixed and co-disposed or co-treated—a situation
which might prevail where natural gas or oil is the principal
fossil fuel being used. Therefore, this interpretation of the
exclusion applies only where coal is the primary fuel. We feel
this is a legitimate interpretation of Congressional intent,
wherein the argument of little potential environmental hazard,
primarily due to the dilution factor, is clearly based upon co-
disposal or co-treatment with the huge volumes of wastes
generated during coal combustion.
EPA Utility Waste Study
The groups of questions raised above bring us to the subject
which you address concerning the study of utility waste
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-7-
management which EPA is conducting. We agree that the study, as
currently being conducted, does not focus on the matters
discussed in this letter. We would, however, like to address
these matters and include them in our report to Congress, to the
extent possible. To accomplish this, we plan to meet in the very
near future with our contractor, Arthur D. Little, Inc., to
discuss what studies may need to be carried out in addition to
their currently planned activities under the contract. The
inputs of your organization could be quite useful in this effort.
It may be impossible, however, to modify our present study to
include a detailed investigation of all of the issues discussed
above.
Notwithstanding, we would like to address the matters
discussed in this letter within a shorter time frame—during the
next six months. Based on our meeting of November 21, it is my
understanding that the utility industry, working closely with
EPA, is willing to develop data on the questions put forth above.
We agreed that, as a first step, USWAG will prepare a study
outline designed to obtain these data. EPA staff and industry
representatives designated by your organization will then
mutually review the information needs. The data collection
effort will then follow. Finally, data and analyses will be
presented to EPA for review. This will enable us to reconsider
the interpretation provided in this letter and make any changes
deemed necessary. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would
designate a technical representative as USWAG's contact person
for this coordinated data collection effort.
In the meantime, and pending completion of this effort, EPA
will interpret 40 CFR §261.4(b)(4) to mean that the following
solid wastes are not hazardous wastes:
(a) Fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission
control wastes resulting from (1) the combustion solely
of coal, oil, or natural gas, (2) the combustion of any
mixture of these fossil fuels, or (3) the combustion of
any mixture of coal and other fuels, up to a 50 percent
mixture of such other fuels.
(b) Wastes produced in conjunction with the combustion of
fossil fuels, which are necessarily associated with the
production of energy, and which traditionally have
been, and which actually are, mixed with and co-
disposed or co-treated with fly ash, bottom ash, boiler
slag, or flue gas emission control wastes from coal
combustion.
This provision includes, but is not limited to the following
wastes:
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
-8-
(!) boiler cleaning solutions,
(2) boiler blowdown,
(3) demineralizer regenerant,
(4) pyrites, and
(5) cooling tower blowdown.
I am hopeful that our future research activities together
will prove fruitful and that these issues can be rapidly
resolved. I have designated Ms. Penelope Hansen of my staff as
the EPA point of contact for this effort. You may reach her at
(202) 755-9206.
Sincerely yours,
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1981(05)
April 14, 1981
Dr. James Wood
Resource Recycling
2003 Gallatin Rd.
Madison, TN
Dear Dr. Wood:
As you requested, I have enclosed an outline of the
necessary information to be included in petitions for exclusion
of hazardous waste treatment residues. I have also enclosed
copies of several petitions, previously submitted to the Agency,
which may provide guidance in preparing your petition. These
items, along with 45 CFR 33076 §260.22, indicate the areas of
concern which should be addressed in a petition for exclusion.
Under 45 CFR 33120 §261.3(c)(2), a treated hazardous waste
remains hazardous for the same constituents and/or
characteristics for which it was originally listed. Therefore,
petitions for "delisting" the residue from the treatment of
listed wastes must address the treated residue in terms of the
hazardous constituents and/or characteristics for which the
initial wastes were originally listed.
If you have any questions concerning these information
requirements please give me a call (703-755-9187).
Sincerely yours,
Myles E. Morse
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division
Enclosures
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
'441.1981(06)
OFT1C! OF SOLID WASTE
r.r, George Boyd
Pennsylvania. Foundrymens Assn.
Suite 512
One Plywouth Meeting
Plymouth Meeting/ PA 19*62
Dear Georges
Your understanding of the operation of the nixing rule
in S2tl.3(a) (2) (ii) is correct. If cn
-------
1983(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 83
Question: Benzene frcm a storage tank leaked into the ground water. This lea*
occurred before November 19, 1980. The groundwater is now pumped
out and treated in a surface impoundment. Is the surface impound-
ment receiving a hazardous waste?
Answer: If a material is a listed hazardous waste, you must classify
it as a hazardous waste even though the leak occurred prior
to Novenber 19, 1980. Pumping the water is an activity under
261.2(b), so, 261.3(a)(2)(iv) applies. Therefore, the surface
impoundment is receiving U019, benzene. When a site is "re-
activated," {cleaned-up, waste renewed, etc.), the facility
must ccmply with the hazardous waste regulations. See the
Decanber 31, 1980, FJR preamble, p. 86969.
Source: Matt Straus and Steve Silvernan
Research: Karen Gale and Tony Baney
-------
9441.1983(03)
UKITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 25J983
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Scope of Oil and GAB Waste Exemption
in Section 3001(b)(2)(A) of RCRAi
•Iron Sponge' Process
PROM: Lisa K. Friedman
Acting Associate General Counsel
Solid Waste & Emergency Response
Division (LE-132S)
TO: Richard J. Nolan
Regional Counsel
Region VIII
QUESTION PRESENTED
In your March 2, 1913, memorandum to ne, you asked
whether waste "iron sponge" generated during the sweetening
of natural gas is exempt from the requirements of the hazardous
waste regulatory program under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), by virtue of the
exemption for oil and gas wastes in Section 3001(b)(2)(A).
ANSWER
Waste iron sponge is not within the Section 3001{bM2) CM
exemption and, therefore, is subject to the hazardous waste
regulatory program.
DISCUSSION
I. Factual Background
Waste iron sponge is a material which is produced during
a natural gas sweetening process (hydrogen sulfide removal).
Its origin is best understood by reviewing the entire chain
of operations used to extract and refine natural gas for
transportation and sale.
-------
-2-
Natural gas ia extracted from the ground by bringing
reservoir fluids to the surface. The gas aay be extracted
in association with oil or fron a reservoir yielding
predoninintly gas. In any case/ the gas generally is extracted
together with other gaseoaa or liquid substances contained ia
the ground. The combined extracted material is passed through
a physical gas-liquid separator so that the gas can be
separated front the unwanted liquid components or solids {••£. /
sand). (The separated liquids are typically returned to TEe
ground or discharged to impoundments.)
After physical extraction and separation,-the gas is
generally processed or treated to improve it» transportability
and to achieve the quality required for commercial sale. If
the extracted and separated gas is "sour" (i»e., it contains
hydrogen sulfide), it is refined ('sweetened*) to separate
the hydrogen sulfide gases from the commercially sold gas.
This operation is typically performed prior to long-distance
transportation to reduce pipeline corrosion. The sweetening
process often includes a sulfur recovery operation.
In addition to the sweetening and sulfur recovery operations,
a natural gas processing plant often includes several other
manufacturing operations. These include dehydration and
dewpoint control of the sweetened gas, condensation stabilization,
and distillation (to separate various gases for commercial
sale).
The iron sponge process involves passing soar gas through
an absorption tower containing redwood chips coated with hydrated
ferric oxide (the 'iron sponge"). The hydrogen suifide-bearing
gas reacts with the hydrated ferric oxide to produce ferric
sulfide and residual water.
After three to four months, the iron sponge is "spent*.
It is then floodeg with water, initiating a reaction which
produces hydrogen sulfide. The spent iron sponge is then
removed frots the absorption tower and is placed on the ground,
where, with the increased exposure to oxygen, it generates
heat. The heat dries the wood chips, which begin to smolder.
The smoldering continues until the spent iron sponge is
reduced to ashes. The aches are then generally disposed of
in a landfill. I/
I/ You have not asked ay opinion whether the spent iron sponge
is a hazardous waste prior to completion of treatment. I
have assured for purposes of the question presented that it
is hazardous and would be subject to the hazardous waste
regulations unless exempted under Section 3001(b)(2)(A) of
RCRA. (Footnote Continued on Mext Page)
-------
9441.1983(04)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Disposal of Outdated Ordinance by Incineration
FROM: Steven J. Levy
Chief
Permits Branch
State Programs and Resource Recovery Division (WH-563)
TOs Regional Branch Chiefs
Regions I - X
An issue has been raised about the status of so called "popping"
furnaces operated by the Department of Defense. These are furnaces
where DoD disposes of outdated ordinance by incineration, but then
recovers brass or lead from the residue. The question is asked
whether this constitutes legitimate recycling for purposes of
40 CFR 261.6.
In general/ where DoD directly engages in this sort of activity
one can presume that the primary purpose is to dispose of outdated
ordinance, a hazardous waste. DoD is under an obligation to properly
and safely dispose of these reactive wastes. Recovery of metals-
is normally incidental to the performance of that obligation.
Because the intent is to dispose of hazardous waste, 40 CFR 261.6
does not apply and the popping furnace must be permitted.
Of course, in some instances, the operator of a popping furnace
can substantiate a claim for exemption under 40 CFR 261.6. The
clearest case would be where a reclaimer purchases outdated or
surplus ordinance as contaminated scrap metal from a DoD facility,
and derives substantial revenue from the sale of the reclaimed
metal. It may even be possible that a DoD facility could substanti-
ate a claim for legitimate recycling. In the above cases 40 CFR
261.6 would apply and the facility would not require a RCRA permit
under the current regulations*
V
Finally, it must be recognized that the 4 April 1983, proposed
redefinition of solid waste (48 PR 14514), if promulgated, would
moot this issue. Under the redefinition popping furnaces, even
those used for reclaiming metals, would be required to obtain a
RCRA incineration permit.
Ttnrefore, unless a claim can be substantiated, you should
go ahead and calx in and process the Part B's for these popping
,»j. Mt?::S/ai/8,3tRChrisraon Disk No. 1
Final :pls:6/l/.83
-------
9441.1983(07)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 83
-, - When is the residue of hazardous waste in a containe- no longe-
'• regulated?
If the wa*|te 1s listed in 261.33(e), the container or inh^r
liner must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or
cleaned by another method which will achieve equivalent removal.
Alternatively, the inner liner could be removed and disposed of
as a hazardous waste. In the latter case, the rinsate would
also be a hazardous waste.
If the waste 1s a compressed gas, regardless of the waste type,
the container is empty when the pressure In the container approaches
atmospheric pressure.
For all other wastes, a container 1s no longer regulated if the
container has been emptied by usual methods and less than one
inch remains; or if the container is less than or equal to 110
gallons and no more than three percent by weight of the total
capacity remains; or 1f the container 1s greater than 110 gallons
and no more than 0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity remains.
-------
9441.1983(08)
OCT 2 I |983>
Mr. N.C; Vasuki
Ceneral Manager
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
P.O. nox 455
Dover* Delaware 19903-0455
Dear Mr. Vasukii
Thank you for your follow-up letter of September 30 request!***
clarification of the news item on leachate that appeared in the
American City t County magazine. Also, please accept «y apologies
for not responding to your letter of August 9 that was apparently
misplaced.
