United States Solid Watte and EPA/530-R-97-004C
Environmental Protection Emergency Re&pOrfw December 1996
Agency (OS-343)
e E PA RCRA Permit
Compendium
Volume 3
9441.1985-9441.1989
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste (Part 261)
• General
ATK1/35SO/04 kg
-------
9441.1985(01)
11 J985
H. Lanier Hickaan
Executive Director
GRCDA
P.O. BOX 7219
Silver Spring* Maryland 10910
Dear L«nny»
In your letter of November 6r 1964f and our subsequent
•••ting on November 27, 1984, you requested our interpretation
of the impact of th« RCRA regulations on landfill gaa condensate.
This l«tt«r reflects our discussion and summarizes our position
on this issu«. A* you recall, we did review this issue for you
in son* dstaiU/and preaented our interpretation at your landfill
gas symposium last April.
I think the re-cap of this issue can best be stated by looking
at the several landfill scenarios that can apply — household waste
only, normal municipal waste, undefined (but not listed) hazardous
waste,tflisted hazardous vasts (including any mixtures of other
wastes, and liated hazardous waste), The household vasts exclusion
applies through its entire management cycle, from collection
through final disposition including treatment and resultant residues.
Landfill gas condensate derived from a fill that contains household
waste exclusively is not a hazardous vasts.
Condensate derived from landfill gas processing from a fill
that contains municipal waste or undefined (not listed) hazardous
waste is a hazardous waste only if it exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitabiity, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure toxicity). On the other hand,
condensate derived from a landfill containing listed waste is always
a hazardous waste, unless specifically excluded in response to a
•delisting" petition. Of course, the other exwiption—front-regulation
provisions still apply — those for snail quantity generators and
recycling.
This synopsizes the Federal position on whether landfill gas
condensate is hazardous. As you know, RCRA is intended to be
-------
implemented through a State proqran.
authority, its rules apply in lieu of the Federal
should, therefore, investigate the State controls
of interest to you. If you have any further ques^on
not hesitate to call. Alan Corson (382-4770). or tmn
«*a<««
-------
9^41. 1985(02)
y* \
I
u-
a
N.
3
Mr. Hershel Cutler H
Executive Director n
Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel, Inc. 3
1627 K St., NW K
Washington, DC 20006 £
V.
Dear Mr. Cutler: ^
x;
Your letter dated December 10f 19B4, was referred to my 1
office for response. You expressed concern about the hazards ^
posed by air bags that contain sodium aride, particularly as it =
affects the recovery of ferrous scrap from recycled automobiles. ^
i
The Department of Transportation addressed these issues y
in a study released July 11, 1984, called Final Regulatory i
Impact Analysis, Amendment to FHVSS *20Q, Passenger Car Front ^
Seat Occupant Protection that explored many issues related to ~
the use of air bags. A NKTSA staff member provided EPA with a x
copy of the section that discusses sodium azide. Page 111-20 *
of that report explains that the gas generants consist mainly ~
of sodium azide and oxidizers. Page 111-12 explains that upon
ignition, the solid propellant begins to burn, producing 5
nitrogen gas that inflates the air bag. Based on this ^
analysis of the mechanics of air bag deployment, the sodium ":
azide containing initiator would not be regulated as a commercial
chemical product regulated by the hazardous waste regulations
of the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA regulates commercial
chemicals which are pure or technical grade and formulations
in which the chemical is the sole active ingredient. Air ban
propellant cartridges contain, as active ingredients, both
sodium azide and oxidizers. The gas is generated through the
action of both materials. Thus, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act would not define the sodium azide in air bag
canisters of obsolete automobile hulks as a listed hazardous
waste.
The Agency has not established £e minim is concentration
levels of toxicants below which wastes listed under S261.33
would cease to be regulated as hazardous wastes. Rather,
exemptions are granted on a case-by-case basis in response to
petitions. Again, the sodium azide that is in air bags would
-------
not be subject to RCRA regulation as a hazardous wast* because
it is not a- sole active ingredient.
EPA i» preparing a new regulation that would regulate
certain mixtures of comtercial chemical products. Under such
a regulation, it is conceivable that the propellent cartridges
could be classified as a hazardous waste. However, as we now
envision such a regulation, auto hulks contaminated with either
sodium azide or the propellant cartridges would not be so
classified. In addition, if the air bags are deployed within
the auto, the sodium azide is destroyed and there would be no
question of even the spent canisters alone being considered
subject to regulation. If the canisters were reclaimed, they
would also not be regulated. The only case which may be regulated
would be canisters which are removed and disposed of, which
appears to be an unlikely scenario at the present time.
The DOT study on sodium azide propellents concluded that
non-deployed inflator aodules can be deployed, that an electrical
deployment system is available now, that technical inspections
for non-deployed modules are available, that a new retrofit
air bag system is easily removed (and should have reasonably
high salvage value), and that about 0.1 pound of sodium azide
per site would be landfilled each working day. This study
used a conservative estimate for the amount of sodium azide
expected in each car, and EPA does not believe this management
of sodium azide to be a problem at this tHe. Moreover,
EPA understands that auto manufacturers have expressed an
interest in providing Incentives for removal and collection of
air bag canisters, which would further reduce the environmental
dispersion of sodium azide.
DOT regulation of deployment of inflator modules and
reclamation of air bag canisters appears to pose no environmental
concerns that EPA jurisdiction should address at this time.
If you have any further questions, please contact Alan Corson
or Irene Homer of my staff at (202) 382-4770 for assistance.
Sincerely yours.
Jack W.
Acting Assistant Administrator
bcc: Ruth Bell, OGC
Joyce Dain, TSCA
William Panj, NHTSA
-------
9441 .1985(03)
Mr. Vincent J. Tersegno
2749 Delk Road, S.E.
Marietta, Georgia 30067
Dear Mr. Tersegno:
Mr. Mitch Dubensky of the Office of Water Regulation*
and Standards .forwarded your letter dated December 7, 19*M, to
the Office of Solid Was to since the exclusion you di^cusse'l in
40 CPR C261c4(d) applies to hazardous waste regulated by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
As you know, the laboratory waste exclusion insures that
waste samples are not «object to all the hazardous waste regula-
tions while the waste is being handled by the sanple collector,
transporter and laboratory for the purposes of waste character-
ization. The amendment specifically avoided using the word
•generator* since the .exclusion intended to designate any
person collecting a potentially regulated sample.
The enclosed copy of the September 25, 1981, federal
Register notice provides further explanatory material in
the preamble. On page 47426, the first full paragraph of the
middle column explains that samples are sent for testing to
determine whether or not the waste is hazardous. Furthermore,
testing to identify the composition or characteristics of a
sample is not treatment as defined in <260.10(a) a* stated in
Section C on page 47428. The first sentence at the top of th*
right column on page 47428 says any laboratory that treat* or
stores hazardous wastes prior to disposal must comply with
applicable RCtA regulations since these activities are hot
covered by the exclusion.
The waste is excluded from RCRA regulations as long as it
meets the 5261.4(d) terms. At the site where a waste is produced
the storage and transportation prior to shipment to a testing
laboratory is not rejulated. The terra "generator" is define-1
in C260.10(a) as the person at a given site whose act or process
produces RCRA hazardous waste or whose act first causes *
hazardous waste to be cone subject to regulation. Therefore,
in many cases, waste covered by the laboratory exclusion has
had no generator as long as the waste is covers! by the
laboratory exclusion. If the waste is sent back to the site
it cane fron, the waste would be subject to r*3ul*tinn th»n.,
and tne generator would be at the original site. If the wast*
was kept by the laboratory for disposal, the laboratory is the
-------
generator. If the waste vac sent back to a third party who
collected the waste for analysis, that collector is generator. -
(Of course, some of these parties may be email quantity generators s
subject to $261.5.) The second sentence in the second paragraph y>
of section II on page 47426 of the preamble says the samples <*
are shipped from the generator or s an pie collector* but the o>
regulation only refers to sample collectors. The regulation ^
is worded appropriately because the sample collector nay not J
be the person who is ultimately considered to be the generator H
of the waste. §
i
Enclosed is a copy of the October 30, 19«0, Federal Register ^
which specifies that several people may qualify as the generator \
of waste. Although the specific examples in Section Til £
on pages 72026-7 do not apply directly to your inquiry, the v.
multiple definition idea means that the tern sample collector a
could be the person who owns the waste or the person who actually B
removes the waste aliquot for analysis. Ho doubt your laboratory ^
has made contractual agreements with your customers regarding *
the disposition of samples that specifies returning waste to \
the site it cane from, in which case sample collector refers ~
to the company that paid you to take aliquots of waste for them. M
As you can see, the preambles and Agency explanations »
sonetines clarify the intent and coverage of the regulations. \
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response sponsors the *
RCRA/Superfund Hotline which can answer many of these kinds of ^
questions toll free on a routine basis at 800*424-9346. Of v.
course, many States have authorized hazardous waste programs E
which have taken the place of the RCRA program. States may have •.
more stringent requirements, so you should confer with them
regarding specific State requirements. The Hotline can provide =
you with a list of the State Agency contacts. 5
If you have any other questions about this issue, please ?
do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 382-41)04.
Sincerely yours.
Irene S. Homer
Environmental Protection Specialist
Studies arrt Methods Branch (WH
Enclosures
-------
9441 .1985(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 84
A treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) has agreed to accept "empty
containers" per 5261.7. Upon receiving the containers (55 gallon drums), the
TSDF found that although the containers held less than one inch, the containers
could be and were emptied further by inverting the container and pouring out
additional hazardous waste. According to 5261.7(b)(l)(i), a container that
has held hazardous waste is empty if all wastes have been renoved that can be
removed using the practices ccnnonly employed to remove materials from that
type of container, e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating. If the TSDF further
empties the container by pouring, was the container "enpty" when received even
though it held under one inch of material?
No; the container was not empty. Preamble language to the August 18, 1982
Federal Register (47 FR 36093) states that "it should be clear that one
inch of waste material is an overriding constraint and may remain in an
empty container only if it cannot be removed by normal means." This
indicates that a container must be emptied by pouring, pumping, and
aspirating. Then, if the container holds less than one inch, the container
is empty per $261.7.
Source: Alan Corson (202) 382-4776
Research: Bill Rusin
-------
9441. 19 85(05)
u-
CT
4fiB5 |
3
o
SUBJECT: Applicability of RCRA Subtitle C to the *
Teledyne Wan Chang Albany Facility c
••
PROHi John fl. Skinner, Director . *7
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) £
i
TO, Charles F. Findley, Director £
Air and Haste Management Diviaion, Region 10 "
c
N.
. . I
On August 8, 1*84, you requested that the Fart B application -
submitted by Teledyn* Wah Chang Albany (TMCA) be reviewed to »-
determine whether the treatment of certain wastes at the facility r:
is subject to the requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA. TUCA's 5
Part B application has Wen reviewed toy the MITRE Corporation N
(report attached) to assist in the clarification and resolution °
of two issues s ^
• Whether the hazardous wastes produced by TWCA >-
and burned in the smokehouse facility and *~
crucible burn pots are exempt from RCRA by
the siining waste exclusion in Section 3001(b)
(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
• Whether the combustion processes used by
TWCA constitute incineration, or thermal
treatment other than incineration* as
defined in 40 CFR 260.10.
I. APPLICABILITY OF MINING WASTE EXCLUSION
A. Introduction
TWCA engages in the prirnary production of zirconium,
hafnium, and titanium. Production of these metals consists of:
-------
- a •
1) Preparatory steps to transform the metals into
• form that can be reduced. I/
2) Reduction and distillation steps to product
a «irconiu», hafnium, or titanium sponge.
3) Crushing, blinding, alloying, and melting of
the sponge to ton an ingot*
4) fabrication and finishing steps.
For each of the thrs-s metals, the following waste streams
ere generated by the reduction and distillation steps used to
produce the tirconium, hafnium, or titanium sponge, and, therefore,
are uniquely associated with the processing of these metals:
1) Crucible Jolting ring •atarlal,
*) Crucible dump station salt,
tf flaqnesiua chloride salt vortiaqs, and
4) Magnesium chloride) salt and metal,
LCC -i fifth waste str»am,r sponge handling salt, Is generated
during the production of an ingot from the sirconiun, hafnium,
or titanium sponge. Ingot production involves breaking up and
crushing the sponge, blending crushed sponge material fron
different production rtms, adding alloys* and melting the
mixture to form an ingot. The sponge handling salt is generated
by the breaking and crushing steps. TMCA sometimes purchases
titanium scrap to form ingots as well. The five wastes fron
the *bov« processes are treated in the smokehouse facility.
tixt i*J=JL c»r.., . -••
Additional wastes are generated during the fabrication and
finishing steps. They are treated in the crucible burn pots.
E. Regulatory Status of Waste Streams
17 Hastes Treated in Smokehouse Facility
The reduction and distillation processes used to produce
the zirconium, hafnium, and titanium sponges are essential to
the separation of these metals from the ores and minerals in
I/ In the past, rather than performing this step on titanium
ore itself, TWCA has purchased titanium chloride. This
does not affect our analysis of the status of the wastes
generated by processing titanium chloride in the subsequent
three steps.
-------
Jci\ lihey occur. Therefore, the- four wastes streams listed
yfcore which are generated by these processed are excluded from
regulation under Subtitle £ of RC&A.
The'formation of firconinm, hafnium, ana titanium
ingots from sponge material or scrap (in the case of titanium)
does not constitute "extraction, beneficiationr or processing
of an ore or mineral" because the natal has already been, separated
front the ore or mineral before this step. In other words, -the
feedstock for the ingot formation process is neither an ore nor
a mineral* Therefore, the sponge handling salts generated by
ingot formation are not excluded from regulation under Subtitle
C of RCRA.
2. Wastes Treated in Crucible Burn Pots
The waste streams treated In the crucible burn pots are
generated by the fabrication and consolidation of zirconium,
hafnium, titanium, niobium, tantalum, and vanadium. Theme
processes simply shape the metal after it has been extracted
from the ore or mineraIF they do not constitute "extraction, .
beneficiation, or processing of an ore or mineral.* Therefore,
the fines, turnings or chips, floor sweepings, grinder sludge*
and other wastes generated by theme processes, do not qualifty
for.thf mining waste exclusion*
II, APPLICABILITY OF RCRA INCINERATOR REGULATIONS
We conclude that both the smokehouse facility and crucible
burn pots are incinerators under the definition in 40 CFR
260.10. Both are enclosed devices and use crude forms of
controlled flame combustion to break down waste. Therefore,
the RCRA permit for TWCA should regulate these combustion
devices as incinerators.
Attachment
-------
9441 . 19 85( 06 )
FEB I 3 1985
Mr. H. Bzura
Madison Indusries, inc.
P.O. Box 175
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857
Dear Mr. Bzurat
This letter is response to our telephone conversation on
January 24 and your letter dated January 25, 1985 regarding
the regulatory status of the baghouse flue dust and zinc-oxide
sludge which you are considering recycling at your plant. in
^ addition, you also requested confirmation of the effective
° date for various provisions dealing with use/reuse in the
m definition of solid waste rulemaking. In particular, you
^ indicated that you are interested in purchasing baghouse flu*
^ dust from manufacturers of brass as well as a zinc oxide sludge
ui generated from air pollution control equipment. These secondary
£ materials as well as hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid will
^ be mixed and pumped into a reactor where either zinc chloride
OB or zinc sulfate will be produced. These solutions are then
purified. You further indicated that no reclamation is
carried-out as part of the operation, but rather these
materials are used as a raw material in the manufacture of
zinc chemicals.
^ Based on this description, you are correct that the
^ baghouse flue dust and zinc oxide sludge are not solid wastes
t" provided that these secondary materials are not accumulated
£ speculatively (as defined in the January 4, 1985 rule) or are
^ not used to produce a product that is placed on the land for
>• beneficial use^l/ in addition, you are also correct in your
x reading of the regulations that the effective date for this
^ provision of the rulemaking— that is, the use/reuse provision—
^ is December 20, 1984. Please give me a call if I can be of
i any further assistance.
\
^ Sincerely yours,
GO
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste identification Branch
3 J./ It should be noted that even if the zinc were reclaimed,
£ " these secondary materials would not be defined as solid
i wastes, since they are unlisted sludges.
S
-------
9441 .198 5(07)
FEB | 3 1985
L. A. Whittig, Ph.D.
Supelco, Inc.
Bellefonte, PA 16823-0048
Dear Dr. Hhittigt
Thank you for your letter of January 21, 1985, and your
further telephone conversation with Dr. Judith Bellin, of my
•taff, on January 28. As you state in your letter, your
company is a commercial Manufacture of capillary columns used
in gas chromatography. As part of quality control considerations,
you indicated a need to test these coluama with a dioxin
standard prior to sale. As a result, you generata a waste
(primarily activated carbon) containing 700 nanograms of a
mixture of seven tetrachloro dioxin intoners per year. Zn
addition, you also indicated that you generate between 1 to 2
grams of both 2, 4, 6,-trichlorophenol and pentachlorophenol
from similar activities (i.e., production of chromatographic
columns and analytical standards). As a generator of thesa
wastes, you question whether these wastes would be covered
under the recently promulgated dioxin regulations published
in the Federal Register on January 14 (see attachment).
Open our review, we believe that these wastes are not
covered by the dioxin rulemaking since these wastes (as well
as .most laboratory wastes) do not result from the manufacturing
processes described in the rule. Therefore, you are not required
to comply with the dioxin rule. However, due to the hazardousness
of these wastes, we would strongly encourage you to manage these
wastes very carefully. They should not be mixed with other
hazardous wastes, sines these could contain solubilizing solvents.
Please cive me or Dr. Dellin a call if you have any further
questions. We can be reached at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
cct Judith S. Bellin
0
01
VO
in
l
-------
9441.19C5(08)
22 1985
Placid Refining Company
3900 Thanksgiving
Dallas, IX 75201
Nr. Walsh:
This letter ia written in response to your February 14 corr
which requests that EPA clarify whether a particular refinery wastewater
treatment sludge ia a listed hazardous waste (K04£). The matt in question
is generated by a dissolved air flotation device in use at the Placid Refinery
in Port Allen, Louisiana, that is ueed as pert of the secondary wastewatar
systesi to renrwe biological solids ftoa an activated sludge ixiit*
In a recent federal Register notice (see enclosure), the Agency has
maintained that the KD48 and KOS1 listings were intended only to address
oil/solids/water separation from primary treataent. The word * secondary"
was used in the background document and subsequently in the K048 listing
to describe configurations where too prfcssry wastewater treatment sethods
were used consecutively as compared to secondary treatment consisting of
biological oxidation. The sludge from this unit is not currently a listed
hazardous waste because the dissolved air flotation unit at the Placid
Refinery is used to renove biological sludge froa the treated effluent.
Therefore, under the Federal hazardous waste management system, this waste
would be hazardous only if it exhibits one or sore of the hazardous waste
characteristics.
At the sane time, you should also be aware that EPA is concerned about
secondary sludges froa biological treatment of refinery wastewaters.
Consequently, we are currently evaluating these wastes as part of the
petroleur refining industry studies to determine whether they should be
listed as hazardous. Please feel free to give ne a call at (202) 475-8551
if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
waste Identification Branch
Enclosure
-------
9441.1985(09)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 85
Drainage from an active coal mine is collected in a large
pond to be treated. The drainage is quite acidic due to the
high concentration of iron sulfides (pyrite) in the coal.
Both bacterial action and rain oxidize the pyrite material
to form sulfuric acid. The coal mine owner has developed a
sodium hydroxide (caustic) feeder system to neutralize the
acid mine drainage prior to discharge. At one point,
however, the feeder system added too much caustic to the
pond. This caused a caustic sludge layer to form on the
bottom of the pond. The pH of the sludge is generally above
12.5. The facility wants to remove the sludge and dispose
of it. Would such removal be considered generation of a
RCRA hazardous waste?
The sludge meets the characteristic of corrosivity
(D002) due to its pH being above 12.5 (§261.22) and its
aqueous, semi-sludge state. A corrosive solid is not a
hazardous waste unless it exhibits another
characteristic or contains a listed waste (see 45 FR
33109, May 19, 1980). Section 261.4(b)(7) excludes
wastes from the "... extraction, beneficiation and
processing of ores and minerals (including coal)..."
Pollution control residues from the treatment of mining
wastes are also exempted. Since the caustic sludge is
a pollution control residue from the treatment of a
mining waste, its generation and management is exempt
from RCRA. Even though the waste is excluded from
regulation, however, it should still be managed
properly.
Source: Meg Silver (202) 382-7709
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1985(10)
APR If
Lloyd R. Cress
Greenebaum, Doll and McDonald
1400 Vine Center Tower
P.O. Box 1808
Lexington, Kentucky 40593
Dear Mr. Cress:
In your recent letter of March 19, 1985, you requested
confirmation of an earlier opinion that a distillation
residue containing perchloroethylene and surfactant is not
a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) when discarded. You stated that the unused per-
chloroethylene and surfactant were inadvertently mixed.
Subsequent to that, the material was sent off-site for recovery,
The waste in question is the unreclaimed portion of the
perchloroethylene-surfactant mixture.
In considering your request, we have concluded that the
residue from the recovery of the contaminated perchloroethylene
is a hazardous waste. Your argument that the perchloroethylene
detergent mixture is not covered under the requirements for
commercial chemical products listed in 40 CPR 261.33 because
it contains several active ingredients is not applicable to
this waste. (Those •mixtures' not covered under $261.33 are
commercial chemical product mixtures where the listed chemical
is not the sole active ingredient.) In your case, the listed
commercial chemical product is perchloroethylene which became
contaminated with surfactant. At no time was the perchloro-
ethylene-detergent mixture considered a commercial chemical
product mixture. Therefore, the adulterated perchloroethylene
is considered a listed hazardous waste when discarded. You
were correct, however, in stating that the perchloroethylene
was not a hazardous waste when shipped off-site for recovery.
Chemicals listed under 40 CPR 261.33 are not considered
hazardous waste until they are intended to be discarded.
-------
o 2
X hop* thi* letter adaqoataly addraaaa* tha regulatory •» ^
atatt»a of vast* parchloroatbylaaa from your facility, fhould g »
you hav« quactions, pl»a»* oall JaequalilM Balea, of «y »taff« 2«S
at (202) It 2-4 7 70. x\
0 ED
o •
CD •
Jofca «.
Director a
Offio* at folid Mast* 7
M
X
£
Ul
o
H»
yr
-------
94 41.198 5 (1 1)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 85
D1ox1n Lab Staple
1. The January 14, 1985 Federal Register (SO FK 1978) published a final
rult listing as hazardous Mattes certain wastes containing particular
chlorinated dloxlns, - dlbenzofurans, and • phenols. A private
analytical laboratory has the capability of testing for d1oxln
coopounds 1n hazardous wastes. Section 261.4(4) excludes froa KCRA
regulation the aanagenent of saoples that are transported to a lab
for the purpose of testing to detenrfne Us characteristics or
conpos1t1on. Does this exclusion apply to this lab, and what cost
the lab do 1f 1t generates dloxln waste from Us analytical procedures?
As long as the lab is testing samples for characteristics or composition
to determine if the waste is a hazardous waste, then the §261.4(d) lab
sample exclusion applies. If the sample is known to be hazardous waste
and it is shipped to the lab to be analyzed for treatabllity, for example,
then the sample and its management are subject to regulation.
If the lab generates dioxln waste from its analytical procedures 1n
quantities greater than one kilogram per month, the lab must notify EPA
or the state, if authorized, that it is a generator of hazardous waste.
If the lab has previously notified as a generator for other hazardous
wastes, it must renotify EPA or the authorized state of it's dioxin
generation activity no later than April 15, 1985, as discussed in the
January 14, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 1978).
Source: Alan Corson (202) 382-4770
-------
9441.1985(12)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
APRIL 1985
Hazardous Waste Determination
2. Methylene chloride is used as a reaction median in a manufacturing process.
During the process, this medium is contaminated. After removing the spent medium
from the process line, it is placed in containers for less than 90 days prior to
being reclaimed. After distillation, the reclaimed roethylene chloride is returned
to the production unit. (A) Is roethylene chloride that is used as a reaction
medium also considered to be used as a solvent, thus making the spent medium
F002? (B) How is this methylene chloride regulated?