The statement that appeared In the July, 1983 issue of
American City and County magazine la correct. Leachate fro» a
•unicipal landfill is subject to the hasardous waste regulations
if it is found to be hazardous by any of the hasardous waste
criteria. These criteria include ignitability, reactivity,
corroaivity, and tovicity. If the leachate is a hasardous waste
by any of these definitions, the landfill becomes a hazardous
waste generator and the leachate is subject to all the hazardous
waste regulations unless the landfill can qualify as a small
quantity generator. At the present tiroe, a hazardous waste
generator producing less than 1000 kg. per nonth is exempt froa
most requirements of *the hazardous waste regulations.
If the leachate is not found to be a hazardous waste, the
leachate can continue to be recycled back into the landfill.
However, if the leachate in a hasardous waste and does not qualify
under the small quantity generator exclusion* the leachate
must be treated or disposed of in a permitted hazardous waste.
facility or, as you noted, discharged into a public sewer system.
-------
I hope th/H this clarifies this issue for you. Onoe again
please accept my apologies for not responding earlier.
Sincerely youra,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Wa«t<
co: Thomas P. Eichler
Region III Administrator
WH-565E:Kent Anderson:pj:S206:382-4654;WSM:10/19/83
-------
9441.1983(10)
December 13, 1983
Mr. William R. Shocklee
President
Tri-Rinse, Inc.
P.O. Box 15150
St. Louis, Missouri 63110
Dear Mr. Shocklee:
Thank you very much for the information you forwarded on the
TRI-RINSE process. It does appear that if properly operated this
process is capable of meeting the requirements of the RCRA
regulations for those instances where triple rinsing is required.
However, you should check with the appropriate State or EPA
Regional office for any specific explication to assure that all
regulatory requirements are met. This is covered in our
definition of empty containers in 40 CFR 261.7.
The referenced regulation, in dealing with empty
containers, divides containers into two groups: those which
formerly contained acutely hazardous wastes, and all others. For
the latter group, there is no specific requirement for rinsing;
the regulation merely requires that the waste be removed in its
normal manner, whatever that is—pouring, pumping, aspirating—
and that no more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of residue
remain (in order for the container to be considered as "empty").
However, for containers that formerly held acutely hazardous
wastes, triple rinsing (or its demonstrated equivalent) is
required (see 40 CFR 261.7(b)(3)). The regulation further states
that a suitable solvent, for the particular material, must be
used. Your process and equipment appear to be capable of meeting
this requirement.
When we proposed and then issued this regulation, we
indicated that such emptying, or triple rinsing, did not
constitute treatment, and thus, a permit is not required. Since
the solvent might vary according to the former contents of the
containers, a priori approval of a specific solvent/process is
not possible. Your equipment, if the correct solvent is used,
would accomplish the triple rinsing. As stated in the
regulations, whatever residue remains in the "empty" container is
no longer considered to be a hazardous waste.
This interpretation applies in those States where the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is implementing the RCRA
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
program. As you know, RCRA is intended to be a State-operated
program; where the State has been granted the authority by EPA,
it is the State's regulations that apply, in lieu of the Federal
program. Also, State rules may be more stringent than the
Federal rules. Therefore, you should check with each State
within which you expect to market your process to determine its
position with regard to triple rinsing and empty containers.
I hope this has been of some help. If you have further
questions please call me or Alan Corson, of my staff, at
202/382-4770.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1984(01)
JAN - 6 1934
MEMORANElii-i
SUBJECT: Soils from Missouri Dioxin Sites
FRO*: John d. Skinner, Director
office of Solid Waste
TO: David Wagoner, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region VII
We nave reviewed the results of the analytical program for
soils froir Missouri dioxin sites, in response to your request
roc an interpretation as to wnether or not cnese soils are RCilA
hazardous wastes.
The analyses indicate the presence of a number of toxic com-
pounds in many of the soil samples taken from various sites.
However, tha presence of these toxicants in the soil does not
automatically make the soil a RCRA hazardous waste. The origin
of the toxicants must be known in order to determine that they
are derived from a listed nazardous waste(s). If the exact
origin of the toxicants is not known, the soils cannot he con-
sidered RCSA hazardous wastes unless they exhibit one or more of
the characteristics of hazardous wast* (i.e., ignitability, cor-
rosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure toxicity).
If there are any questions, please contact Hatt Straus in
the Waste Identification Branch (PTS 382*4770).
DFagantdaf:1/5/84idisk Pagan 6
-------
9441.1984(03)
February 16, 1984
Walter F. Biggins
Technical Director
Hazen Paper Company
Holyoke, MA 01041
Dear Mr. Biggins:
This letter is in response to your letter, dated November
23, 1983, to Mr. Alan Corson who has referred it to me for
response. In your letter, you indicate that the dirty wash-up
solvent (i.e., spent solvent) which you generate is placed in an
apparatus which completely removes all solvent from the residue
fi.e., the resulting residue is in a dry state which contains
both pigment and various resin binders). The residue, you claim,
exhibits none of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction produce (EP)
toxicity); therefore, you believe your waste is non-hazardous.
Misses Suskind and Gayle of the RCRA Hotline, you indicate, share
your opinion and believe the residue is non-hazardous.
However, based on my reading of the regulations, your waste
(that is, the residue from the reclamation operation) is
considered hazardous since this waste is derived from the
treatment of a hazardous waste. In particular, §261.3(c)(2)
indicates that any solid waste generated from the treatment.
storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste, including any sludge,
spill residue, ash, emission control dust, or leachate (but not
including precipitation run-off) is a hazardous waste. In
addition, these wastes remain hazardous unless and until: (1) in
the case of any (non-listed) solid waste, it does not exhibit any
of the characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e.. ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity),
or (2) in the case of a listed waste, or waste derived from a
listed waste, it has been excluded from regulation under §§260.20
and 260.22 (so-called delisting procedures). Since the residue
is derived from a listed hazardous waste—namely, F003, F004, and
F005—the residue remains hazardous until your waste is
specifically excluded.
If you wish to handle this residue as a non-hazardous waste,
you should petition the Agency to exclude this waste from the
list of hazardous wastes. Procedures to follow are outlined in
40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Further detail is provided in the
enclosed information requirement sheet. In addition, the Agency
is considering modifying the delisting procedures (see enclosed
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Federal Register notice). Should you have any further questions
regarding this determination, please feel free to give me a call,
my telephone number is (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Enclosure
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1984(03)
FE3 i 6 !984
Ul
JN
ro
WIBHS840105 H
»
Walter P. biggins c
Technical Director "
Hazen Paper Company "%
Holyoke, MA 01041 a
u;
Dear rtr. Bijyins: ®
i
This letter is in response to your letter, dated *
November 23, 1983, to Mr. Alan Corson who has referred it £
to no for response. In your letter, you indicate that tho
dirty wash-up solvent (i.e., spent solvent) which you \
generate is placed In an apparatus which completely reiaoves £
all solvent froa the residue (i.e. , the resulting residue \
is in a dry state which contains both pi^ncnt and various *•
resin binders). The residue, you claim, exhibits none of
the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, £
corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction produce (EP) toxicity); oT
therefore, you believe your waste is non-hazardous. Hisses *"
Susfcind and Gayle'of the RCRA Hotline, you indicate, share =
your opinion and believe the residue is non-hazardous. e
o
However, based on my reading of the regulations, your "*
waste (that is, tho residue from the reclamation operation)
is considered hazardous since this waste is derived from
the treatment of a hazardous waste. In particular,
S261.3(c)(2) indicates that any solid waste generated from
the treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste,
including any sludge, spill residue, ash, emission control
dust, or leachate (but not including precipitation run-off)
is a hazardous waste. In audition, tncse wasten remain
hazardous unless and until: (*1) in the case of any (non-
listed) solid waste, it ooes not exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ijnitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity), or (2) in the case of a listed waste, or waste
derived fron a listed waste, it has been excluded froet
regulation under 55260.20 and 260.22 (so-called dolistioj
procedures). Since tho residue is derived from a listed
hazardous waste—namely, f003, FU04, and F005—the residue
remains hazardous until your waste is specifically excluded.
-------
-2-
If you wish to handle this residue as a non-hazardous waste,
you should petition the Agency to exclude this waste from the
list of hazardous waste. Procedures to follow are outlined in 40
CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Further detail is provided in the
enclosed information requirement sheet. In addition, the Agency
is considering modifying the delisting procedures (see enclosed
Federal Register notice). Should you have any further questions
regarding this determination, please feel free to give me a call;
my telephone number is (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Enclosure
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1984(04)
Requirements for Interim Status for Military Facil_.ies
The military claims open burning can be used to train soldiers in detonation
techniques. Under 261.6(a), they do not feel they need interim status
for their open burning area. Is this legitimate recycling?
This is not considered legitimate recycling. The facility must
have inter in status.
Sourde: Alan Cor son. Matt Straus. OSW
-------
9441.1984(05)
FE3 1 9 1984
«r. Robert E. Blanz
Deputy Director, Program operation*
Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology
«U01 National Drive
P.O. Box 9583
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
Dear Mr. Blanzt
Your letter^dated February 13, 1984 asks whether the residue
fron the treatment of a listed hazardous waste is also a hazardous
wasto.
In your letter, you correctly interpret 40 C*T* 261.3(c)(2)
and (d) to mean that the scrubber brine and sludge produced while
incinerating listed hazardous wastes are themselves hazardous
wastes unless delisted. Where, however, the incinerated waste is
hazardous only by virtue of the characteristics identified in
Suopart C of 40 CPR 2G1, then the scrubber brine and sludge are not
hazardous wastes if they no longer exhibit any of these characteristics,
In your letter, you sent ion an applicant who USA.* surface
impoundments to store scrubber sludge and brine produced while
incinerating listed hazardous wastes. Based on our interpretation
of 40 CPR 261.3(1)(2) and (d), the applicant either mist attempt
to have his sludge and brine del Is ted or he oust have his surface
impoundment permitted for hazardous wastes.
It you need any additional-information or assistance, please
contact Mr. Randy Chrisaen at (202) 382-4691.
Sincerelyr
Peter Guerrero
Special Assistant to the Director
Permits and state Prograws Division
ect Bruce weddle
Alan Corson
-------
9441.1984(06)
APR 10 1984
3E:SM3VC04nf>
Robert J. Nelson
Associate 'Director
National Paint and Coatirvjs
Association
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Df»ar Mr. Nelson:
This letter responds to your inquiry of Karen 20, 1934,
regarding the regulatory status of mixtures of spont solvents
listed in 40 CPR 261.31 (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F001-FOQ5).
As you correctly stated in your lettsr, the solvent listing
pertains only to the technical grade or pure fonn of the solvent.
Thus/ solvent mixtures are not regulated unless they exhibit one
or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste. At this
time, however, we are in the process of revising the solvent
listing to include these mixtures. We expect to propose an
amendment by early next year. When this rule is promulgated,
spent solvent mixtures will oe regulated when treated, stored,
transported/ or disposed of; and when treated, stored, or
transported prior to use, reuse, recycle or reclamation.
However, pursuant to1 the new proponed definition of solid
waste, certain recycling/reclamation activitea will be exempt
from regulation. As a practical matter, this means that
solvents (and solvent mixtures) that are reclaimed either
under certain batch tolling arrangements or on-sito By the
generator for use as a suostitute for the comraercial product
will oe exewpt from regulation. (See PR 14472-14512, April 4,
1933, for details.)