(A) Methylene chloride used as a reaction medium is considered to be used as
a solvent. Thus, in this scenario, roethylene chloride is considered the
listed spent solvent F002. Subsequently, this F002 waste is subject to RCRA
hazardous waste regulations when it exits the production process unit.
(B) Currently, listed hazardous wastes in 55261.31 or 261.32 and "sludges"
exhibiting a Subpart C characteristic are subject to $261.6(b) which puts
forth generator, transporter, and facility storage regulations prior to re-
cycling. The actual recycling activity is not regulated.
Pursuant to the new definition of solid waste (50 FR 614), listed hazardous
wastes and characteristic hazardous spent materials are considered solid and
hazardous wastes when reclaimed. The recycling activity is still not regulated
under the new definition of solid waste. In EPA regulated states, (i.e., non-
authorized states,) beginning July 5, 1985, spent solvents destined for recla-
mation are subject to $261.6(b) for generators and transporter standards and
$261.6(c) for facility storage standards.
In states with authorized RCFA programs, the new solid waste definition and
respective recycling regulations will be applicable when the states incorp-
orate these changes into their programs in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.
-------
9441.1985(123)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
APRIL 1985
Lab Sample
A generator sends a sample of waste to a laboratory to determine whether the
waste is hazardous under PCRA. One of the tests requires that the laboratory
add solvent to the sample. Does this action cause the laboratory to become a
generator of a listed solvent waste (due to the solvent they added), and how
should the laboratory send this contaminated sanple back to the original generator?
$261.4 (d) excludes lab samples 3010 notification under Section 3010 of RCRA,
Parts 262 through 267, Part 270, and Part 124 as long as certain storage and
transportation standards are net. The addition of hazardous chemicals (e.g.,
solvents) to the sample by the laboratory which are standard test procedures
is allowable and does not affect this exclusion. Hence, the lab is not regu-
lated as a generator of spent solvent. The laboratory nay send the sample back
without manifest if other applicable transportation standards are followed per
$261.4(d) (i.e., EOT, USPS).
-------
9441.1985(13)
15
Mr. R. Chudacek
Power Systems Division
McGraw-Edison Company
Post Office Box 28
Bloomfield, NJ U7003
Oear Mr. Chudacekt
I am writing in response to your letter of April 3, 1985
concerning the regulatory status of waste electrolyte from
rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries containing a
potassium hydroxide electrolyte.
Two questions must be asked in order to determine if
disposal of a given waste is regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These ares
1. Is the wast* or its disposal considered to be "solid
waste disposal* within the meaning of RCRA?
2. Does the waste Beet the definition of a hazardous waste
(i.e., exhibits one or more characteristics of a
hazardous waste or is a listed hazardous waste)?
In the case of the situation you described* disposal of
the spent electrolyte into a municipal sanitary sewer does not
constitute disposal under the RCRA. Such disposal is*
however* subject to regulation under other environmental reg-
ulations and the disposer would have to check with their local
sewage treatment authority for specific disposal restrictions.
Spent electrolyte disposed of in any other manner would be
solid waste disposal within the meaning of the RCRA. Furthermore,
fron the information you presented* the spent electrolyte would
likely exhibit characteristics of hazardous waste. In
addition to being a corrosive waste (40 CPR 261.22)* the
spent electrolyte Is likely to exhibit the characteristic of
Extraction Procedure Toxicity (40 CPR 261.24). While
neutralization would eliminate the waste's corrosivity, it
may not change its status under 40 CPR 261.24.
-------
CO
x
.1
o
I
M
I
1
I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.
Unfortunately/ these answers may not be identical to those you
might receive from State officals. Many states have been
awarded authorization to conduct their own hazardous waste
regulatory programs in lieu of the RCRA program. I thus urge
you to contact those states in which disposal of the batteries
might occur, in order to ascertain their status under the applicable
State programs. If the State is unable to help you, I recommend
contacting the applicable EPA Regional office. For your con-
venience, I are enclosing a list of State and EPA hazardous
waste management offices and officials.
Sincerely yours.
David Friedsian
Manager
Method* Prograu (WH-562B)
Enclosure
-------
9441.1985(15)
20 1985
-------
to remove aad destroy the wastes...These processes n»«t th* RCRA
definition at 'treatment1 and are thus subject to the require-
ments o£ P«rtT 2(4 and 265.* Unless the generator met the
••all quantity generator requirements* generating less than
one kilogram of P-listed wastes in the given calendar month,
burning the bags would be subject to RCRA treatment standards.
I hope this letter answers your question for emptying
paper bags. If you have any questioner please feel free to
contact me at (202) 382-2550.
Sincerely yours,
Irene 8. Borner
Environmental Protection Specialist
Studies and Methods Branch (MH-S<2B)
Enclosure
cct Alan S. Corson
RCftA/Superfund Hotline
-------
9441.1985(18)
MAY 2 I
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Lime Stabilized Waste Pickle Liquor Sludge
from SIC Code No. 331 and 332
PROM: Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
TOs Michael J. Sanderson, Chief
RCRA Branch
Region VII
•In your memorandun of March 5, 1985, you requested guidance
on whether line-stabilised waste pickle liquor sludge (LSWPLS)
generated by Valmont Industries Inc., (Valley, Nebraska) qualifies
for the exclusion for LSWPLS from iron and steel industries
promulgated on June 5, 1984. (Valmont was classified under SIC
Code 331 for the purpose of acquiring a NPDCS permit.) Also,
your request guidance regarding the types of facilities and
processes included in SIC Code 331 and 332.
Before addressing the items raised in your memorandum, one
point should be clarified. That is, the RCRA inspection report
for Valmont Industries indicates that the facility treats
pickle liquor with anhydrous ammonia to raise the pH to 6.5 or
above. The waste is then pumped from the pickling tanks into
lagoons. However, Wayne Kaiser, of your staff, has informed
us of Valmont*s intent to pump the neutralized waste from the
lagoons to the wastewater treatment system for treatment with
lime. It is at this point, that lime stabilized waste pickle
liquor sludge is generated.
In determining the primary SIC code for a facility* the
Agency considers the principal product or process. Thus, a
facility that is primarily engaged in the manufacture or
processing of steel (i.e., SIC code 331 or 332) qualifies
for the 'exclusion.* The following types of operations are
included in these SIC codest
3312 - blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills
3313 - electrometallurgical products
3315 - steel wire drawing and steel nails and spikes
-------
-2-
J316 - cold rolled steel sheet, strip, and bars
J317 - st9el yip« and tubes
3321 - gray iron foundries
3422 - malleable iron foundries
3324 - steel investment foundries
.4325 - steol foundries (not classified elsewhere)
In considering Valmont for a HPDES permit, State and
Regional officials designated the facility as SIC code 331.
According to the 'Rationale For NPDES Permit Por Valnont
Industries, Inc.,' the Regional Water Management Division
categorized the three wastawater generating processes at
Valmont Industries (acid pickling, galvanizing, and tube forming)
as belonging to the iron and steel subcategory since these
operations normally are associated with iron and steel mills.
This designation, however, is inconsistent with the way
the Agency normally classifies the various industry segments.
In particular, many industries other than iron and steel are
engaged in acid pickling and may generate spent pickle liquor
(see Notice of Availability of Data, January 4, 1984). The
galvanizing operation at Valnont Industries is integrated into
tne various product lines and should not bet considered under a
separate SIC category. The tube forming operation is the only
process at Valnont which falls under the iron and steel
subcategory. Since the principal product is pivot irrigation
systems, we believe the primary SIC code to be 3S23 - Farm
and Garden Machinery and Equipment.
In resolving this flutter, the Agency is faced with three
major options — we could re-open the permit application for
Valmont Industries and assign the correct SIC code, we could
consider Valmont as non-iron and steel only for purposes of
determining whether the exclusion for LSWPLS is applicable,
or we could stand by the HPDBS SIC code designation and consider
Valmont covered under the exclusion for LSWPLS.
We realite that re-evaluating the permit application at
this time would be resource intensive and impose additional
costs to Valmont and the Agency. A decision to classify Valmont
under different SIC codes for purposes of RCRA and Of A would
be viewed as contradictory and unjustifiable. Since we believe
it prudent to Maintain consistency in assigning SIC codes for
regulatory purposes, it is our recommendation that the Agency
maintain its earlier SIC code designation for Valmont. As a
practical matter, this means that Valmont Industries would
continue to be designated as SIC code 331* and as such, would
be covered under the exclusion for LSWPLS*
-------
We relieve that the situation regarding Vaittont Industries =
represents an i*olat»d Incident* The Agency will continue to <-"
make decisions regarding applicability of the exclusion for £
uswPLS cased on the rationale set forth earlier in this memorandum. -^
Crf
If you have further questions or require addition*! information t»
regarding this guidance? please call Jacqueline Sales, of ay stafff £
at FTS 382-4807. e^
(4
ca
3"
ca
i
to
ao
N)
I
w
\
00
Ul
O
CO
t-<
o
-------
9441.1985(19)
311985
Mr. frank W. Schaller
Inco Limited
Park 30 West-Plaza Two
Saddle Brook, New Jersey 07662
Dear Mr. Schaller:
In your letter of Hay 8, 1965, you request an Agency
determination regarding the regulatory status of empty drums
that contained either metallic nickel or nickel oxide.
Under the current hazardous waste regulations, metallic
nickel and nickel oxide are not listed hazardous wastes nor are
they constituents covered by the EP Toxicity Characteristic.
r\i Thus, empty drums that contained these compounds are likewise
~ not a hazardous waste.
£ Although these waste are not covered under the Federal rules,
f- you should consult with State officials to determine whether State
requirements differ from the Federal. In many cases. State rules
are more stringent.
Q
o If you have questions or require additional information,
£ contact Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (202) 382-4807.
CN Sincerely,
oe
~i
\
.!< Alan S. Corson
7 Branch Chief
f> Studies and Methods Branch
S3
E
U
w
a
—t
m
•5
X
O
N
C
n
I
-------
9441.1985(193)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MAY 1985
Solid Waste Determination
4. A warehouse stores product acrylonitrile. An accidental fire destroys the ware-
house and produces an ash from the burned acrylonitrile. The acrylonitrile
was not a hazardous waste prior to the fire. Is the ash viewed as solid waste
generated from the disposal of a hazardous waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i) and therefore
a listed hazardous waste per §261.3(c) (2)(i)?
The ash from an acrylonitrile warehouse fire is regulated as U009 hazardous
waste. Burned product is viewed as discarded. Thus, the acrylonitrile is
a solid waste per §261.2(b)(l) and §261.2(b) (50 TR 614, January 4, 1985).
Ash from the acrylonitrile is a listed hazardous waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i).
-------
9441.1985(20)
June 5, 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Use/Reuse Exemption as Applied to Spent Pickle Liquor
FROM: John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
This memo is in response to your memorandum dated May 10,
regarding the use/reuse exclusion as it relates to spent pickle
liquor that is used as a wastewater conditioner. In particular,
U.S. Steel uses spent pickle liquor as a substitute for ferric
chloride (as a wastewater conditioner) and adds it to their
wastewater treatment system; however, the Region and the State of
Alabama question whether the use/reuse exclusion applies if the
spent pickle liquor is discharged to a wastewater that is
contained in an open unlined ditch. Furthermore, you expect the
build-up of EP sludge/precipitate on the bottom of the unit. You
.question whether you can regulate the unit as a hazardous waste
surface impoundment.
While we agree with your conclusion that you can regulate
the unit as a hazardous waste impoundment, we do not agree with
the logic that led you to that conclusion. The sludge that forms
in the impoundment is a solid waste and if it is hazardous (i.e..
exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste),
it is subject to regulation; thus, the impoundment would be
subject to hazardous waste control.
However, we do not agree with your logic concerning the
use/reuse exclusion. The January 4 regulations (and preamble) to
these regulations indicates that spent pickle liquor that is used
as a wastewater conditioner is considered to be covered under the
use/reuse exclusion, provided that the material is not
speculatively accumulated. See, for example, Part I, Section
III.B. (Secondary Materials That Are Not Solid Wastes), pg. 619
and Part II, Section II.N. (Section 261.2(e): Secondary
Materials That Are Not Solid Wastes When Recycled), pg. 637. We
also address this point indirectly in footnote 15 (pg. 628) where
it states:
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
"We note, however that we do not consider secondary
materials that are used as wastewater conditioners to be
within the scope of this provision (use constituting
disposal provision). The activity is not similar to land
disposal because the secondary material is chemically
combined as part of a conditioning process and is subsumed
as an ingredient in the conditioned water."