Should you have further questions or require additional
information, feel free to contact Jacqueline Sales, of my staff,
at (202) 332-4770.
Sincerely yours,
Eileen B. Claussen
Acting Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (WH-562B)
-------
9441.1984(07)
Arr: -".-
Hits Bonnie Stuckey
Wesseloan Park Nature Center
551 North Boake Road
Evansvllle, IK 47711
Dear Hiss Stuekey t
Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1984, in which
you request information on the proper disposal of household
batteries.
Under the Resource Conservation,and Recovery Act (RCRA),
EPA is responsible for establishing regulations for controlling
the generation, transportation, storage* treatment, and
disposal of hazardous waste. In passing RCRA, Congress
exerted household wastes from control under the hazardous
waste regulatory program. Neither Congress nor the Agency
believes that requiring hoaaowners to identify which of their
wastes nay be hazardous and to comply with the significant
regulations other hazardous waste generators oust follow
would prove feasible either from an economics or enforcement
point of view.
As a result, household C and O cell batteries are exempted
from regulation under RCRA. The Agency does not believe that
this poses a significant environmental problem since most
household batteries are of the carbon-zinc variety. Carbon-zinc
batteries, while disposed of by many households, contain only,
very small quantities of hazardous constituents and are generally
dispersed throughout a landfill. It Is the nickel-cadmium
and mercury batteries which are hazardous. However, since
nickel-cadmium batteries are considerably •ore; expensive
than most household batteries and also are rechargeable, they
are seldom disposed of in significant quantities by homeowners.
Consequently, the Agency does not believe that these batteries
pose a serious environmental hazard. Mercury cells, while
of concern 1C. disposed of in large quantities (e.g., by.a
manufacturer), generally are very small (e.g., hearing aid
and watch batteries) and thus contain only very small amounts
of mercury* These would also not be expected to result in
locally large concentrations In the landfill since household
use of these batteries IB snail.
-------
-2-
WMle the Agency certainly encourages the recycling ot
T»at«»ri*ls wherever possible, we are not aware of any facilities
that recycle carbon-zinc batteries, rtor do we currently have any
poster* or other materials that discuss the recycling or
proper disposal of household wastes. However, you ray wish
to contact the Indiana State Board of Health since that Agency
has responsibility for the hazardous waste program in Tndi.iaa.
Thoir address is:
Land Pollution Control Division
-tats Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street, *K A-304
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
(317) «3V01
-------
9441.1984(08)
May 3, 1984
Mr. Len Devaney
Plant Engineer
Pettibone Corporation
4700 West Division Street
Chicago, Illinois 60651
Dear Mr. Devaney:
In response to your letter of March 5, 1984 and as clarified
in our telephone conversation, it was determined that the
emission control dust that is generated from your electric arc
furnace is not considered a hazardous waste under the EPA
hazardous waste classification of K061 - Emission control
dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric
furnaces. This determination is based solely on the fact that
your facility is a foundry.
The November 14, 1980 background document for the
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste makes it clear that
the Agency did not intend to apply this listing to dusts/sludges
that are generated at foundries (see Enclosure). This
distinction was made in response to comments submitted by the
American Foundryman's Society (AFS) on the original interim final
listing K061 - Emission control dust/sludge from the electric
furnace production of steel. See 45 FR 33124, May 19, 1980.
Although your facility's emission control dust is not
classified as a K061 waste, it may still be considered hazardous
if it exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste
(i.e.. ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity). It is incumbent upon you to determine
if your waste exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics; if your waste exhibits any of the
characteristics, your emission control dust is hazardous and must
be managed in accordance with the hazardous waste regulations.
(See 40 CFR 262.11).
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Should you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1984(09)
3
"
««. 191984 'I
5
C
i
5
Mr. Thomas J. Pronapfal, P.I. r
Stata of Nevada £
Department of Conservation £
and Natural Resources ^
Division of Environmental Protection
Capitol Complaz ,
Carson City, Nevada 89710
Dear Mr. rronapfali -C
2
Z am writing in reaponae to your memorandum of April 19, 1984 *
regarding the status of mining laboratory waataa under the «
exclusioo of 40 Cm 2C1.4(b)(7). £
I
Baaed upon the Information submitted In your memorandum,', the ^
Agency baa determined that both the nitric acid waste and the fire "
assay oupela are solid waste from the extraction, .benefielation and .[
processing of ore-a and minerals. As such, the wastes temporarily «
are excluded by 3001 (b)(3)
-------
9441.1984(10)
Us Disk VCOS
Mff 15864
Lloyd ft. Cress
Greene baist, Doll 4 McDonald
1400 Vine Center Tover
?,O. Box It08
Lexington, Kentucky 40593 ,
Dear Mr. Cresst
In your letter of April 2C, 1914, you requested confirmation
of our ««rli«r di«eu*«ion regarding th* regulatory »tatu« of
r««idu« froa •tr»a»-«trippLnQ of process vast* containing toliran*.
As I •xplaia«d> in our r*c«nt eo»¥«raation, th« «olT«nt
listings (tPA Basardous Wast* Mo«. fOOl-POOS) pertain to
tb« pure for* or technical grade aolvant, when spent or discarded.
The listing* do not pertain to industrial process waste containing
solvents. Since process vastevattr generated from your client's*
facility* is not the listed hasardous vasts, the residue fraa
treatment (i.a.t stream-stripping) of the vasts is also not a
hasardous vasts* unless it exhibits one or More of the character-
istics of hasardous vasts (i.s., ignitability, reactivity* corrosi-
vity or IP toxicity).
Z trust that this letter adequately responds to your inquiry.
sfeould you require additional information* please call M at
(202)382-4107.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline M. Sales
Environmental Engineer
WH-562:JSALES:ld:382-4S07:S-248:5-ll-84:Dis* VC05 doc. 9
-------
9441.1984(11)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
APRIL 84
rtCRA/Superfund Hotline
April 1984 Report
Page 5
4. If equipment fron drilling for crude oil or natural gas is steam-cleaned off-
site from the drilling site, is the waste excluded from regulation by 261.a:.t>)(5)
even if the waste exhibits a Subpart C characteristic?
Wastes uniquely associated with the exploration, development or production
of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy are excluded from regulation
by 261.4(b)(5) regardless of whether the waste exhibits a Subpart C
characteristic. Since only water is used for steam-cleaning, the drilling
waste is still excluded from regulation. If another cleaning agent not
uniquely associated with the exploration, development, or production of
crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy was used, then the waste could
be subject to regulation. For example, if methylene chloride was used to
clean the equipment, the waste would be subject to regulation as FOU2.
Source: Meg Silver
Research: Denise Wright
-------
9441.1984(12;
jlfc A fi§£
Status of supernatant from Lime neutralisation of Spent
Pickle Liquor
Matthew Straus, Acting Chief
Haste Identification Branch (WH-S62B)
Karl Klepitsch, Chief
Waste Management Branch (Region V)
This memorandum addresses your Inquiry regarding the
status of supernatant from lime treatment of spent pickle
liquor*
rirst, you are correct in stating that the supernatant
is not Included in the industry-vide exclusion of lime-
stabilized vaste pickle liquor sludge (LSWPLS) (formerly
known as lime neutralised vaste pickle liquor sludge)
generated from the iron and steel Industry. The exclusion
pertains only to sludge generated from the treatment process.
Second, the supernatant is a hazardous vaste. However,
it is not regulated vhen stored in a tank connected to the
vastevater treatment system* (This material is generally
stored in a sedimentation tank (clarifier) prior to discharge).
In addition, vhen discharged, the supernatant is excluded
from the presumption of being a solid vaste, and thus, a
hasardous vasts (see 40 CFR 261.4(a") (1) (ii) (2)), If it is
discharged either to navigable vaters pursuant to the
provisions of the clean water Act or to a PQTW. Supernatant
that is removed from the vastewater treatment system, and
is otherwise managed, is regulated under RCXA.
WH-562B:JSALES/KSTRAUS/pes/475-B551/5/31/84 Disk MS840201
-------
9441.1984(13)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
MAY 84
5. API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry (H051) Is placed
in a surface impoundment where it further separates into sludge and water.
Is the water fraction a hazardous waste?
The water fraction is not a hazardous waste because the K051 listing
was meant to cover the sludge generated from this process, regardless
of the nunoer of separations.
Source: BillSproat
Research: Tom Gainer
-------
9441.1934(14)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
MAY 84
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Kay 1984 Report
Page 5
4. Section 251.3(a)(2)(1V) excludes froo regulation the discharge of certain
wastewater mittures which are sufiject to Clean Water Act regulations
(307(5) and 402) "(including wastewjter at facilities which have eliminateo
the discharge of wastewater)."
A) What is the significance of this section's parenthetical phrase
addressing eliminated discharge?
3} Do surface impoundments qualify under that parenthetical reference?
A) The intended application of the parenthetical phrase in 251.3(a)(2)(lv)
is to situations where effluent guidelines or pretreatment stanoaras
require zero discharge as the most environmentally sound practice,
or where a facility surpasses these requirements by achieving :ero
discharge.
B) If a surface impoundment is subject to Clean Water Act zero discharge
guidelines, then the exclusion applies. Information specific to the
purpose and management of surface impoundments oust b« supplied to
determine if this exclusion applies.
Source: Steve Silverman
Research: Ken Jennings
-------
9441.1984(15)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ignitability Characteristic Application to Hot
Gaseous Process Emissions
PROMi John U. Skinner, Director
Offlet of Solid toast*
TOi James U. iCArbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch, Rayion IV
In your June 27, 1984, memorandum you requested our guidance
a* to whether the hazardous determination of a waste is or is not
supposed to be Bade at standard temperature and pressure or
whether this determination is to be Bade in the fora (i.e., gas,
solid, liquid) that it is generated.
In particular, you raised concerns about the destruction of
materials in fume incinerators and argued that facilities could
avoid regulation by simply Dot condensing vent gas and overhead
emissions. You also argued that f261.21(a)(2) states that
wastes which are not liquids Bust be evaluated for the ignitability
characteristic at standard temperature end pressure.
At the facility in question, the generator had been
condensing the gaseous emissions and feeding them along with
other gaseous wastes into an incinerator. These gaseous
emissions were previously condensed prior to treatment in a fume
incinerator. This tame facility now plans to feed uncondensed
reactor vent gases directly to the fume incinerator (i.e.,
will not be condensing the gases and will only be sending
gaseous emissions to the incinerator).
As you nay be aware, our office previously addressed
tftis issue when we finalised the incinerator regulation in
June of 1982. In the preamble to that rule, we said that the
feod to fuae incinerators are subject to regulation only uncer
the Clean Air Act and not under RCRA since these jaseous
emissions are not solifl w««tes (see -47'JPF 27530, June 24,
19d2). In particular, we stateds
-------
•CTA agreaa with comaenterm that fume lacineratora
are subject only to regulation under the Clean Air
Act and doea not intend that the parta 264 and 265
regulationa apply to theae facilitiea. Fume incineratora
which are uaed to deatroy gaaeoua evlasione from
varioua induatrial proceaaea, for example, are not
subject to regulation under RCRA. In general, the
RCRA standards do not apply to fume incineration
aince the input ia not identifiable aa a aolid
waate, according to the definition aet forth
in 1261.2*.