We, therefore, cannot agree with you (or the State of
Alabama) that this activity constituents land disposal (under the
Federal program). Rather, the January 4 rules indicate that the
spent pickle liquor (if beneficially used as a wastewater
conditioner) would be excluded from control under RCRA. However,
as indicated above, the impoundment would still be regulated if
it contains a characteristic hazardous waste or any other listed
hazardous waste. Please give Matthew A. Straus a call if you have
any further questions.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
9441.1985(21)
June 6, 1985
Mr. Bruce Bzura
Vice-President
Madison Industries, Inc.
Old Waterworks Road
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857
Dear Mr. Bzura:
This letter is in response to your letter dated May 3, 1985,
concerning the regulatory status of brass dross skimmings that is
to be recycled by a domestic or foreign refinery or a domestic or
foreign processor. First, let me apologize for not getting back
to you sooner; I have been very busy and hope my lateness has not
created a problem for you. With regard to your guestions, I will
answer them in the same order as you presented them in your
letter.
• Is the brass dross skimmings a by-product or a scrap
metal?
These skimmings would be defined as a by-product. (See
preamble discussion on pg. 624 of the January 4, 1985
Federal Register (c. Definition of Scrap Metal and
Regulatory Distinctions Between Scrap Metal and Other Metal-
Containing Wastes That Are Recycled for a detailed
explanation.)
• If this material is sent to a domestic refinery, does
it have to be manifested?
These skimmings (defined as a by-product) under the rules
would be sent for reclamation (as you correctly noted in
your letter). Since this material is not currently listed
as a hazardous waste, it must be hazardous due to its
exhibiting one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics (i.e.. if this material were not hazardous,
the hazardous waste rules would not apply). Under the
rules, the reclamation of a nonlisted by-product would not
be defined as a solid waste (provided the material is not
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
speculatively accumulated.- As a result, this material
would not be a hazardous waste and, thus, need not be
manifested or subject to any of the other applicable
requirements. This answer is the same if it is sent to a
foreign refinery.)
• A processor processes the brass skimmings by separating
the metal from the oxides. If the oxides are said to
be a domestic or foreign fertilizer company, does the
material have to be manifested?
Yes. Under the rules, any material (whether it is a spent
material, sludge, by-product, commercial chemical product or
scrap metal) that is placed directly on the land or
incorporated into a product that is placed on the land is
defined as a solid waste and if hazardous, a hazardous
waste. Thus, the oxide material (assuming it exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic) would need to be manifested
to the fertilizer company and the domestic fertilizer
company would need to get a storage permit for this
material. (The processor also would have to comply with the
other applicable regulatory requirements.) It should also
be noted that the brass skimmings would have to be
manifested from the brass mill to the processor and the
processor would need a storage permit if the ultimate
destination of this material (i.e.. the oxides) is to be
placed on the land or incorporated into a product that is
placed on the land.
• If the oxide material were used as an ingredient to
make a new product, would the oxides have to be
manifested?
Under the rules, any material that is used or reused as an
ingredient to make a new product would not be defined as a
solid waste, provided the material is not speculatively
accumulated. (The exception to this is when the material is
used as an ingredient in waste-derived fuels or in waste-
derived products that will be placed on the land. In these
situations, both the material being incorporated and the
waste-derived product remains subject to RCRA jurisdiction.)
Subsequently, this material would not have to be manifested
or subject to any of the other applicable requirements.
A material would be speculatively accumulated if: (1) it is
being accumulated for recycling but no recycling market
exists (or no feasible recycling market exists), or (2) 75%
of the material is not recycled within a one-year period.
See 40 CFR 261.l(a)(8).
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
(The answer is the same if it is sent to a foreign chemical
processor.)
I hope this letter responds to your questions. Please give
me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone
number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1985(23)
June 27, 1985
Mr. N. Ray Clark
Universal Manufacturing Corp.
200 Robin Road
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Dear Mr. Clark:
This letter is in response to your letter dated April 30,
1985, regarding the disposal requirements of scrap (off-
specification) DEHP and small capacitors which contain DEHP.
First, let me apologize for taking so long in getting back to
you; I have been very busy and hope my delay has not created a
problem for you. Concerning your specific questions, I generally
agree with the answers given by Mr. Travis Wagner of the RCRA
Hotline. More specifically:
Contaminated or unusable DEHP which is generated in the
normal course of the manufacturing process and becomes
a waste which must be disposed of is subject to the
RCRA hazardous waste rules (i.e.. if shipped-off-site
must be manifested, must go to a facility with interim
status or one which is fully permitted, etc.)
Capacitors which are found to be unusable for
electrical or mechanical reasons are presently not
defined as a listed hazardous waste (i.e.. U028).
Therefore, these wastes would only be hazardous if they
exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics (i.e.. ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity).
With regard to your third question, you ask whether rags,
gloves, and other miscellaneous solid materials which have
absorbed some DEHP are RCRA hazardous wastes. The answer to this
question is yes and no; that is, if the solid material has become
contaminated as a result of waste management activities (i.e..
clean-up of spills or leaks or from mixing waste DEHP with other
wastes), these contaminated materials would be defined as RCRA
listed hazardous wastes. On the other hand, if the contamination
is a result of its use during the manufacturing process (i.e..
gloves become contaminated as a result of handling during the
manufacturing process), these solid materials would not be
defined as listed hazardous wastes, these materials, however,
would be a hazardous wastes if they exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further
assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1985(24)
JUM 2 ~
Mr. Dan Summers
Senior Corporate Attorney
McDonnell Douglas Corporation
Saint Louis, Missouri 63166
Dear Mr. Summers i
This letter is in response to your letter dated April 15,
1915, concerning the regulatory status of equipment * such
as a solvent stilly which is used to legitimately recycle
hazardous waste* in particular, you indicate that in
amending the regulations on January 4, 1985 regarding
recycle/ reuse, the exemption from regulation for units
(treatment units) which are conducting legitimate recycling
had been .deleted, except for those facilities "managing
recyclable materials described in §261. 6 (a) (2) and (3)..."
Subjecting these units to full regulation under Subtitle C
of RC1A, you believe, would be a substantial impediment to
the continuation of on-site recycling activities. Therefore,
yea request clarification as to whether the actual recycling
unit (i.e., solvent still) is subject to regulation under
the revised solid waste rules.
As we discussed during our telephone conversation, the
agency normally will not regulate the actual recycling
process itself (i.e., a distillation column in which solvents
are reclaims* or a smelting furnace in which metals are
recovered); the only exception to this is when the recycling
activity is analogous to land disposal or incineration.
Although this point may not be entirely clear in the rule,
we believe the preamble to this rulemafcing clearly states
this point. See, for example, 50 PR €43, 1st column, where
we stats •*• in the proposal (and as under current
regulations*}* hazardous wastes to be recycled— called
•recyclafeeyfe materials* in the regulation— are ordinarily
subject isr-mmejilation under Parts 2C2 and 2*3 of the
regulatimsjsjr (vmen generated and transported) and to the
storage facility requirements in Parts 2(4 and 265 (when
stored before recycling). We usually do not regulate the
recycling process itself, except when the recycling is
analogous to land disposal or incineration*) see also
50 ft €50, 2nd column, where we state "These provisions
state that persons generating, transporting, or storing
recyclable materials, who are not explicitly addressed in
-------
52fl.f(a), are subject to all of the applicable requirements
of Parts^MS, 2(3, 2(4, and 265 of the regulations, as well
as to aaj&£cable permit requirements."
und«r th« January 4, 1985 »olld waste rules,
your solT«at still would not b« subject to regulation.
Pl*as« f««l fr»« to giv« •» a call if I can b« of any
further assistance; my t«l«phon« number is (202) 475-8551*
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
waste Identification Branch
-855l/«-2S-«S/Disk H88S0207
-------
9441.1985(25)
July 1, 1985
Mr. John A. Quinlan
Legal Assistant
Evans, Kitchel, and Jenckes, P.C.
2600 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099
This letter is in response to your letter dated May 1, 1985,
regarding the scope of the term "abandoned" under revised 40 CFR
§261.2. In particular, you indicate that §261.2(a) (2) ( i)
provides that a material may be discarded by being abandoned and
§261.2(b)(i) defines abandoned to mean disposed of. You further
state that disposal (as defined in §260.10) includes the "placing
of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or
water..." Therefore, you are concerned that read together, these
sections would state any material that is placed on the land is a
solid waste, and that if the material is hazardous (i.e.. if
listed in Subpart D of Part 261 or exhibits one or more of the
characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261), the regulations
relating to hazardous wastes would apply.
As we discussed previously, the Agency generally does not
intend to regulate those secondary material that are bona fide
products (e.g., secondary materials used as ingredients or
feedstocks in production processes or as a substitute for
commercial chemical products) even though they may be temporarily
stored on the land. Thus, a listed emission control dust that is
stored in piles on the land and is used as an ingredient in a
production process would not be defined as a solid waste,
provided that the material is not speculatively accumulated.-'
This position is supported (as you stated in your letter) by the
parenthetical comment in the preamble, "By saying "abandoned," we
do not intend any complicated concept, but simply mean thrown
away." See 50 FR 637, January 4, 1985.
A material is considered speculatively accumulated if it is
being accumulated without having a known recycling market or
disposition, or no feasible means of recycling, and during a
one-year calendar period, 75 percent of the material is not
recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
On the other hand, if the material were to escape from the
unit (i.e., leach from the waste and contaminate groundwater),
this action would constitute disposal and meet the definition of
abandoned and, thus, would be defined as a solid waste. In
addition, if the material is hazardous, pursuant to §261.3, the
material would be subject to the hazardous waste regulations.
This point is discussed in the preamble to the regulations where
we indicate "In addition, we note that black liquor that is
disposed of and not recycled is a waste, and if hazardous, a
hazardous waste. This includes black liquor that leaks, leaches,
or overflows from an impoundment and is not recycled." See 50 FR
642, 1st column.
I hope this letter adequately responds to your question.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further
assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1985(26)
July 5, 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Dioxin-Containing Laboratory Wastes
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Dennis A. Huebner, Chief
State Waste Programs Branch
Region I
This memo is in response to your memorandum dated May 28,
1985, regarding the regulatory status of laboratory wastes which
contain dioxin. In particular, you question whether laboratory
wastes which contain dioxin and which also are radioactive are
subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
rules or some other set of regulations.
First, you ask whether radioactive laboratory wastes are
excluded from the definition of solid waste since they are under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. C14 is a naturally-occurring
radioisotope. EPA has authority, under RCRA, to regulate a
material containing it. (See the February 21, 1984, memorandum
from Lee Thomas to Ernesta Barnes, which you cited.) Such a
material, therefore, is a solid waste, and is a hazardous waste
if it meets one of the hazardous waste characteristics or is a
RCRA-listed waste.
You further question whether the particular laboratory waste
you describe is a hazardous waste listed in 40 CFR 261.31.
Laboratory wastes, in general, are not regulated under Subtitle C
of RCRA. Laboratory wastes such as chromatographic columns,
discarded solutions, filter material, etc., are not currently
listed. In the case of a laboratory which analyzes a RCRA
hazardous waste, the unused portion of the waste being analyzed
as well as any residue or sample from the analysis is a RCRA
hazardous waste, and is subject to RCRA regulation. The
particular laboratory wastes which you describe are, therefore,
not regulated under RCRA. The January 14, 1985, dioxin
regulations did not change this determination.
With respect to the laboratory wastes you described in your
May 28, 1985 memorandum, one can calculate an average TCDD
concentration of 2.5 ppb (1.5 mg/25 x 12 x 2 kg). Material of
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
this degree of contamination should be safely disposed. These
wastes are subject to NRC regulations for the disposal of
radioactive wastes which should ensure that they are disposed in
a satisfactory manner.