However, we recently indicated in the Federal Reqiater
(49 PR 5314, February 10, 1984) that we are re-conaidering this
poaiTTon. In particular, in a propoaal to liat light end vent
gaaea from the production of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbona,
we atated that gaseoue emlaaiona which are condenaable to
liquida at atandard temperature and preasure can be aubject
to regulation and would not be included in the exeluaion of
gaaeoua materiala under RCRA (aee Section 1004(28))* See
preamble to proposal where we statei
•*... The light enda component of theae overheada
ia in fact liquida at standard temperature and
preasure, but becauae of elevated temperature and
and admixture with gaaea (e.g., hydrogen, methane)
they require some form of physical condensation to
be isolated as liquids.....
The Agency considers these light ends to be solid
waates within the meaning of Section 1004(28) of
RCRA. Although these waates ar*> generated as gaaea,
they are liquids at atandard temperature and
pressure, and can feasibly be condensed to the
liquid phaae after generation.
The exclusion from RCRA of 'gaseous materiala' that
ara not contained (Section 1004(28)), in the Agency'a
view, appliea only to true gases, namely those
which are not capable of being condensed and which
remain, gaaes at standard temperature and pressure*
Therefore, until we decide whether and how to finalise
the proposal, we must defer a final answer to your question.
In the interim, however, any incinerator that just recelvea
gaaeous emissions would be excluded from control under RCRA,
aa atated in the preamble to the final incinerator rulea.
At the same time, you should be aware that the rules may
change and that incinerators that receive gaseous emissions,
wnich are liquids at standard tenderature and preasure, may
be subject to regulation in the future.
If you have any further questions, pleaae call Matt Straus
of my staff at 475-fciSl.
-------
9441.1934(18)
Response to Questions from State Pesticide
Personnel: Triple Rinsing
(3) Container disposal, particularly ULV product* and in
impregnated fertilizer situations. What if triple rinsing
is impossible?
Section 261.7 is pertinent only if the product is
listed in 5261.33. Section 261.7, Residues of
hazardous waste in empty containers, is explicit.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTFCTIO
9441.1984(19;
15 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation on Mineral Processing
Residuals Generated by Combustion Units Burning
Hazardous Waste Fuel
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division (2AWM)
I am writing in response to your memorandum of May 25, 1984,
in which you requested a regulatory interpretation regarding mineral
processing residuals generated from the thermal expansion of shale
in rotary kilns that are fired with hazardous waste fuels. The
issue is whether these mineral processing residuals, i.e., shale
fines sludge, which would otherwise be exempt from Subtitle C of
RCRA under the mining "extraction, beneficiation, and processing"
exclusion of 4O CFR $261.4(b)(7), are subject to regulation as a
hazardous waste due to the use of listed hazardous waste as a fuel
source for the process. This letter responds to the questions
that you raised in your request, and also addresses the points
that Norlite Corporation has made in response to the Region's
complaint against them.
In response to one of your questions, we are not aware of any
explicit precedent or policy that has been established regarding
the applicability of either the mining waste exemption or the
cement kiln dust exemption where waste solvents are employed as
fuels. Therefore, we have consulted with the Office of General
Counsel and the Office of Haste Programs Enforcement in developing
the following responses.
Background
Norlite Corporation, located in Cohpes, New York, mines shale
and thermally expands it to produce a lightweight aggregate that
is used in construction products. The thermal expansion takes
place in two rotary kilns that are fired by listed hazardous waste
fuels (hazardous waste nos. F001-F005, according to Norlite) that
are purchased from waste generators and fuel blenders. Before
-------
entering the stack, the kiln gases are scrubbed with an alkaline
aqueous slurry. The shale fines captured by the scrubber are
collected in surface impoundments from which they are subsequently
dredged at a rate of 40,000 tons year. The shale fines sludge
dredgings are accumulated in w^ste piles at Norlite's facility.
Quest ion It Is Norlite's shale fines sludge exempt from
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA by virtue
of the mining waste exclusion in $261.4(b)(7)7
Answer; Yes, the wast* is currently exempt.
Discussion;
Section 261.4(b)(7) provides an exemption from Subtitle C
control for 'Solid wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and minerals...". In the preamble to the rule
providing this exemption, the Agency said we would interpret the
exclusion to include solid waste from the exploration, mining,
milling, smelting, and refining of ores and minerals (see 45
Federal Register 76618-76619, November 19, 1980). This interpre-
tation includes residuals from mineral processing, including air
emission control wastes.
The process that Norlite uses involves heating shale to produce
a lightweight aggregate, thus enhancing its value. This approach
is analogous to many other thermal processes used to dry, smelt,
or otherwise upgrade an ore or mineral. Therefore, the Norlite
process would be considered beneficiation or processing, and the
wastes from that process fall within EPA's current interpretation
of the S261.4(b)(7) exclusion. The use of hazardous waste fuels
as the total or partial energy source does not, in our opinion,
change the status of the waste as beneficiation or processing
waste. EPA made it clear in the November 19, 1980, preamble that
the exclusion does not apply to solid wastes, such as spent solvents,
pesticide wastes, and discarded commercial chemical products, that
are not uniquely associated with the mining and allied processing
industries. The solvents that we were addressing in the 1980
notice are those that might be generated as a result of equipment
maintenance or some other general plant operations, but not as a
result of extraction, beneficiation, or processing operations.
We arrive at the same conclusion for cement kiln dust waste
that may be generated during a cement manufacturing process that
employs hazardous waste fuels as an energy source. Cement kiln
dust waste is currently exempt from Subtitle C by 5261.4(b)(8).
The use of hazardous waste fuels in this process would not negate
the exclusion.
We emphasize that this interpretation of the mining waste
exclusion docs not necessarily exclude all solvents from regulation
-------
under Subtitle C. As described above, wastes that are not generated
from extraction, beneficiation, or processing operations, e.g.,
spent solvents generated during equipment maintenance, are not
excluded from Subtitle C regulation. Therefore, if Norlite mixes
its shale fines sludge with nonexcluded listed hazardous waste,
the resulting waste is subject to the "mixture rule" in $261.3(b)(2).
The Office of Solid Waste is currently reviewing its 1980
interpretation of the mining waste exclusion to define more
accurately the wastes that Congress intended to exclude from Sub-
title C pending completion of the mining waste study. We will
keep you advised on the progress of the reevaluation and the
supporting studies.
Question 2; Is Norlite's shale fines sludge exempt under
the beneficial reuse exemption provided for
by 5261.6?
Answer; No. Wastes resulting from a beneficial reuse
process are not covered by the 5261.6 exemption.
Discussion;
Sections 261.3(c) and (d) state that any solid waste generated
from the treatment (which includes some recycling), storage,.or
disposal of hazardous waste, including any sludge or emission
control dust, is a hazardous waste until the generator proves
otherwise. In the case of a waste that is derived from a listed
hazardous waste, the solid waste is considered hazardous unless
and until.it is delisted in accordance with 55260.20 and 260.22.
In the case of-Norlite Corporation, the shale fines sludge is
considered to be derived from the treatment of hazardous wastes,
i.e., the solvents that are used as fuel. Burning of hazardous
wastes, albeit for legitimate energy recovery, is still considered
treatment. If the shale fines sludge had not been considered a
beneficiation or processing waste under 5261.4(b)(7), and therefore
excluded from regulation, it would be classified as listed hazardous
waste.
The beneficial reuse exemption contained in $261.6 applies to
the beneficial reuse process only, and not to any wastes that may
be generated as a result of such processes. This exemption thus
applies solely to hazardous wastes prior to and during legitimate
recycling.
It should be noted that listed hazardous wastes, such as the
solvents that Norlite uses, are subject to certain transportation
and storage requirements prior to reuse. These requirements are
contained in §261.6(b). I assume that Norlite1s tanks used for
storage of these listed hazardous wastes prior to firing in the
kiln are subject to these provisions.
-------
Question 3i Is Norlite's shale fines sludge exempt under
the wastewater exemption of $261.3(a)(2)(iv)?
Answer; No, this exemption does not apply to the shale
fines sludge.
Discussion;
The wastewater exemption contained in «261,3{a)(2)(iv)(A)
applies only if solvents are commingled with process wastewater as
part of routine housekeeping procedures (e.g., minor release of
solvents during degreasing operations that would collect in the
wastewater sewer). The provision has no applicability to sludges
that are mixed or otherwise commingled with wastewater, or to
sludges that, in effect, generate a wastewater through the settling
of solids frotr the sludge.
You expressed concern that the mining waste and cement kiln
dust exclusions could lead to burning hazardous waste fuels with
high levels of toxic organic or petals constituents, resulting in
the generation of hazardous residues. We are presently developing
standards to regulate burning of hazardous waste in boilers and in
cement and aggregate kilns, and intend to require that these units
generally meet the same performance standards applicable to incin-
erators. The residues from burning hazardous waste in these units
may contain high levels of toxic compounds, particularly metals.
Consequently, if we find through our research that aggregate kiln
residuals or cement kiln dusts pose a substantial hazard, we will
consider eliminating their respective exemptions under Part 261,
and subjecting the wastes to regulation under Subtitle C of PCPA.
Your letter and Norlite's response to the Region's complaint
necessitated this lengthy response. However, it has enabled us to
develop a position on a highly complex regulatory interpretation
issue. I trust that our response can be used by the Region in
resolving the Norlite case, as well as providing advice to similar
waste fuel/mineral processors that you mentioned. John Heffel finger
of i*y staff has discussed our findings on this issue with Bob-
Harris, of your office. You may contact him at FTS-3P2-7923.
For further information on the subject of burning and blending
hazardous waste fuels and our regulatory development efforts,
please contact Boh HoiIoway at FTS-382-7936.
cc: Solid Waste Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
w/attachment (Region II Itr. dated 5/25/84)
-------
1984(20)
AUS 16 1984
Mr. Ton Tiesler, Director
Division of Solid Wast* Management
Bureau of Environmental Service*
Department of Public Health
150 9th Avenue, North
Nashville* Tennessee 37203
Dear Tcaoi
At the request of Liz Cottingham in Congressman Leath's
officer I am writing to clarify f261.4(b)(4) of the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations. This section codifies a Con-
gressional exemption that was enacted in the 1980 RCRA
Amendments. The amendment (see RCRA Sec. 3001(b)(3)(A)(1))
removes fly asrh waste, bottosi ash waste, slag waste, and flue
gas emission control waste generated primarily from the com-
bustion of coal or other fossil fuels from control under RCRA
Subtitle C until at least six months after a study under RCRA
Section 8002(n) is submitted to Congress. Other applicable
provisions of Federal and state laws, including RCRA Subtitle
D, remain in effect.
While CPA's study under RCRA Section 8002(n) to dste has
concentrated on waste generated by coal-fired electric utility
power plants, the Congressional exemption is not limited to
these plants, in our opinion. Ply ashr bottom ash, slag and
flue gss dust and sludges from the combustion of coal, oil, or
natural gas frcei any source would also be exempted temporarily
from RCRA Subtitle C control.
Sincerely,
If
John P. Lehman
Director
Waste Hanagement and
Economics Division
cc: Liz Cottinghan
John Skinner
Fred Lindsey
Bruce Weddle
Martha Kittel
Ton Devine-Region IV
JPLEHMAN:gb:WH-565:rmM2106:382-4756:8/14/84
-------
9441.1984(21)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 84
A natural gas production corpany injects nethanol into well heads
to keep then fron freezing during the winter nonths. Hie water/
nauiral gas/nethanol mixture is piped through a central piping
station where the natural gas is separated fron the vater/faethanol
mixture, ttie water/me thanol mixture is piped to a lined pond
and finally discharged to a series of percolation ponds. Ihe
discharge to the percolation ponds is regulated under the State
grouncHrater permit program. Ihe nethanol is ignitable; ho-ever,
it eventually volatilizes into the atnospner«. Is the nethanol/
water mixture ejcluded from regulation according to 261.4(b)(5)?
Yes; the mixture is excluded according to 261.4 (b) (5). Hi is
eelusion is specifically refererced in section 3001(bH2)(A)
of RCRA. A report to Ccngress on the excluded waste is direct*^
under section 8002 of FCRA.
Source: Dexter Hinckley
Research: Bill Kusin
-------
9441.1984(22)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
JULY 84
7. A drum of listed wastes Is dunped into an en-site wastewater
treataent facility at a laboratory operation. Is this covered
by the lab exclusion in S261.3(a)(iv)(E)?
This activity is not covered in the lab exclusion. $261.3(a)
(iv)(E) was meant to cover snail anounts of wastes added essentially
unavoidably to large volumes of process wastewater. Exanples
include laboratory spills washed into a sink drain, and residues
frcn the washing of glassware which are carried in the washwater
into the sewer.
Source: Alan Corsoo
Research: Ton Gainer
-------
9441.1984(23)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 84
3« Smelter Blag waste burUd around 1900 is currently being exravatec!.
is this waste ejcluded under 261.4(to)(4)7
The ejclusion in 5261.4(b)(4) covers boiler klag (solten
tocton ash) but does not cover snelter Klag. C» smelter
slag would probably fall under the mining exclusion
(S261.4(t>)(7)) as the processing of ores and minerals.
Sources John Beffelfinger
Research: Tom Gainer
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
S£? 6 iSc.1
9441.1984(24)
.Mr. Harold Nash
Vice President
Environaental Technology, Inc.
Ashland, Virginia
0'«'C6 Of
SOLiO WASTE AND EMCMCENCV "ES'ONSE
Dear Mr. Nash:
The purpose of chis letter is to respond to our telephone
conversation of September 4, 1984 and che delisting petition
submitted.for Rappahannock Wire, Inc. Fredericksburg, Virginia.
The petition addresses the waste generated from zinc phosphating
on carbon steel and requests an exclusion from EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006 (wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations).
There are several processes which are exempt from the F006
listing, one of which is zinc plating (segregated basis) on
carbon steel. Since the Agency's current definition of
electroplating includes phosphating processes, the exemption
for zinc plating on carbon steel also applies to zinc phosphating
on carbon steel. As indicated in the petition, Rappahanock
Wire's waste is' generated from a zinc phosphating operation
which soley involves carbon steel as the base metal.
Furthermore, you indicated that the phosphatins process is
not used with any other process which could generate a
hazardous waste, and the wastestream from this process is not
comingled with any other hazardous waste. Therefore you
characterize Rappahanock Wire's process as segregated. If'this
representation of Rappahanock Wire's zinc phosphating process
is accurate, the Agency considers the waste to be exempt from
EPA's F006 Hazardous Waste listing and therefore not a
listed hazardous waste under the Federal Hazardous Waste
Management System.
As a result of chis determination no further action
will be taken on the delisting petition received on August 29,1984.
The phosphating waste may be handled as a non-hazardous
waste providing that the generator has fulfilled the
requirement of testing the waste for the four characteristics,
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and EP Toxicity),
identified under $261.20 of Che RCRA regulations. With
regard co chis last point ic should be noted chat -sample
number 4-3187 in che petition failed che EP Toxicicy Limit
for cadmium and therefore che waste represented by chis
sample would be considered hazardous by che EP Toxicicy
characteristic. Rappahanock Wire is required co handle all
wasce that fails any characteristic as a hazardous waste.
The waste may be recreated and if it no longer exhibits Che
characteristic it may Chen be handled as a non-hazardous waste.
-------
-2-
Due to the variability of heavy metal mobility exhibited
by Rappahanock Wire's waste (as revealed by the EP Toxicity
data in Che petition), the Agency is very concerned about
the potential fertilizer use option cited in the petition.
Due to the ability of this wasce to leach high concentrations
of cadmium, the Agency cannoc recomaend the use of this
wasce in che production of fertilizers. This pocencial
problem has been noced by chis office and we have informed
both che EPA Region III Office and che Virginia Department
of Health/Division of solid and Hazardous Waste Management
of this situation.
If you have any questions regarding chis letter do not
hesitate to call me at (202)-382-4782.
Sincerly,
MyleS E. Morse
Envirnmental Protection Specialist
Waste Identification Branch.
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Sam Rotenberg
OSW/IPA Region III
William Gilley
Solid & Hazardous Waste
Virginia Depc. of Health
-------
9441.1984(25)
SS>
Nobel & Associates, Inc.
Westmoreland Huilding
Olri orchard Hoad
S'
-------
Although t.^e unrejulated residues in onpty containers is
scill of concern, at present EPA resources are being employed
for othor, higher priorit- . projects, if you have any other
questions on the Agency position regarding possible future
regulation of residue from empty containers, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
Alan S. Corson
Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
-------
Noble G Associates inc Environmental Consultant,
Westmoreland Building
Old Orchard Road
Skotie. Illinois 60077
(312) 677-8410
August 20, 1984
Alan Corson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Rinsate from Empty Containers
Dear Alan,
Further to our recent telephone conversations, I would like
to formally request an opinion on the subject of rinsate
from empty containers.
As you know 40CFR261.7, establishes an exemption for
"Residues of Hazardous Wastes in Empty Containers."
However, the August 18, 1982, preamble to this regula-
tion created an expectation that we might in the near
futura see some new regulation which would control these
residues after removal from the container.
If I understand you correctly, the current view is that
these residues (from empty containers) are thought to
be less of a problem than was supposed at the time the
preamble was drafted and that EPA does not propose to
regulate them.
I would very much appreciate a confirmation of the current
EPA positiop on this subject.
Your
Copy to: Mark Wright
Steve Rubin
-------
9441.1984(26)
Mr. wtlliaa H. Parser III
Afczo C.ne.-nie America
300 South wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Dear Mr. Partcer:
I an responding to your request for a written confImation
of the interpretation that, tne RCA A/Super fund Hotline gave you.
According to 40 CFR $261.7(b)(1), containers that held commercial
chemical products from 40 CFR $261.33(2) are empty when they
have oeen emptied using the practice comtonly ueed to remove
materials and no more than one inch of residue remains on the
oottom of the container, or no more than 3 .percent of the weight
of tho container's capacity remains if the container is 110
gallons or less 'in size.
Thus, pouring out the contents from a bag, then shaking
and tapping the outside of bags containing solid maleic anhydride
(U147) or solid phthalic anhydride (U190) is'a common emptying
practice. This practice would likely result in empty containers
meeting the definition cited above. These "empty containers' are
not suaject to Federal RCRA regulation.
of course, the 44 States and territories that have instituted.
nazardous waste programs that operate in lieu of RCRA may have
slightly different viewpoints on this issue. You should be
familiar with regulatory standards of any states you deal with.
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline (800/424-9346) can send you a
list of the State hazardous waste agency addresses and phone
numbers if you need it.
I am glad to be able to confirm the Hotline's assessment
of your emptying practices. Let me know if I can be of any
future assistance.
Sincerely yours.
Alan S. Corson
Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
-------
9441.1984(27)
Mr. Don Stanley
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Route 1, Box 7
Harrisville, VW 26362
Dear Mr. Stanley:
This will confirm our telephone conversation of August 20,
1984, regarding the RCRA regulatory status of dibutyltin difluoride
You wanted to know ajbout protective clothing contaminated with
the raw product and baghouse dust collecting unused product.
Dibutyltin difluoride is not a listed RCRA waste. It is
the generator's responsibility to test or apply knowledge of.
the material in order to determine whether, as a waste, it
exhibits any of the 40 CPR Part 261 Subpart C characteristics.
The Material Data Safety Sheet and the Ohio EPA analysis of
product appear to confirm your decision that a waste contaminated -
with dibutyltin difluoride would not be a hazardous waste on
the basis of the dibutyltin difluoride.
Of course, the 44 States and territories .that have instituted
hazardous waste programs that operate in lieu of RCRA may have
a different viewpoint, especially in view of the TLV. In any
case, you. and your customer should be aware of the regulatory
standards of any States you deal with. The RCRA/Superfund
Hotline (800/424-9346).can.send you a list of the State hazardous
waste agency addresses .and phone numbers if you need it.
Sincerely yours,
Alan S. Corson
Chief
Studies-and Methods Branch
-------
9441.1984(28)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 84
i* of off-ftF«IM«l1on,
In oil exploration VovfrncMJ by cat exclusion
TJ.t «yloiU«s »rc not locl«*i 1n m ^r?!
they are net uniquely associated with «;>lor.t ™
fore, «1s|;osil or thes« explosive? 1s a r«vulat«d
ScwrTe: ?sr.ny. Hanson
Rei^rcn: Too Gainer
-------
9441.1984(29)
24 1964
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Zinc Plating (segregated basis) on C*rbon Steel
FROM: Matthew A."Straus,:Chief
Waste Identification'Branch* (WH-562B
TO: Xichael Sanderson Chief
Air and Hazardous".Waste Compliance Branch
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
EPA Region VII
This is written in response to your September 18,~1984 -
request for clarification regarding zinc plating/ (segregated
basis) on carbon steel.
With respect to electroplating operations, wastevater
treatment sludges generated from zinc plating on .carbon steel
are considered non-hazardous only when the waste stream •
froo this operation is maintained and'treated separately
(segregated) from other hazardous waste"streams generated at a
facility. In many cases, however*"zinc plating is often
followed by chemical conversion coating, which includes
coloring; chromating, and immersion coating, as well as
other plating operations. Chemical conversion-coating
is defined in EPA's listing background document as a component
of electroplating and therefore, the wastewater treatment
sludges generated from this operation would be considered
hazardous. If the wastewater from a zinc plating line
is combined with'wastewaters from other electroplating
operations, the resultant wastewater 'treatment, sludge
would be considered hazardous*
Therefore, wastewater treatment.sludges generated from
zinc plating operations, where-the zinc waste stream .is
combined with other hazardous waste streams, are considered
EPA Hazardous waste-No. F006 and subject-to regulation under
40 CPR 262-266. -If you have'any. further'questions on this ,
matter, please do not'hesitate.to contact Mr. William Sproat
of my staff'at FTS -382-4783.
-------
9441.1984130)
22 OCT 1984
Or. A. R. Tarrer
Auburn University
Hepartrent of Chemical Enoineerina
23n FOSR Tall
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-3501
Dear rr. Tarror:
This is in response to your letter of September 20, 198*, in
which you recjuest«»d a clarification of the Environmental Protection
Anency's (EPA) policy for distincuishino legitimate from "sham*
rncyclinc. In general, burnino a hazardous waste with little or
no energy value does not constitute leaitimate recvclinrr, even if
tho w«ate has neon blended with a hioh-BTU material (e.n., used
nil or fuel oil) that rakws the mixture a marketable fuel. [See
the Federal P«»rist«?r notice of March 16, 1983; 48 FP lll^fi and
the ouidance memorandums of February 28, 1984, and July 5, 19fl4,
enclosed.]