If you have any questions regarding the dioxin listings,
please call Dr. Judith S. Bellin of my staff. She can be reached
at 382-4789.
Attachment
cc: Judy Bellin
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED ST ES ENVIRONMENTAL WOTECTION AG' CY
9441.1985(27)
MEMORANDUM J U L \ 6 1985 %
3
ft
l-i
SUBJECT: Status of Spent Pickle Liquor Used in the °
Production of Ferric Chloride
o
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) C
X
TO: Harry Seraydarian, Director >L
Toxics and Waste Management Division <=
Region IX (T-l)
This memorandum responds to your inquiry of June 18, 1985,
regarding the status of spent pickle liquor used in the production
of ferrous and ferric chloride at Chem West Industries, Inc.
(Fontana, CA ) and Imperial West Chemical Company (Pittsburg, CA).
The information attached to your memorandum indicates
the Chem West Industries, Inc. receives spent pickle liquor
(by pipeline) from Kaiser Steel Corp. The spent material is
piped into tanks containing steel scrap to neutralize the
free hydrochloric acid to below a certain percentage. The
material is then discharged to lined surface impoundments to
concentrate (recover) the ferrous chloride. After neutralization
of the acid and concentration of the iron, the material is
chlorinated and sold as technical grade ferric chloride.
A similar situation exists at the Imperial West Chemical
Company. Spent pickle liquor received at this facility is
treated with ferric oxide and lime to decrease its acidity;
this treatment also has the effect of increasing the concen-
tration of ferrous chloride.A/ The material is concentrated
(recovered) in a surface impoundment and sold directly as
ferrous chloride or further processed to produce ferric chloride.
I/ For both Chem West Industries, Inc. and Imperial West Chemical
Company, the process of mixing the spent pickle liquor with
scrap iron or ferric oxide produces ferrous chloride. Thus,
it could be argued that this material is used as an ingredient
Howeverr based on our understanding of the process, the primary
purpose of this mixing is to reduce the acidity in the spent
pickle liquor; in addition, if the acidity (HC1 concentration)
is below their level of concern, this activity would probably
not be conducted. Thus, we believe that any ferrous chloride
that is generated is incidental and not a major purpose of
this particular activity.
-------
-2-
The process conducted at these facilities in which
usable ferrous chloride is first recovered from the spent
pickle liquor before it is used to produce ferric chloride
is considered a reclamation activity. According to the
revised definition of solid waste/ "spent materials, listed
sludges, and listed by-products that are processed to recover
usable products, or that are regenerated... are solid waote..."
(50 PR at 633-634, January 4, 1985). As such, these materials
are subject to regulation under RCRA prior to the reclamation
operation. Once the ferrous chloride is recovered, the material
would no longer be a waste. Although it may appear that the
exclusion for secondary materials used as ingredients to make
new products would apply in this case, it is clearly stated in
the preamble that if the material is to be put to use after it
has been reclaimed, the material is still a solid waste until
reclamation is completed. Thus, the fact that wastes may be
used after being reclaimed does not affect their status as
wastes before and while being reclaimed.
Consequently, in the case of Chem West Industries, Inc.,
and Imperial West Chemical Company, the spent pickle liquor
used in the production of ferrous and ferric chlorides at
these facilities is regulated under RCRA prior to the reclamation
operation. Thus, the generators of the spent pickle liquor
must comply with Part 262 and both Imperial West Chemical
Company and Chem West Industries, Inc. must comply with Parts
264 and 265 for any storage of the pickle liquor prior to
recycling. The recycling activity itself (i.e., the reclamation
operation), however, is exempt from regulation? thus, the
tanks and surface impoundments used as part of their recycling
process are currently exempt from regulations. If, however,
the material were to escape from the unit used in the recycling
process (i.e., leach from the waste in the surface impoundment
and contaminate ground water), this action would constitute
disposal and would be subject to regulation under RCRA. (See
50 FR 642, January 4, 1985.)
I hope that this memorandum adequately responds to your
inquiry. If you have questions or require additional information,
please call Matthew Straus or Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at
(202) 475-8551.
cc: Regions 1-X
-------
UNITED ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9441.1985(28)
6 885
Jean Summers Stinson
R.W. Summers Railroad Contractor, Inc.
P.O. Box 1456
Bartow, Florida 33830
Dear Mr. Stinsonj
This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1985, in
which you asked whether the disposal of cross ties treated
with creosote is subject to regulation by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recycling Act (RCRA), EPA has issued regula-
tions listing only the commercial product creosote, when
discarded, and two manufacturing process wastes (Bottor.
sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
(K001) and Wastewater treatment sludges generated in the
production of creosote (K035)) as hazardous under RCRA.
Creosote treated cross ties are not covered by any of
these listings. These ties also could be considered hazardous
if they exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity); however, it is unlikely that the
creosote treated cross ties would exhibit any of these characteristics,
Therefore, the treated ties are likely not defined as a
hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA and, thus, not
subject to the hazardous waste regulation.
The disposal of creosote treated cross ties are subject
to some regulation under the recently promulgated rules
developed under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), however. In particular, on July 13, 1984, the
Agency issued its Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration
(RPAR) for the three major wood preservatives—namely, inorganic
arsenicale, pentachlorophenol, and creosote. Among other
things, these rules require that wood which has been treated
with pentachlorophenol and/or creosote should not be burned
in an outdoor fire or in stoves or fireplaces; rather this
wood should be buried in a landfill. This requirement was
t: c cpn 13S5-467-8S3
-------
included to ensure that no toxic contaminants would be released
as a result of the burning process. (For more information
on the PIFRA rules, please contact Carol Langley at 557-7400.)
I presume this information provides sufficient answers to
your question. If you need further clarification, please feel
fr«e to telephone Dr. Judith S. Bellin at 202-382-4789.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Waste Identification Branch
WH-562B/JBELLIN/ecm/382-4789/6-28-85 disk JB8401-42
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 94 41.1985 (28a)
JULY 85
.clamation, and the Manifest
A photography lab generates between 100 kg/month and 1000 kg/month of a spent material
which is EP toxic for silver. The lab does preliminary reclamation of the silver and
then sends the recyclable material off-site for further reclamation, a) Since the
lab is generating between 100 kg/month and 1000 kg/month, must it keep the records
prescribed in $266.70(c) for persons who store recyclable precious metals? b) Must
the partially reclaimed precious metal be shipped with a manifest if the material is
sent off-site for final reclamation?
a) No; the lab is not currently subject to the recordkeeping requirements of
$266.70(c). A SQG that beneficially uses or re-uses, or legitimately recycles or
reclaims the waste is not subject to regulation according to $261.5(g)(3)(v)(A).
Therefore, the photography lab reclaiming silver from the spent material would
not have to keep the records required by $266.70(c) until the lab exceeds the
1000 kg SQG accumulation limit.
The proposed SQG regulation dated August 1, 1985, (50 FT* 31278) was published
pursuant to $3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) as amended by $221 of
P.L. 98-616. Section 3001(d) requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate
standards by March 31, 1986, under Sections 3002, 3003, and 3004 of SWDA for
hazardous waste generated between 100 kg/month and 1000 kg/month.
This proposed rule would require generators between 100 kg/foonth and 1000 kg/month
to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of $266.70(c).
b) Yes; the partially reclaimed material which is sent off-site for final reclam-
ation is subject to the reduced manifest requirements per $3001 of SWDA, as amended
by $221 of P.L. 98-616, effective August 5, 1985. The requirements are less
stringent compared to the requirements applicable to generators of 1000
kg/month or more*
Generators between 100 kg/month and 1000 kg/month need only complete certain
portions of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (Manifest). Section 3001(d)(3)(A)
through (E) states that the Manifest shall contain the following information:
o the name and address of the generator of the waste;
o the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) description of the
waste, including the proper shipping name, hazard class, and identification
nunber (UN/MA), if applicable;
o the number and type of containers;
o the quantity of waste being transported; and
o the name and address of the facility designated to receive the waste.
These Manifest requirements will change effective March 31, 1986.
Section 3001 (d)(8) of SWDA states that additional information will be required
unless the EPA Administrator promulgates standards by March 31, 1986. Specifi-
cally, this "hammer provision* win require Generators between 100 ka/mcath and
o include the name of the waste transporters and the name and address of the
facility designated to receive the waste;
o treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste at a facility with interim
status or a RCRA permit (except for on-site storage subject to reduced
requirements);
o file manifest exception reports; and
o retain copies of the nanifest signed by the designated facility that has
received the waste for three years.
The SQG proposed rule dated August 1, 1985, (50 FR 31278) specifies Manifest
requirements for generators between 100 kg/month and 1000 kg/month. These gene-
rators are subject to reduced requirements when reclaiming hazardous wastes in
compliance with $262.20(e).
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
-------
9441.1985(28b)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
JULY 1985
K051 and HSVR
1. Section 3004(q) (2) (A) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSKA) states that the provisions regulating hazardous waste used as fuel
"shall not apply to petroleun wastes containing oil which are converted into
petroleun coke at the same facility at which such wastes were generated
...unless the coke product exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste."
Eoes this mean that K051 (API Separator Sludge) could be reused on-site to
produce new petroleum coke?
Yes; petroleun coke produced from the on-site reuse of K051 (or any other
listed petroleum refinery waste) is exempt frcm the labeling provisions of
$3004(r) and any standards applicable to hazardous waste fuel, unless the
coke product exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste.
-------
9441.1985(29)
UNITED s" ,ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A( CY
AUG 23 1985
• •EMOKANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of the "Mixture" and "Derived Prom"
Rulae to Petroleum Refinery wastewater Sygtarns
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of solid waste
TO: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I-X
Over the past year, we have received several requests
from Regions VI and VIII for interpretations relating to the
conditions under which sludges generated in refinery surface
impoundments are haxardous. Many of those questions should
have been answered by our December 1, 1984 memorandum to Robert
Duprey, a copy of which is attached. The Administrator has
recently received a petition from the Texas Mid-Continent
Oil and Gas Association (TMOGA) that raises the question of
whether the "mixture" and "derived free" rules provide a basis
for the regulation of these units. We hope that this letter
provides sufficient guidance on this issue to insure the proper
application of the "mixture" and "derived from" rules to refinery
wastewater systems.
Five waste streams generated by petroleum refineries are
currently listed in 40 CPR 2(1.32. Based on a review of the
American Petroleum Institute's 1982 survey of refineries, we
expect that as many as 40% of all refineries are performing
sorae treatment of these wastes (primarily API Separator sludge,
DA? Float, or Slop Oil Emulsion Solids). Generally, the treat-
ment involves some form of dewatering by sedimentation, filtration
or centrifugation. A literal reading of 40 CFR 261.J(c)(2)(i),
the "derived from" rule, would suggest that the resultant
liquid stream is a hazardous waste and remains one until delisted.
Since refiners generally return the aqueous stream to the refinery
wastewater system, the mixture rule (40 CPR 2C1.JU)(2)(iv))
would then define the combined water stream and all subsequent
residuals as hazardous wastes. (Mote, however/ last the effluent
•t the point of discharge from the wastewater treatment system
would not be a solid waste by virtue of the industrial wastewater
discharge exclusion, 40 CfB 3
-------
After careful consideration of the characteristics of the
currently listed refinery wastes, the waste management practices,
and the disposition of the recycle streams, we have concluded that
the 'derived fro*" rule is not uniformly applicable to the aqueous
•tream generated in a sludge dewatering process. Our interpre-
tation is based on the presumption that properly conducted dewatering
of a wastewater treatment residual will insure that none of the
listed waste is returned to the system, while simultaneously
reducing the total amount of waste generated. It is our opinion
that dewatering of the currently listed refinery wastes can be
conducted in a manner that insures the return of only the
non-listed wastewater which came into contact with, but was
not mixed with, the listed waste. This interpretation leaves
a burden of proof on the facility to establish that they are
•properly conducting" dewatering.
We believe that the demonstration of properly conducted
dewatering can be made by the plant by conducting waste analysis.
Specifically/ if the refinery can show, to your satisfaction,
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" the hazardous waste.
It should be noted that this demonstration cannot be made if
the influent to the waste treatment unit itself contained a
listed hazardous waste. In this case, all waste derived from its
treatment would be hazardous since the original wastewater was
hazardous.