Khile the enclosed guidance documents pertain to ha7ardous
wastes burned as lccitimat« fuels, the same principles apply to
u.«ed oil. The nain issue is whether the used oil b*can« con-
taminated with hazardous constituents as 1 in ted in 40 CFP 2*1,
Anpendix VIII, throuch normal us* or throuoh purposeful pixino
with hazardous wastes. As you prohably know, used oil can
pickup small *!?ounts of chlorinated material" from various sources.
For example, loaded oasoline contains chlorinated additives
("scavengers") that are deposited in crankcase oil. Also, used
oil from vessels can easily pickup chlorine from salt water that
nay enter the enoine room, etc. In fact, a recent study by my
office found that 568 of 5^0 samples of used oil contained some
amount of chlorine* In general, if the used oil acouires these
contaminants throuah normal uso it is not a hazardous wastn and
the enforcement policy docs not apply, while if it acquires the
contaminants throuch mixino it is * hazardous waste and the en-
forcement policy do£s apply. . In practice, whether used oil is
subject to the enforcement policy deponds on how ruch information
is available .to th« enforcing aoency rocarrtino the oricin of the
oil.
-------
we are in the process of developing a number of regulations
which will set standards for the management of used oil, and of
hazardous wastes used as fuels. The first of these regulations/
the Wastfe-as-ruela Administrative Standards, is planned to be
proposed in January 1985. These standards will, in addition to
a number of other requ-irenents, set a specification for used oil
that will clearly distinguish between used oil used' as a fuel and
hazardous waste uaed as a fuel, fce have recognize* that an effi-
cient m/?Ans jpust be established to distinguish botwoen used oils
that have picked up incidental, de minimi* amounts of chlorinated
n^terial, and used oil that has been grossly adulterated with
larye arcunta of spent solvents. In the proposal, a lirait of 4000
parts per million (0.41) i* the distinguishing criterion. Used.
oil with (jreater than 4000 ppm total chlorine will be ^resuwed to
navo fceen p.ixed with spent chlorinated solvonts, anrt, unless a
person can snow no .mixing has occurred, tho material will be regu-
lated as hazardous waste (not used oil). Used oil with less than
4000 ppn chlor-ine will not be presumed to contain hazardous waste.
(However, if EPA received information that nixing had in fact
occurred, wo would retain authority to regulate the mixture as
hazardous waste.)
I hope this explanation will help you clear up your proMens
with tho Alabama Department of Environmental Management. While
our interpretation of our March 16, 1533, Ke**r*.l p»ci«t-c>r' Notice
regarding Appendix A constituents and our intentions regarding the
use of used oil and hazardous wastes as fuels differs from tho
State of Alabama, you should be aware that States can, under the
3CRA system, establish standards nore stringent than EPAR. • If you
require further ascictance, contact Michael Petruska of my staff
at (202) 382-7917,
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Dan Coopor,
Mr. Larry Punning, Peg ion TV
Mr. Fred Braswell, AOECA
-------
28 I9&
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO
Guidance on Determining When a Hazardous Waste Is a
Legitimate Fuel That May Be Burned for Energy Recovery
in a Boiler or Industrial Furnace
John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Thomas W. Devine
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region IV
This is in response to your January 13 memo requesting guidance
on allowable concentrations of halogenated solvents in waste fuels
Burned in high-efficiency boilers and rotary kiln incinerators.
This issue is understandably creating some confusion in your
Region and others as well. I believe that clarification of the
following three points can clear up the confusion: (1) the types
of combustion devices that can legitimately recover energy; (2) the
hazardous wastes that are legitimate fuels; and (3) the status of
our efforts to regulate burning in boilers and industrial furnaces.
Legitimate energy recovery can occur only when a legitimate
fuel is burned in a legitimate energy recovery device. The enforce-
ment guidance you referenced (48 PR 11157 (March 16, 1983)) and
the subsequent proposed amendments to the solid waste definition
(48 FR 14507-511 (April 4, 1983)) provide guidance to identify
legitimate energy recovery combustion devices and legitimate fuels.
A legitimate energy recovery device must be a boiler that
recovers usable heat (i.e., not just to preheat combustion air) or
an industrial furnace (e.g., process kiln, saelter, or blast fur-
nace) where the waste replaces other fuels. An incinerator cannot
burn hazardous waste without a RCRA permit.
A hazardous waste is a legitimate fuel if it has substantial
heat value, as generated. A blended hazardous waste is a legitimate
fuel if the mixture has substantial heat value, provided that the
-------
2-
mixture does not contain a hazardous waste that does not have sub-
stantial heat value.The enforcement guidance indicates that a
waste has substantial heat value if it has a heat value of 5,000
to 8,000 BTU/lb, as a rule of thumb. Thus, a hazardous waste with
less than 5,000 BTU/lb heat value as generated is not considered
to be a legitimate fuel, and any waste that is intentionally mixed
with such a low heat value waste is not a legitimate fuel. For
enforcement purposes, if a waste fuel contains high concentrations
(say, >5%) of low heat value hazardous wastes, the Agency would
have good reason to assume that intentional mixing has occurred,
and should request documentation to the contrary from the party
claiming the exemption. If it can be shown that each hazardous
waste in the mixture has substantial heat value as generated, i.e.,
>5,000 BTU/lb, the waste is a legitimate fuel regardless of the
concentration of low energy constituents (e.g., halogenated compounds
like chlorinated solvents) in each waste or in the blended fuel.
The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate waste
fuels is, at this point, a temporary necessity. We are regulating
the burning of waste fuel in boilers and industrial furnaces under
a two-phased approach. Me will propose a rule this summer that
prohibits burning in nonindustrial boilers of any hazardous waste
and used oils that exceed a specification for toxic contaminants.
Marketers and burners of hazardous waste fuels burned in industrial
boilers and furnaces (and utility boilers) would be subject to
notification, transportation, and storage requirements. Marketers
and burners of off-specification used oil fuel would be subject to
notification requirements and an invoice system to track shipments.
Technical controls on burning waste fuels in industrial boilers
and furnaces will be proposed in spring 1985. We are now looking
at regulatory alternatives for these units. When these regulations
are promulgated, we will have controls for burning of hazardous
wastes in these units regardless of purpose (i.e., regardless of
whether the waste is a legitimate fuel burned for energy recovery
or a low energy waste burned for destruction).
If you have comments or questions, please contact Dave Sussman
of our Waste Treatment Branch at 382-7917.
cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I-X
Ginny Steiner, Solid Waste Enforcement
Steve Silverman, Legal Counsel
bcc: Steve Lingle, Waste Treatment Branch
Bob Holloway, Waste-Treatment Branch
Dave Sussman, Waste Treatment Branch
-------
tJHITED ETATEftNVM.aUiNTAi.f HiPUTTlQ
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: K001 Sludge Use as a Boiler Fuel
^ 5 /984
FROM: John H. Skinner
Director, Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Thomas W.. Devine
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
EPA Region IV
This is in response to your memo of June 5, 1984, concerning
whether K001 sludge qualifies as a legitimate fuel. A number of
wood preservers around the country are routinely burning K001
sludge along with wood waste in their process steam boilers. K001
sludge contains a number of constituents, some of which (such as
pentachlorophenol) have little or no heat value. Others may
have high heat value, bringing the average BTU of the sludge to a
level that would constitute legitimate recycling, i.e., approximately
5000 BTU per pound. In order to make the determination as to
whether burning a specific K001 sludge is legitimate recycling, it
must be determined that the sludge has not been mixed with high
bTU wastes to upgrade its heat value in order to circumvent the
policy set forth in the March 16, 1983, Federal Register, page
1115B, second paragraph.
As you know, we are developing standards to regulate the
burning of hazardous wastes in industrial boilers and industrial
process furnaces. When those standards are in place, we will
regulate the burning of hazardous waste in these devices regardless
of purpose, i.e., energy recovery or destruction. The performance
requirements will be basically the same as for hazardous waste
incinerators under 40 CFR 264.343. At that time, the policy
stated in the March 16, 1983, Federal Register will become moot as
burning for "energy recovery" or "beneficial usage" will no longer
be the issue.
When these regulations are in place, burning K001 sludge in a
wood fired boiler that generates process steam will require a
RCRA permit and probably a trial burn. However, should we decide
to change the listing of K001 to include the dioxins and require
•special management standards" as we have proposed for the F020
-------
to 025 series of wastes, we would probably not allow combustion of
this waste in a boiler. Until all these regulation* arc in place
you auat use the guidance in the March 16, 1983, and February 28,
1984, policy document* to determine whether this specific K001
watte is a legitimate fuel. We •imply do not have adequate data
to declare all 1001 waste non-legitimate fuel and require the
ownera of these boilers to obtain RCRA incinerator permits*
Furthermore, we know that this practice will fall under a different
regulatory program in the future and thus, tuch a declaration it
not appropriate.
Our advice in this situation is to inform the Langdale
Company and the other /wood preservers that!
(1) The current regulatory exclusion for burning hazardous
waste in energy recovery facilities is granted only for
legitimate recycling (cite guidance) and that it is their
responsibility to have appropriate documentation of BTU
values of their KO01 sludge and to demonstrate that high
BTU wastes have not been blended into the KOOl sludge to
increase heat value.
(2) The burning of KOOl sludge as a fuel in industrial
process steam boilers will be regulated under a forth-
coming EPA rule and that they will likely be required to
obtain a RCRA permit when that rule becomes effective.
(3) In addition, they will probably have to meet performance
standards similar to hazardous waste incinerators and
probably perform a trial burn.
(4) We still have the authority to regulate this activity
under Subpart 0, if appropriate. The decision of using
this course of action will be clarified with the new
•definition of solid waste" to be promulgated this fall.
(5) There is a possibility of changing the KOOl listing to
include dioxin and the possibility of "special management
standards' that may preclude the burning of the vasts in
boilers if the performance necessary to protect public
health cannot be assured in these devices.
(6) The storage of these wastes prior to burning it
subject to full regulation for storage ever to days,
(7) The residue from burning these listed wastes is also
presently regulated under Subtitle C and requires disposal
in a Subtitle C facility or must be dellsted. Likewise,
characteristic waste residue must be disposed in a Subtitle
C facility unless it no longer meets tie criteria in
40 CPR 261.21 through 261.24.
-------
For more- Information on the waste-as-fuels regulatory approach,
please contact David B. Sussroan, Manager, waste Combustion Program
(FTS 382-7927).
cct Regional Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-III and V-X
-------
9441.1984(31)
0 CT 2 5 1984
Tom Carlisle
Division of Solid and Hazardous
waste Management
State of Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049
Dear Mr. Carlisle:
This letter.responds to your inquiry of October 5, 1984,
regarding further clarification of the Federal Register notice
pertaining to lime-stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge (LSWPLS)
from the iron and steel industry (June 5, 1984).
Each point raised in your letter and our responses are
outlined below. Please keep in mind, however, that the Porcelain
Enamel Institute has filed a petition for review against the'
Agency (August 24, 1984) regarding our interpretation of the
spent pickle liquor listing.