As an example, consider a refinery that generates an API
separator sludge; suppose that the refinery pumps this listed
hazardous wastes to an impoundment for sludge dewatering,
after which the sludge is sent to a landfam and the water
supernatent is sent to the influent to the API Separator. If
the returned water stream is similar in composition of Appendix
VIII hazardous constituents and total suspended solids (TSS)
to the influent wastewater to the API separator/ then only the
non-listed wastewater is being returned and the return wastewater
is not a hazardous waste. On the other hand/ if the level of
sane Appendix VIII constituent or the TSS is significantly
higher than the level in the API separator influent, then
hazardous waste is being returned to the wastewater treatment
system and the-mixture rule is triggered Cor the entire wastewater
system.
What constitutes a significantly higher constituent level
is obviously a case-by-case determination that is functionally
dependent upon the amount of sampling data available. Ms will
be glad to provide an opinion for any specific case if you
forward the required information on the waste streams. Zt
-------
should b« noted, in passing, that the dewatering impoundment
is • regulated unit regardless of the regulatory status of the
water stream since this unit is being used to treat and store a
hazardous waste.
Application of the above rules has major implications for
refineries that are returning hazardous waste to their wastewater
treatment system. At these facilities, all downstream units
are hazardous waste management units. Beyond that, all
residuals generated downstream are hazardous wastes, unless an
upstream or influent wastewater mixture, or the residual
itself, has been delisted by the Agency. We are concerned
that the net effect of these rules, when coupled with the
closeness of the Part B submission deadline, may cause major
problems for refiners who were practicing the desirable
activity of waste minimization, but were not operating in a
systematic fashion. We cannot, however, justify a blanket
exemption from the mixture rule for all of the recycled liquid
streams.
Our hesitation to grant a blanket exemption is based on
the fact that the limited data wnich we have available at
this time (data supplied by the American Petroleum Institute)
suggest that the liquid streams can contain appreciable amounts
of Appendix VIII hazardous constituents from the hazardous
waste. Calculations performed by my staff further suggest
that major portions of the constituents found in downstream
wastewaters can result from the introduction of the recycle
stream.
Nevertheless, we do believe there are cases where a rigid
application of the two rules results in a less desirable out-
come. Unfortunately/ our procedural options are rather limited.
The rules have been final for several years and revision at this
point would require issuing a proposal, along with providing an
opportunity for public comment. Me could not justify starting
such an effort until we receive meaningful data from TMGGA
or other petitioners, in the interim, the sole available
mechanism for regulatory relief is through the delisting
process.
Fortunately, some refineries have correctly interpreted
the subject rules snd are working to submit their Part B's in
November, ss required. Me believe, however, that a such larger
contingent of refineries may not be exerting any effort, due to
• misinterpretation of the rules or the hope that EPA will
ignore the rules. Since those facilities would lose their
interim status for the affected units, it is imperative that
your stsff notify the* of their responsibilities st the
earliest possible dste. Fseilities which fail the test on
the return water stream will need to submit a delisting
petition if they hope to receive an exclusion for their
recycled liquid streams.
-------
Sine* there is potential for significant economic impact,
we will perform an expedited review of all complete petitions
that are received. The 1984 amendments, however, do not leave
us the option to grant a temporary exclusion under 40 CFR
26l.22(a). See also SO FR 28, 737, July IS, 198S. Specific
information that is required of a delisting petitioner is
described in the guidance manual for delisting petitions;
petitioners should take extra care to insure that Appendix
VIII characterisations are provided for all wastes that are
being treated, the recycled liquid streams, the waatewater*
receiving the recycled streams, and the non-recycled residuals
of treatment, it is also important that all analyses be
representative of the long tent variations in the quality of
the recycled stream and factors that contribute to that variation
Complete volumetric and phase characterisations for all streams
and data defining their variability are also essential. Due
to the tight time constraints involved, petitioners may want
to contact Jim Poppiti of my staff, at (202) 475-8551, before
•aKing their submissions.
In the way of guidance to your staffs, it is also
essential that they understand and consistently apply the
definitions of the wastes to insure that facilities are
not erroneously categorized. Clearly, recycled streams
are not regulated if the hazardous waste has not been
generated. It nay be useful to clarify the point of waste
generation and associated applicability of the rules. They
are as follows:
K048 {DA*- Float) - Generated at the moment they are
formed in the top of the unit. Any liquid stream deriving
from the concentration of K048 could be derived from
a hazardous waste.
K049 (Slop Oil Emulsion solids) - This waste, sometimes
referred to as middle layer emulsion/ is generated at
the first instance where the emulsion layer is allowed
to form. The layer will form in the first vessel to
which slop oils are pumped frcn the wastewater system.
with one exception, the wastewater from this first tank
need not be evaluated for the •derived from" test. The
case where, it would require testing is where a hazardous
waste, such as DAP Float, was introduced into the emulsion
breaking tank. Water phase derived from any subsequent
emulsion breaking or emulsion storage is subject to the
•derived from • test.
K050 (Bundle Cleaning sludge) - Mixtures containing this
hazardous waste which are part ot the refinery wastewater
system are exempted from the mixture rule (40 CFR 261.3(a).
-------
KOS1 (API separator Sludge) - Generated at the moment
of deposition in the API separator. Note that deposition
is defined as a condition where there has been at
least a temporary cessation of lateral particle
movement. Liquids derived from the management of API
Separator sludge after its removal from the separator (e.g.,
centrifuging) must be evaluated to establish whether, or
not, they are "derived from" the hazardous waste.
K052 (Leaded Tank Bottoms) - Generated at the moment of
deposition in the gasoline storage tank. Section 261.4(c)
excludes the tank from regulatory requirements. Any
portion returned to the wastewater systems must be
tested under the "derived from* rule.
This memorandum should clarify (when applied in concert
with our previous guidance on scouring, slop oil systems, and
waste reactivity) the regulatory status of most refinery
wastewater impoundments. Do not hesitate to contact Ben smith
of my staff (PTSi 382-4791), if you have any additional questions
on this or other refinery related matters, we will keep you
apprised of our progress with the TMOGA petition and our waste
listing efforts.
Attachment
cci John Queries
WH-562B/BSMITH/pcs/475-8551/8-20-85/Disk BS0825
-------
9441.1985(30a)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 85
Battery Regeneration
6. In tie January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 F* 665), $261.6(4)(3) excludes certain
recyclable materials fron 40 CFR Parts 262 through 270. $261.6(a)(3)(ii) excludes
"used batteries (oc used battery cells) returned to a battery manufacturer for
regeneration.' (a) Is this exclusion only applicable to battery manufacturers or
does it also cover any facility that regenerates batteries? (b) Are spent lead-
acid batteries also covered under this exclusion, or are they specifically subject
to Part 266 Subpart G?
(a) This battery exclusion under $261.6(a)(3)(ii) was not meant to be appli-
cable solely to battery manufacturers. Any facility that regenerates
batteries but dees not recover the lead from then can be covered under this
exclusion, (b) Only if a spent lead-acid battery is sent to reclaim the
lead (i.e., crack the battery and recover the lead), is it then subject to
$266.30.
Sourcat Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
-------
9441.1985(31)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Carl J. Schafer, Jr.
Director
Environmental Policy
Acquisition and Logistics
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Washington ,/Op.C. 20301
Dear
In your letter of July 25, 1985, you requested EPA concurrence
on the proposed DoD policy regarding the applicability of the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations to the demilitarization of military
munitions. These are munitions which have not yet been used and
which now may be recycled or disposed. Your request raises two
sues: 1.) are such military munitions subject to RCRA prior to
militarization and 2.) can DoD directives be applied in lieu of
RCRA requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
waste?
Military Munitions Subject to RCRA
RCRA Section 6001 requires federal facilities to comply with
all Federal, State, and local laws pertaining to the management of
hazardous waste. RCRA hazardous waste regulations apply from the
time and at the point that the material (e.g., military munitions)
becomes a hazardous waste. The identification of munitions subject
to RCRA must be based on the definition of solid and hazardous
waste as presented in 40 CFR Part 261.
Under 40 CFR §261.33, unused commercial chemical products
become hazardous wastes only when discarded or intended for
discard. Recycling (i.e., use, reuse, or reclamation) is ordi-
narily not considered to be a form of discard. Similarlyf unused
munitions ordinarily would not be considered to be wastes unless
and until there is an intent to dispose or destroy them, and they
would not be wastes when recycled in lieu of disposal. We thus
agree that the mere assignment of munitions to the Special Defense
Property Disposal Account does not automatically subject munitions
to RCRA. It is not until DoD decides to handle the material in a
nner which classifies it as a hazardous waste that its storage
d transportation must be in accordance with RCRA rules.
-------
-2-
You should be aware, however, that burning of these munitions
in military deactivation furnaces is considered to be incineration
because the main purpose of the activity is waste treatment. Like-
wise, storage of these wastes prior to incineration would also be
considered management of a hazardous waste.
The DoD strategy for identifying those munitions subject to
RCRA appears to be in accordance with the RCRA regulations with
the exception of the exclusion of hazardous waste storage. Your
letter states that military munitions are never waste until
demilitarization occurs. We interpret "demilitarization," as
used in the DoD policy, to encompass all activities regulated
under the RCRA rules except storage. Once there is an intention
to dispose or destroy munitions, their storage as well as trans-
portation would be regulated since they are hazardous waste.
Therefore, the storage and transportation of military munitions
that are hazardous waste are subject to RCRA prior to demilitari-
zation.
RCRA Applicability to DoD
Your letter suggests that because DoD directives provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment and
"conform" to RCRA requirements, that DoD facilities may comply
with DoD directives in lieu of the RCRA requirements. Our initial
review of your directives indicates that in many respects, the DoD
directives adequately address the corresponding RCRA requirements.
However, we have also identified several deficiencies. For example,
RCRA Subpart I $264.175 requires a containment system for container
storage, whereas your directives do not. Under RCRA Subpart G
§264.113, a closure plan is required for all hazardous waste facil-
ities whether or not the facility plans to close. Your directives
inaccurately state that this requirement does not apply.
Enclosed is a checklist which identifies all of the RCRA
regulations promulgated prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA or the "Amendments"). This checklist is
used by the States during the State authorization review process to
determine the equivalency of State standards to RCRA requirements.
We believe the checklist will be useful to you, as a first step,
to identify major omissions in the DoD directives when compared to
EPA's "base" (pre-HSWA) program. Unlike State programs, however,
the DoD directives must do more than achieve an equivalent level
of environmental protection to EPA's program. DoD facilities must
EPA's standards promulgated under RCRA, and thus the DoD
kctives would need to be revised accordingly. We would be
to help you determine whether specific parts of RCRA apply to
DoD (e.g., closure requirements).
-------
-3-
We are currently revising the checklist to reflect the
Amendments and we should be able to provide a copy of the draft
revised checklist in approximately one month. The Amendments will
primarily require additions to the checklist; however, a few of
the current provisions of the checklist may also need to be revised
slightly. Please contact Chaz Miller (382-2220) of the State
Programs Branch, Office of Solid Waste, with regard to the use of
the checklist and its revisions.
We are confident that the final DOD directives will facilitate
the permitting of DOD facilities and should reduce the need for
authorized States to impose requirements other than those prescribed
in your current directives.
yours,
L/^H'
zt^-f•
/Jack W. McGraw
Deputy Assistant Administrator
J
Enclosure
-------
9441.1986(84)
y*«Y
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT/ON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. Z0460
NOV I 3 1986
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT RCRA Regulatory Status of Contaminated Ground Water
FROM; Marcia E. Williams, Director M, ,./>,", U)\j
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Patrick Tobin, Director
Waste Management Division, Region IV
This is in response to your memorandum of September 18,
1986, regarding the regulatory status of ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate. To answer this
question, one first has to determine the status of ground
water. Under the regulations, ground water contained in the
aquifer is not considered a solid waste, since it is not
"discarded" in the sense of being abandoned, recycled,
or inherently waste-like as those terms are defined in the
regulations. See 40 CFR 261.2(a)-(d). Therefore, contami-
nated ground water cannot be considered a hazardous waste
via the mixture rule (i.e., to have a hazardous waste
mixture, a hazardous waste must be mixed with a solid waste;
see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)). Nevertheless, ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate is still subject
to regulation since it contains a hazardous waste. Therefore,
the treatment, storage, or disposal of ground water contaminated
with hazardous waste leachate must be handled as i_f the
ground water itself were hazardous since hazardous waste ]./
leachate is subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
However, if the ground water is treated such that it no
longer contains a hazardous waste, the ground water would no
longer be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
!_/ This memo more precisely explains the position on ground
~ water contamination presented in John Skinner's memo dated
December 26, 1984.