1) Although the June 5 exclusion applies only to iron and steel
industries (SIC codes 331 and 332), Mid-West Fabricating Company
(SIC code 3714) received notice from EPA that the exclusion
applies to LSWPLS generated at their facility.
The Agency is aware that due to computer error a few
facilities listed in the June 5 notice are not actually in
the iron and steel industry. At this time, we are working
to identify these facilities and to determine a course of
action. At a minimum, we would expect to notify them in
writing of the error and inform them that their LSWPLS is
not excluded by our decision on June 5, 1984.
2) How does EPA interpret the term "moot" as it pertains to
delisting petitions submitted to_exclude LSWPLS generated
from the iron and steel industry?
EPA used this term in stating that site-specific delisting
petitions submitted by the iron and steel industry (to
exclude LSWPLS) no longer require Agency action since the
June 5 final rule automatically excludes these waste from
regulation (effective December 5, 1984). Administrative
procedures dictate that comments are not solicited when
rules are promulgated in final form.
-------
3) Data from doliatiivj petitions submitted by the iron and atee!
industry, as cited in the June 5 notice include at least tour
facilities from industry categories other than iron and steel
(CLuanex Fabricating, olin Corporation and Onion Carbide). Hov
can this data bo used to support A rule»naking for the iron and
steel in«1t:3try, and aro those petitions also considered raoot by
the ruleaa* in.;;?
Data fro-i the Hazardous VJaste D.^ta Managoraent System
indicates that Union-Carbide (Ohio)- SIC codes 331*>, 3471,
3436, 3353? Olin Corporation (Conn.)- SIC code* 3315, 3351,
3355; and Ouanex Corporation (Michigan)- SIC code 3317 aro
within the iron and stool industry or have processes that
yonerate «pent pickle liquor and are in the SIC codes (i.o.,
331 and 332) coverad by the exclusion. Since EPA d-sta
conflicts witn your data, I suggest soneone fro* your staff
contact jac.-juoline Sales, of -ay staff, at (202) 332-4770 to
furtner discuss this matter.
4) You state that although fifty percent of porcelain enamelers
have notifieo as* generating £0*2, this docs not indicate general
knowledge of the broad applicability of the listing since nany
of those notifiers «re "protective filers.* You further state
that the spent pickle liquor listing should have been listed
generically under S261.31 if it WAS intended to apply to
industries otncr than iron and steol.
The Agency has always interpreted the listing to include spent
picklo liquor generated from all steel finishing industries
regardless of industry category. This is the plain sense
of the X062 listing, which applies to wastes from steel .
finishing operations. As a matter of fact, we have taken
action on several dclistinq petitions for industries other
than iron and steel. At this tine, however, we believe it
prudent not to elaborate further on this issue until we
have litigated the suit filed by the Porcelain Enamel
Institute.
5) It is not clear what portion of the waste stream has been
excluded front regulation ( i.e., does the exclusion apply to both
tho supernatant and sludge, or to the waste pickle liquor at
the noraent it is lime stabilized).
The exclusion applies only to the Kludge frora li_"»o treatment
of waste picfete liquor. As a practical matter, 'this means
that the sludge is considered non-hazardous and nay be
disposed of in a Subtitle 0 or municipal landfill. However,
the supernatant fron the treatment of this waste reaains a
hazardous waste, unless dclistod. Therefore/ the exclusion
docs not apply to the entire waste strean.
-------
-3-
I trust that this letter adequately addresses your concerns,
Should you have questions or requiro additional information,
please call Jacqueline Sales, of ny staff, at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely yours,
Eileen K. Claussan
Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
(HH-562B)
-------
9441.1984(32)
NCV .7 1964
0
a
Mr. Stephen S. OdO3ewsKi $
waste Resource Associates, Inc. =
2576 Seneca Avenue n
Niagara Falls, tlew York 14305 "3
Ql
Dear Mr. Odojewski: n
K
NJ
This letter reponds to your September 18, 1984 request for
clarification of the RCRA regulations that apply to wastes that are
only hazardous on the basis of » characteristic. \
Ul
If a waste th-at is hazardous because of a characteristic is not £
a listed waste, then 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(i) says it is not a hazardous 1
waste wnen it no longer meets that characteristic. Your under- ^
standing of 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) and 261.3(d)(l) is correct in saying c
that this treated waste residue is no longer hazardous when it no ^
longer is hazardous by characteristic. The treatment itself may or y
may not recjuiro a RCRA facility permit, depending on if the treatment <^
is subject to regulation. Exceptions to treatment can generally =
be found in §264.Kg). *
On the other hand, some wastes are fisted solely because of a ~.
characteristic, such as P003 (ignitables). In this case the waste is %
no longer hazardous when it is nixed with solid waste and the mixture
does not exhibit any characteristic according to $261.3(a)(2)(iii). z
On the other hand/ if a waste like F003 is not mixed with solid £
waste duriny treatment, 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) and 261.3(d)(2) says the Q
treatment residue remains a listed waste until the waste has been >
excluded under SS260.20 and 260.22. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.22(c) c
requires a "delistinq" petition to demonstrate that the waste no ~
longer meets the characteristic criteria. ^
a\
I do want to point out that all but 7 States and 3 territories
have prograras that operate in lieu of the Federal RCRA program —
and 8 of these programs have received full authorization. When a
State has been granted authority to operate the RCRA program, you
are subject to the S-tato regulations which nay have a slightly
different viewpoint. The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346
V86U
-------
can send you a copy of the State hazardous waste agency addresses
and phone numbers if you need it.
In most cases, characteristic wastes would no longer be a RCRA
hazardous waste when they no longer exhibit the characteristic, except
as previously mentioned. Please do not hesitate to contact me
again if I nay be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Alan S. Corson
Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
-------
9441.1984(33)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARIES
NOVEMBER 84
2. Solid wastes that result from the extraction, beneficiaticn, ano
of ores and minerals (including coal) are excluded frca the IOA regulations
per 5261.4(b)(7). Solvents are often used to clean the equipment used for
such extraction, beneficiaticn, and processing. Are these cleaning solvents
also exacpted per 5261.4 (b) (7) or are they 1OA hazardous wastes?
The S261.4(b)(7) exempt ion is for wastes which art generated in direct
association with the extraction, benef iciaticnr and processing of ores
and minerals. The cleaning of equipment with solvents is not directly
associated with these processes. Therefore/ solvents used in cleaning
the machinery would be RCRA hazardous wastes if they are listed or meet
a 5261 Subpart C characteristic.
Source: Alan Corson (382-4770)
Research: Hilary Sconer 1 ¥f/
-------
9441.1984(34)
.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A
~s /\ ru i i if ILJI
DATE
JCCT
FKOM
UNI
28 NOV 1984
Empty Container Rule
John H. Skinner, Director to 0 n^-U^v
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) \**'
Karl J. Klepitsch, Jr., Chief (J
Waste Management Branch
This is in response to your October 24, 1984, memorandum
in which you requested a clarification of the Headquarters
position on emptying tank cars. Let me reiterate the position
Alan Corson took during his conversation with Gary Victorine
and relate it to the information included in your memorandum.
At that time, Gary did not emphasize that the tank cars had
bottom valves.
Alan told Gary that if only top unloading is available, the -
tank car is empty only if as much has been removed as possible
and no more than an inch or no more than 0.3% of the total capacity
(weight) remains. However, the Agency expects bottom valves to
be used, when present, if they provide maximum removal of waste.
Likewise, a 55-gallon drum should be emptied as completely
as possible. If pouring from an inverted drum removes more
residual than a hand pump does, then pouring is obligatory. Of
course, removal must be performed to achieve maximum possible
removal, not just to the one-inch level or 0.3% capacity, in order
to produce an empty container according to 40 CPR $261.7(b) (1).
40 CPR $261.7(b)(l)(i) states in part: "All wastes have
been removed that can be removed using the practices commonly
employed ..., e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating....' The
August 18, 1982, preamble says that one inch of waste can be left
in an empty container only if it remains after performing normal
removal operations. Taken together, these citations support the
interpretation that all commonly employed emptying methods
have to be employed to empty a container. "Commonly employed"
refers to the normal practice of industry, not to what a given
person does. Thus, containers that have not been subjected to
all commonly employed methods of emptying are still subject to
regulation.
If you have any further questions on this issue, please do not
hesitate to contact Alan Corson of my staff at FTS-382-4770.
ccs Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
13204
-------
9441.1964(35)
MEMORANDUM
c: T--5M T
CB
t/J
SUBJECT: November 20th Meeting with Texas Department of Water "£
Resources (TDWR) and Texas Mid-Concinental Oil •
and Gas Association (TMOGA) *»
/s/ Jack J?. lie G raw £{
FKOM: Jack HcGraw i
Deputy Assistant AdDinistrator ^
\j\
TOt Dick Whit ting ton ^
Regional Administrator, Region VI •
**
NJ
I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with you, Charles >-
Nemir, and bis associates from TWR. and the representatives 7
from TMOGA on November 20* Hopefully, our conversations g
clarified any confusion that nay have arisen with respect t
to the scope of current regulation of oil/water eaulsions ?
generated by refinery vastevater systeas* In the way of a ^
follow up to the meeting, I thought that it night be useful >-
to summarize the main points that were made. ^«
B:
First, with respect to the question of which emulsions o
are hazardous wastes, the answer is relatively straightforward. o
Slop oil emulsion solids are generated in the first vessel *
where the oil/water emulsion is allowed to stratify. The
cauls ion layer that forms is the listed hazardous waste
(KOA9-Slop oil emulsion solids froa petroleum refineries)
independent of the subsequent treatment, storage, reclaaation
or disposal steps to be applied to the waste. Consequently,
whether K048 (Dissolved air flotation float) is added to
this mixture is irrelevant, since the material is already a
listed hazardous waste. On the other hand, the oil reclaimed
in ft slop oil or other oil recovery system is a reclaimed
product and is not currently regulated. Consequently,
petroleum refinery production units are not hazardous waste
treatment facilities.
Turning to the subject of regulations applicable co
the on-site management of K049, the oil reclamation process
is presently exeopted from regulation with two exceptions.
Qiulsion breaking in surface Impoundments or other earthen
devices would constitute storage of a hazardous waste.
-------
Such unitr'vould require a permit since there it no 90 day
exemption for storage in those units. On the other hand,
esmlsion breaking or storage in tanks would b« subject to
peraitting only if storage exceeded 90 day* (provided the
requirements oU 1262.34 are complied with).
Generators of K049 also need to be aware that the
shipment of oily emulsions off-site constitutes transport
of a harardous vaste, regardless of the intended recipien
or their plan* for the vaste. • Furthermore, although it
was not an issue at the meeting, any final mixture of
eoulsion and solids that ia not reclaimed is regulated as
a hazardous vaste.
Turning to the off-site recipients'of the emulsion,
they are receiving a hazardous vaste* .Therefore, they are
required to notify, eoaplete the manifests, and obtain permits
for storage tanks and any other devices that are'not directly
involved in the reclamation process* Hovever, the reclamation
process is act currently regulated. -Ron-reelaimed emulsion
(even if it is.reclaimable) is a hazardous vaste.
In closing, let me again say that ve were pleased to
be of assistance. Do not hesitate to contact'me'or
Matt Straus of our staff, If you should require further
assistance in this, or other matters.
ec: Regional Administrators I-X.