-------
Taking this interpretation and applying it to the example
in your memorandum, the ground water containing a listed
hazardous waste, once collected, is subject to regulation
under the hazardous waste regulations. However, if as a
result of treatnent, the ground water no longer contains the
hazardous waste leachate, the ground water would no longer be
subject to the hazardous waste rules.
Your letter also raises the question of treatment of
ground water within the context of corrective action. If the
corrective action is taken at an interim status facility In
compliance with a §3008(h) order, treatment can take place.
We are considering the possibility of amending the regulations
to clarify the relationship between corrective action and
the reconstruction ban (§270.?2(e)). More broadly, the
Agency is currently examining the issue of whether permits
should be required for any corrective actions. We are also
developing rules for corrective action under RCRA §300Mu).
Until this analysis Is completed, if the corrective action
takes place at a permitted facility, it can be handled as a
permit modification.
Please feel free to call Matt Straus, of my staff, if
you have any further questions; his telephone number is *»75-
8551 (FTS).
cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors,
Regions I-III and V-X
Gene Lucero, OWPE
Lloyd Guerci, OWPE
Mark Greenwood, OGC
Steve Silverman, OGC
-------
9441.1986(98)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
DECEMBER 1986
7. Enpty Containers
Is an "enpty container" -which held RCRA hazardous wastes F001-F005
subject to the land disposal restrictions?
No; according to 40 CFR 261.7(a)(l) as amended [51 FR 40637],
"Any hazardous waste remaining in either (i) an empty container
(ii) an inner liner removed from an empty container, as defined
in paragraph (b) of this section, is not subject to regulation
under Parts 261 through 265, 268 (added in this rule), and
Parts 270 and 124 of this chapter or to the notification
requirements of Section 3010 of RCRA. Thus, if the container
has been emptied in accordance with the applicable provisions
of §261.7(b), it is not subject to land disposal restrictions."
-------
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.
-------
9441.1985(31)
OCT 3
Mr. Carl J. Schafer, Jr.
Director
Environmental Policy
Acquisition and Logistics
Oftice of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Washington/ D.C. 20301
Dear Mr. Schafer:
In your letter of July 25, 1985, you requested EPA concurrence
on the proposed DoD policy regarding the applicability of the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations to the demilitarization of military
munitions. These are munitions which have not yet been used and
which now may be recycled or disposed. Your request raises two
issues* 1.) are such military munitions subject to RCRA prior to
demilitarization and 2.) can DoD directives be applied in lieu of
RCRA requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
waste?
Military Munitions Subject to RCRA
RCRA Section 6001 requires federal facilities to comply with
all Federal, State, and local laws pertaining to the management of
hazardous waste. RCRA hazardous waste regulations apply from the
time and at the point that the material (e.g., military munitions)
becomes a hazardous waste. The identification of munitions subject
to RCRA must be based on the definition of solid and hazardous
waste as presented in 40 CFR Part 261.
Under 40 CFR S261.33, unused commercial chemical products
become hazardous wastes only when discarded or intended for
discard. Recycling (i.e., use, reuse, or reclamation) is ordi-
narily not considered to be a form of discard. Similarly, unused
munitions ordinarily would not be considered to be wastes unless
and until th«r« is an intent to dispose or destroy them, and they
would not be> wastes when recycled in lieu of disposal. We thus
agree that the mere assignment of munitions to the Special Defense
Property Disposal Account does not automatically subject munitions
to RCRA* It is not until DoD decides to handle the material in a
manner which classifies it as a hazardous waste that its storage
and transportation must be in accordance with RCRA rules.
-------
UNJTEl IS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO
9441.1985(32)
OCT 1
Mr. Frank J. Pox, jr.
Jones, Day, Reavis, and Pogue
2300 LTV Center
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Pox:
This letter will confirm our previous telephone
conversations and is a response to your letter aated July 19,
1985, in which you request an interpretation of the mixture
rule of the hazardous waste regulations. In particular,
you indicate that a characteristic hazardous waste and a
listed hazardous waste (which is listed solely because it
exhibits the ignitability characteristic) are mixed before
they are combusted; the mixture is ignitable. The ash resulting
front the incineration of this ignitable waste does not exhibit
any of the hazardous waste characteristics, however. Based
on your reading of the rules, you believe the ash is not a
hazardous waste and thus, does not need to be delieted, even
though it is derived from a listed waste*
I agree. Section 261.3(a)(2)(iii) of the regulations
indicates that once a listed waste (that is listed solely
because it exhibits a characteristic) has been mixed so that
the mixture no longer exhibits any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, the waste would no longer be considered
hazardous.I/ Therefore, the ash is not hazardous provided it
does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
You should be aware, however, that this provision may be
modified, in particular, the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) requires, among other things,
that the Agency in evaluating delisting petitions
consider all factors (including additional constituents)
I/ Although the waste is not considered to be non-hatardous
until the waste is incinerated, we believe the same policy
applies.
t,.S. GPO
-------
other than those for which the waste was listed to determine
the hazardousness of these wastes. This requirement applies
to all listed wastes, including those that are listed solely
because they exnibit a characteristic. Therefore, we believe
*261.3(a)(2)(iii) is inconsistent with the intent of the new
amendments. Until this rule is amended, however, the ash
generated from the combustion process (as descrit>ed above)
is not subject to regulation.
Please feel free to give we a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone numoer is (202) 475-8551*
Sincerly yours
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification branch
-------
UNITED i i ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTlOb
9441.1985(33)
nr
23 1985
Ms. Carlene Bassell, P.E.
Manager, Environmental Technology
Lederle Laboratories
Division of American Cyanamid Company
Pearl River, New yorfc 10965
Dear Ms. Bassell:
This letter is in response to your letter, dated October 10,
1985, and with regard to our telephone conversations concerning
the regulatory status of reclaimed methanol produced at
Lederle Laboratories and sent to American Cyanaraia. As
your letter aescribes, Lederle Laboratories generates a
spent solvent (methanol) as part of their pharmaceutical
manufacturing operations; this solvent is reclaimed on-site
to a minimum of 99.5 percent purity. The reclaimed methanol
is then cent to American Cyanamid at their Willow Island
facility; the Viillow Island facility uses methanol in
various manufacturing processes. However, the methanol
must be reclaimed before it is used for a number of reasons
(i.e., methanol sometimes has too much color for direct
use). The question you raise is whether the methanol
reclaimed by Lederle Laboratories and sent off-site to
American Cyanamid is a commercial chemical product or a
waste. You believe (based on discussions with Mr. James Ginley
of the RCRA/Superfund Hotline) that Lederle's reclaimed
methanol is a commercial chemical product and therefore,
not subject to the Subtitle C regulations.
I agree; that is Lederle's reclaimed methanol is a
product, not a waste. Although the methanol that is sent
to American Cyanamid needs to be reclaimed before it can be
used and normally such materials are still defined as wastes
(see 50 PR 633, January 4, 1985), we believe Lederle's
reclaimed methanol (with a purity of 99.5 percent) is more
product-like than waste-like. This is analogous to the
situation of reclaimed metals that only have to be refined
before they are used. See 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985.
-------
Therefore, Lederle's reclaimed methanol need not be
manifested to the willow island facility, nor does American
Cyananid need a storage permit to store the reclaimed
methanol. I hope this letter answers your questions.
Please teel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
-------
9441.1985(34)
Maurice Golden
456 Kilboum Road
Rochester, NY 14618
Dear Mr. Golden:
I have been asked to respond to your letter of October 17, 1985, requesting
information on proper handling of snail quantities of laboratory wastes, and
on the amended hazardous waste management regulations in general.
As you indicate in your letter, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA) do set new requirement* for generator* of small quantities of
waste (between 100 and 1000 kilograms in a calendar month), and snail laboratories
are among those likely to be affected by these changes in the lav. As you may
know, a number of "interim" requirements—primarily us* of the Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest when shipping waste off-site for treatment or disposal—became
effective August 5, 1985. The HSN& also directs EPA to promdgate final
regulations for generators of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of hazardous wast*
in a calendar month by March 31, 1986.
EPA's Office of Solid Waste has developed a new trrochure to assist affected
businesses in complying with the "interim" requirements that went into effect
in August. A copy of this brochure is enclosed. 1 have also included a
"Laboratories" insert to the brochure which provides information that labs may
find helpful in completing Item 11 of the Manifest, the Department of
Transportation proper shipping description. If you feel that the brochure and
insert will be helpful to your classes, you can obtain additional copies from
EPA Regional Offices, or by calling toll-free either the RORA Hotline (800-424-
9346) or Small Business Hotline (800-368-5888).
EPA is currently working to issue final rules for small quantity generators
by the March 31 deadline. Proposed rules were published for public comment
in the August 1, 1985 Federal Register; a copy is enclosed. The cement period
closed September 30, 1985, and staff is now analyzing and addressing comments
received.
So that you can stay abreast of the change* made in RQIA and of regulations
that may affect laboratories generating small quantities of hazardous waste,
I have added your rune to our mailing list of those interested in RCKA
-------
^authorization and ••til quantity generator issues. You can expect to receive
periodic updates and other information as it be OEMS available.
I hope I-have addressed your queations and the enclosed infomation will
be of assistance. Thank you for your interest in the snail quantity generator
pi.Giji.anu
Sincerely yours,
Deborah Rutherford
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
3441.1985(35)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 85
1. Mining Haste Exclusion Re interpret at ion
Are wastes from secondary slag smelting operations presently excluded from regulation
by §261.4(b)<7), the mining waste exclusion?
EPA has never interpreted the RCRA mining waste exclusion to apply to any
secondary smelting wastes. See the attached June 19, 1984, letter from the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Qnergenry Response to Senator Long.
In fact, the Agency currently lists two wastes from secondary smelting operations
as hazardous wastes. See 40 CFR 261.32, Waste Nos. K069 (emission control
dust/sludge) and K100 (waste leaching solution from acid leaching of anission
control dust/sludge). Significantly, these listings, which were originally
promulgated as part of EPA's May 19, 1980, list of hazardous wastes, were
retained when EPA temporarily deleted other listings in response to the October
21, I960, enactment of the RCRA mining waste exclusion. See the Kay 20, 1981,
Federal Register (46 F* 27473).
The re interpret at ion of the mining waste exclusion which EPA proposed in the
October 2, 1985, Federal Register (50 n* 40292) would not affect the status of
wastes from secondary slag smelting operations. Wastes fron secondary slag
are It ing operations would remain subject to Subtitle C (if hazardous).
Source: Dexter Hinckley (202) 382-3388
-------
UNITED ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTS
9441.1985(38)
NOV 20 1965
Mr. Jeffry Spear
Quality Control
Fountain Powerboats, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 457
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Mr. Speari
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter
to Mr. James Poppiti, dated October 24, 1985, regardina a
exclusion for the waste generated at your facility (listed
as EPA Hazardous Waste Mo. POOS). At the present time an
exemption exists under 5 261.3(a)(2)(iii) of the RCRA hazar-
dous waste regulations that reads:
"a solid waste...is a hazardous waste if...it
is a mixture of a solid waste and a hazardous
waste that is listed in Subpart O soley because
it exhibits one or more of the characteristics
of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C,
unless the resultant mixture no lonqer exhibits
any characteristic of hazardous waste identified
in Subpart C."
Fountain Powerboats must determine whether this exeraotion
would apply to the generated waste (i.e., is it a mixture
of hazardous waste and solid waste?). You supplied data
to demonstrate that your waste does not meet any of the hazar-
dous waste characteristics. Therefore, if this exemption does
apply to your waste/ then the waste is not defined as hazardous,
and an exclusion under SS 260.20 and 260.22 of the regulations
is not necessary.
If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate
to call me, or Mr. Poppiti, at (202)382-4519.