John Skinner
Matt Straus
Francine Jacoff
Ben Smith
-------
9441.1984(36)
C 1 7 1984
SUBJECTi RCRA Implications of Treating Gases
Vented From Compressed Cylinder*
PROM: John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid waste (WH-562B)
TO: Janes H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
This is in response to your November 26, 1984, memorandum
regarding a facility built to treat fluorine (P056) and other
gases vented fron compressed gas cylinder*. You are correct
in your application of the response to the letter to the
Compressed Gas Association from Christopher Capper, dated
November 6, 1981.
According to that letter, customers return cylinders to gas
suppliers for refilling, not for disposal, and no waste is involved.
If the gas supplier decides to discard the contents of the returned
cylinders, any liquid or physically solid wqgten removed fron
the cylinders are aun^er, t-a prs* if they are hazardous waste.
Cylinders containing regulated quantities of hazardous waste
would need to be manifested to off-site facilities for treatment,
storage, or disposal. However, the letter goes on to say that
the handling—oL uaseous resjjdues removed from the cylinders and
neutralization or scrubbing of "gases"prior to release are not
subject to RCRA regulation. Any liquid or physically solid
wastes derived from the treatment of hazardous compressed gas
is still subject to RCRA regulations, if it is derived from listed
waste or if the residual is hazardous under Part 261 subpart C
(characteristics).
Therefore, your conclusions are correct. The facility is not
a RCRA treatment facility for any handling of the gases removed
fron the cylinders. Any liquid or solid residues derived from
the cylinders or from treatment of cylinder contents that are
listed in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D or are hazardous under Part 261
Subpart C are subject to Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact Alan Corson or Irene Homer, of my staff, at 382-4770.
cc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-III and V-X
z
0
C
'f.
-------
9441.1934(37)
'„ not to be a hazardous waste.
i
2 Regarding land treatment units, the rules and preambles do
not specify whether precipitation run-off and leachate should be
presumed to mix. To clarify, the Agency will not presume that
collected run-off from a typical land treatment unit is a .hazardous
waste.
-------
In all cases, the owner or operator must still collect all
run-off in accordance with the Part 264 and 265 requlations anrt
is still responsible for determining whether the run-off exhibits
any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste defined in Subpart
C'of Part 261.
DISCUSSION
Clarification of Anril 10 memo
«y April 10 nemo explained the fcey definitions and concepts
reqarding the management of run-off from land-based hazardous
waste treatmentF storage/ and disposal units. In understanding
that policy, it is important to recoqnize the relationship between
leachate and run-off, and the applicability of the mixture rule
(5261,3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and 261.3(b)(2)) and the 'derived
from' rule ($261.3(c)(2)).
* Precipitation'Run-off
"Run-off" i's defined in $260.10 as "any rainwater, leachate,
or othor liquid that drains over land from any part of a facility."
Run-off Generally consists of precipitation (rainwater) run-off,
and may also contain leachate. EPA intends "run-off* to cover
liquid that flows over and quickly off of the land surface of the
facility. Because of this/ any contact bejjreen precipitation
run-off and waste will net be minimal. In the preamble to the
requlations issued on Hay 19, 1980 (45 PR 33096), EPA expressed
this by stating: "... the water in precipitation run-off in many
cases may not have had sufficient contact with the waste to
solubilize waste constituents." Because of the belief that in*
many cases run-off would contain neither leachate nor significant
levels of waste constituents, EPA did not categorically list
run-off as a hazardous waste and because of the lack of significant
contact between precipitation run-off and leachate, EPA specifically
excluded precipitation run-off from the "derived from* rule in
5261.3(0(2).
There are two situations, however, in which EPA classifies
run-off as a hazardous waste. First, it is a hazardous waste if
it exhibits any of. the characteristics of a hazardous waste
defined in Subpart C of Part 261. Second, under the mixture rule
($261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)), it is a hazardous waste if it is
nixed with a hazardous waste, including leachate* Regardless of
whether the run-off is judged to be hazardous or nonhazardous, it
still must be collected in accordance with the Part 265 and 264
regulations.
• Leachate
•Leachate" is defined in $260.10 as "any liquid, including
any suspended components in the liquid, that has percolated
through or drained from a hazardous waste." EPA intends that
-------
"leachate" broadly refer to any liquid that has made significant
contact with a hazardous waste by draining from it or passing
through it. Although leachate varies in quality, it typically
contains sionificant levels of solubilized waste constituents.
EPA is particularly concerned about liquid that has passed
downward through the wastes in the waste management unit and
emerges from the bottom or side of the unit.
Under the "derived from* ruler leachate from a hazardous
waste is defined as a hazardous waste. Leachate derived from a
listed hazardous waste is considered a listed hazardous waste,
and it must be handled as such unless (1) it is delisted pursuant
to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, or (2) in the case of the few
listed wastes listed soley because they failed a characteristic
of Part 261, Subpart C, it no longer neets the characteristic
(5261.3 (a)(2) (iii)). Leachate derived from characteristic
wastes is presumed to be a hazardous waste until it is shown
that the leachate does not exhibit any of the characteristics
of a hazardous waste defined in Subpart C of Part 261.
• Mixture of Precipitation Run-off and Leachate
The mixture rule in 5261,3(a)(2)(iv) states that a solid
waste is a hazardous waste if it is a mixture of solid waste
and one or more hazardous wastes listed in Subpart D. (Waste
mixtures containing characteristic hazardous wastes are treated
just like any other solid waste, i.e., they will be considered
hazardous only if they meet the characteristics.)
The mixture rule applies to precipitation run-off (and
indeed any other solid, nonhazardous waste or material that
is mixed with a listed hazardous waste). Because leachate
from hazardous waste is named as a hazardous waste under
5261.3 (c>(2), a mixture of precipitation run-off and leachate
is a hazardous waste. The key factor in determining whether
precipitation run-off has mixed with leachate is the unit
desinn. The evaluator must determine if the design allows
leachate to migrate from the bottom or side of the unit and
mix with precipitation run-off in a comoon collection facility.
Figure 1 in the appendix to my April 10 memo illustrates a
typical landfill scenario in which leachate and precipitation
run-off mix. In this scenario, leachate percolates downward
through the waste and then moves laterally along an underlying
intermediate cover. This leac.hate then seeps from the active
face and accumulates in the same areas as the precipitation
run-off from the active area.-
Because of the usual design of landfills and waste piles,
it is highly likely that in the active portions of these units
the run-off and leachate will mix. (An exception would be a
pile or landfill operated under a roof). Because Parts 264 and
265 require collection of the run-off, the collection unit will
-------
likely contain a mixture of precipitation run-off and leachate.
Due to the mixture rule, this run-off will likely be a hazardous
waste.
Because the generation of leachate is minimized in
psroperly closed portions of these units, it is much less likely
that leachate and run-off will commingle in properly closed
and maintained portions. This run-off, therefore, is usually
not a hazardous waste because it is unlikely that the precipitation
run-off has mixed with- leachate.
Policv for Land Treatment Units
My April 10 memo did not specifically describe how the
above policy is applied to hazardous waste land treatment units.
However, references to land treatment units were made in the
appendix to the memo. Several of these references need further
clarification, mislead iuij * These references suggested that the
run-off from active and closed portions of these units should be
presumed to be a hazardous waste because the run-off would in most
cases come into contact with surface-applied wastes.
The regulations and preamble discussion on run-off from
hazardous waste land treatment units do not specifically address
whether precipitation run-off and leachate will usually mix
in the active or closed portions of these units. To clarify,
the Agency will not initially presume that this mixture will
occur in the active or closed portions of typical land treatment
units. Therefore, run-off from these units will generally not be
considered a hazardous waste (unless it exhibits a characteristic).
The following discussion explains the basis for and possible
exceptions to this general policy.
The same general concepts described above for landfills and
waste piles apply to land treatment units. First, the "derived
from" rule does not apply to precipitation run-off (i.e., unlike
leachate from a hazardous waste, precipitation run-off is not
presumed to be a hazardous waste). Limited contact of precipitation
run-off with the waste on the soil surface does not automatically
render the run-off a hazardous waste. Second/ run-off is a
hazardous waste if it (1) exhibits any of the characteristics of
a hazardous waste, or (2) nixes with a listed hazardous waste or
leachate. Third, the most important factor in determining whether
run-off and leachate have mixed is the design of the unit*
The design of land treatment units is fundamentally different
from landfills apd waste piles. Land treatment units rely on
successful treatment rather than physical barriers to prevent
escape of waste components* They are "open systems" in that
they are not required to have liners for containing waste. At a
typical land treatment unit, wastes are treated in the treatment
zone and treated soil pore liquid (or "leachate")* is then allowed
to move out of the bottom of the unit (see Figure 1 in attachment
-------
2). The absence of restrictive layers in the treatment zone of
a land treatment unit, such as intermediate covers for lifts in
a landfill, limits the lateral movement of "leachate." Also, most
land treatment units are relatively flat, which decreases the
chance for "leachate" seeps out side slopes should any lateral
Tiovement occur. Because of this design, it is unlikely that
"leachate" will move laterally and mix with run-off from active or
closed portions of typical land treatment units. Therefore, V*«
run-off fron typical land treatment unit* will not be presumed to be
a hazardous waste. The issue of "soil pore liquid" versus "leachate"
(see footnote) does not affect the run-off policy for this case.
There are certain land treatment unit designs that
may allow the mixing of •leachate" with run-off, and for which the
run-off policy is still unclear. For example/ certain units may
be designed to include a liner system that promotes the lateral
raovenent and commingling of "leachate* and run-off. Figure 2
in attachment 2 illustrates this case. Another example is where
the ground water at least periodically discharges to a run-off
collection ditch or impoundment, e.g., where the run-off collection
ditch or impoundment is constructed below the water table and
downaradient of the facility. In this case, "leachate" and
run-off would mix, as illustrated in Figure 3 of attachment 2.
The runrpff policy for these two cases (i.e., figures 2 6 3), as
well as^esiqns that may be used to lower the water table (e.g.,
drainage systens), is dependent on the resolution of the leachate/
soil pore liquid issue. When we complete the evaluation of this
issue, additional guidance addressing these cases will be (provided.
* ¥H« petitioners in the Part 264 regulation litigation recently
questioned whether treated soil pore liquid should be considered
"leachate.* It may be arrjued, for example, that soil pore
should no longer be hazardous alter it is "treated" and e^
from the bottom.of the treatment «on* «•»* a pro^iiir «*«**ratina land
tr«»t^ent unit. If such liquid is deemed to be "leachate", any
qround water or other liquid with which the leachate mixes would
also be a hazardous waste* Thus, any ground water withdrawn to
artificially lotpr tho water table (to comply with.the one meter
separation requirement under $264.271) would have to be managed as
a hazardous waste* OSW is currently'evaluating this issue, and
its ramifications on LT unit designs, particularly in high water
table areas. Additional guidance will be provided on this issue
when this evaluation is completed.
-------
Please contact Ken Shuster, Chief of the Land Disposal
Branch, at FTS 382-3345, or Art Day at 382-4G80 if you have any
questions or additional information i« needed.
Attachments
cc» John Lehman
Eileen Clausaen
Bruce Neddie
Dov Weitrean
Nancy Hutzel
------- |