Sincerely,
Ann Burke Sarno
Environmental Protection Specialist
waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
UNITEt, ,ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 9441.1985(39)
NCN 25 1985
Ms. G. Mahoney
Environmental Engineer
bridge-port 6rass Corporation
P.O. Box 51519
Indianapolis, Indiana 46251
Dear Ms.
This letter is in response to your request for an
interpretation of the January 4, 1985 hazardous waste regulations,
concerning the regulatory status of two characteristically
hazardous sludges that are recycled. (The specific examples
you are interested in are described in your letter dated
August 14/ 1985, and in our telephone conversation.) in
your letter, you indicate that both or these materials are
recycled in such a manner that you believe they are not
solid wastes and tnererore not sub3ect to the hazardous waste
reyulations under RCRA. However, based on the January 4
rules, one of the materials—the zinc oxide dust—would be
aetined as a solid waste and would be regulated under the
hazardous -waste regulations. The remainder of the letter
will describe how these materials are covered under these
rules.
First, I would like to apologize to you for my delay in
getting back to you. My schedule has been very busy and hope
my delay has not caused you any problems. With respect to
your specific examples:
° A zinc oxide dust (a characteristic hazardous sludge) is
sold to a facility where it is processed into zinc sultatt-,
the resulting zinc sulcate is then sold to bulk rertiiizer
blenders who use the zinc sulfate as an ingredient in
fertilizers. The fertilizer is then sold to smaller
distributors.
'Under the example, the zinc oxide is processed
to produce zinc sulfate (as tnis is described in
the attachment to your letter). Under the rules,
such activities do not normally constitute solid waste
management. However, when the material (that is, the
zinc oxide dust) is to be .incorporated into a product
that is placed on the land, we would detine the entire
recvclinci activity as "use constituting disposal."
-------
Under the January 4 rules, all sludges that are hazardous
-(whether or not they are listea) are oefined as wastes
if they are placed directly on the land for benefical
use or incorporated into a product that is placed on
the land for benfical use. (See 40 CFR Part 261.2(c)(l)
and Part 266 Subpart C; see also preamble discussion
at 50 PR 627 and 646.) Therefore, the zinc oxide
dust is subject to the hazardous waste regulations
(.Ue^, the generator of the zinc oxiae dust is subject
to the requirements of Part 262, transporters of this
dust are subject to the requirements of Part 263, and
the facility that processes the zinc sulfate would be
subject to the storage requirements of Parts 264 and
265). You should also be aware that if the zinc
sulfate is hazardous (i^e^, exhibits any of the charac-
teristics of hazardous waste), it would also be subject
to the hazardous waste regulations.
4 A characteristic hazardous sludge is generated from an
air pollution control device. This sludge can be reclaimed
to recover its copper content; in addition, any lead
recovered can be produced into a low grade lead solder.
Under this scenairo, the hazardous sludge would npjt
be defined as a waste (and thus not be subject to the
hazardous waste rules) as you have correctly indicated in
your letter. In particular, under the January 4 rules,
sludges that are reclaimed are only defined as solid and
hazardous wastes if they are specifically listed;
since the sludge is not listed (but is hazardous solely
because it exhibits the characteristic of EP toxicity),
the material is not defined as a solid waste. See 40
CFR Part 261.2(c)(3); see also preamble discussion at
50 PR 633. (This material may still be subject to
regulation if it is accumulated speculatively.)
I hope this letter responds to your request. Please
feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or
comments. My telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
-------
9441.1985(41)
December 12, 1985
Daniel R. Cookey
Mobile Tank Care Services
8007 Asabottom Road
Louisville, Kentucky 40213
Dear Mr. Cookey:
This letter responds to your inquiry of November 15, 1985,
regarding the applicability of 40 CFR 261.7 — the exemption of
residues of hazardous waste in empty containers — to "empty"
tank cars that contained commercial chemical products.
As stated in your letter, the definition of "container"
applies to tank cars in which hazardous wastes were stored,
transported, treated, disposed, or otherwise handled. You are
correct in stating that the residue in the tank cars you clean
and the rinse waters are exempt from Federal regulations. The
exemption applies in your case because the amount left in the
tank cars is less than 0.3 percent of the tank volume. Since the
residue is exempt, the rinse waters are like-wise exempt if they
do not exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste (i.e., ignitability, EP Toxicity, reactivity or
corrosivity).
You may, however, still be regulated under state hazardous
waste regulations. Since state regulations must be at least as
protective of human health and the environment as the Federal
regulations, in many cases these rules are more stringent. As
stated in your letter, Ohio maintains a stricter interpretation
of the rule. In such cases, the State rules pre-empt the Federal
rules.
I trust that this letter adequately responds to your
inquiry.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1985(42)
OEC1 3
HER OltAJI DIM
SOBJICTi Regulatory Interpretation for Peaticide Applicator
Washing Rinae Water
FROMt PUrcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Wast*
TO: Harry Seraydarian, Director
Toxics and Wasta Management Division
EPA Region IX
This is in rasponsa to your memorandum dated Septemctr 16,
19*5, regarding the regulatory status of vashvatars that ara
generated by washing tha exterior of a pemtieide aerial
applicator's airplana. You aipra«s«d aoaeera that tme
intarpratation sat forts is ear July 22 sMsorsaAsB ernes set
consider tha ultimate dispssal and tha aasard presented sy
thasa vashvatars and tha anforcaaant proolama that swell an
intarpratation would causa. In particular* in tha study that
was subaittad with your aaato/ tha data appaar to suggast that
thara is a potantial for Migration of pasticida rasiduas raaulting
in contamination of ground watar. Tharafora, you raquaat that
wa ra-visit this issua* In addition, you also raquast that wa
axpadlta tha regulations dasignad to closa tha currant loop-hole
concerning mixtures of spant solvents and other commercial
products.
Although I understand your concerns and generally agree
with you that these rinse waters may present a hasard if they
ara not properly managed, Z must agree with Dr. Skinner in hia
intarpretatioa of ths rulesi any other reading of the rules
would argue that any ememical that is released into the environ-
ment as a rmam.lt of use would be) disposed and regulated under
RCXA. Zn particular, the mixture rule states that if a solid
wasts and a mmasrdous waste sre mixed, the entire mixture is
defined as hazardous. At issue here is whether the pesticide
that adheres to the exterior of the airplane is defined as a
•RGKA hamardous waste." To be defined as a RCRA hasardoua
-------
w ,, the pesticide would have to be an unused discarded
'i.rcial chemical product. See 40 C.F.P.. 5241.33. Sine*
peetieide has been sprayed from the airplane, it technically
been used and, therefore, is not defined as a 261.33 commercial
chemical prsmtoct. (On the other hand, the pesticide residue
that remains) in the spray tanks after th« spraying operation
has not tachnically b««n used and, thus, would t>« defined as
a S261.33 coaoMrcial chemical product.) Any other inter-
pretation would go beyond the intent of RCRA and the implementing
regulations. These pesticide washwaters, therefore, are not
defined aa hasardous because of the mixture rule.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the interpretation
should not be taXen to mean that we have evaluated these wastes
and have determined that they are non-haxardous. As I already
indicated, these washwaters may be hazardous (as evidenced by
the study you attached with your memo) and may present as much
of a hazard as the rinsate from spray tanks (which are currently
subject to regulation). In fact, we have begun a study to
try to define the levels at which these washwaters may present
a hasard if these washwaters are mismanaged (i.e., placed in
unlined surface impoundments). The study is expected to be
completed (at least as a draft) by the end of this year and we
will keep you apprised of the results. Based on the data, as
well as any other information that is collected, we may take
further action to control these washwaters.
with respect to your other request to close the current
loop-hole concerning solvent mixtures and other commercial
products, the solvent mixture rule is expected to be promulgated
in December, while the commercial chemical product mixture
rule is expected to be proposed very shortly.
Please feel free to call Matt Straus if you have any
questions or comment*; his telephone number is (8) 475-8551.
cc: A4WM Division Directors (Regions I-VIII and X)
S. Shatzow
-------
9441.1985(43)
DEC t 7 1985
Mr. Gary b. Bale*
beverage and Diamond, P.C.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Mr. Robin Morse
Baker and Botts
One Shell Plaza
Houston, Texas 77002
Dear Gary and Robint
This letter is in response to your request for a
determination of the regulatory status of the wastewater
treatment system at Dow's Battleground Koed Plant (LaPorte,
Texas) that was described in your letter (dated September 26*
1985) to Messrs. Barry N. Dixon and William Xhea. As you
outline in your letter, this plant uses monochlorooensen*
(MCB) in a number of processes, in none of the uses described
in the letter is MCB used in a chemical reaction, or otherwise
function as a chemical feedstock, reactant, or process intermediate;
rather MCB is used as a solvent as it is defined/interpreted
under the hazardous waste rules. The MCB used in these
processes then undergoes further processing, including the
recovery of MCB in a recovery column.I/ The bottoms from
the MCB recovery column are then sent to an on-site thermal
oxidizer where they are incinerated along with several other
wastes, which are characteristically hasardous. The scrubber
liquor from the incinerator (which contains MCB) is then
sent to the wastewater treatment system. (The wastewater
treatment system consists of several interconnected basins
and tanks.) In addition, as you indicated in your letter, the
concentration of NCB at the headwords of the treatment system,
is variable, but exceed 25 ppm.
I/ I attempted to exclude all confidential information fr<
~" this letter.
-------
Based on this description, the wastewater entering the
wastewater treatment system is not covered under the mixture
rule exemption of $261.3(a)(2)(iv)(B) and thus, the wastewater
treatment system is subject to the hazardous waste rules,
unless specific units are otherwise exempted (i.e. , tanks
that are part of a wastewater treatment system are exempt
from regulation). My basis for this is two-fold:
0 The mixture rule exemption applies to solvents that
are used as part of the manufacturing process that
find their way into the wastewater treatment system
via leaks from pumps, valves, from normal cleaning
operation, etc. It does not include the discharge of
still bottoms into the wastewater treatment system
nor the discharge of spent solvents or still bottoms
that are treated and then discharged into the wastewater
treatment system. The monochlorobenzene still bottoms
at the plant are treated in an on-site thermal oxidizer
before being discharged into the wastewater treatment
system; therefore the scrubber liquor is not covered
under the mixture rule exemption. (This point was
noted by Dow Chemical in their comments to the Agency
when the mixture rule was promulgated interim final
on November 17, 1981, a copy of which is enclosed.)
0 The mixture rule exemption is to be applied at the
headworks of the facilities wastewater treatment or
pre-treatraent system. Since the concentration of MCB
at the headworks of the treatment system is above the
specified level—namely 25 ppm—the mixture rule
exemption does not apply.
Consequently, as we have discussed previously, the impoundments
that are part of the wastewater treatment system at Dow's
battleground Road Plant are currently subject to regulation
under the hazardous waste regulations.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste identification Branch
cc: Barry W. Dixon
William Rhea
-------
UK 'D SI JS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC N*
9441.1985(44)
Mr. Charles A. Licht, p.E.
President
Charles Licht Engineering Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 315
Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461
Dear Charles:
Its nice hearing trom you again. I haven't forgotten about
you and expect to answer all your questions. However, as you
may expect, I have been very busy and have not been able to
anbwer the questions you raise in your letters. In this letter,
I will answer the questions you raise in your November 27, 1985
letter; I will answer the rest of your questions in the near
future. The remainder ot this letter will respond to the four
questions you asks
1. You asked whether the Agency has any plans to expand the
regulations as they apply to spent lead-acid batteries.
At this point in time, there are no plans to amend the
regulations as they apply to spent lead-acid batteries.J/
However, as we discussed in the preamble to the January 4th
rules, the Agency will be investigating intermediate
collection sites to determine whether additional regulation
is necessary to control the storage of spent lead-acid
batteries at these sites. I will keep you informed when •
such a study is begun.
2. You ask whether precious metal containing scrap metal is
exempt from regulations.
Yes. All scrap metal (as it is defined in the regulations)
is exempt from regulation, see 40 CPR 261.6(3)(iv).
I/ Spent lead-acid batteries are defined as hazardous at the
point they are generated. However, generators, transporters.
and persons who store these batteries (but do not reclaim
them) are not subject to the hazardous waste regulations.
-------
3. You ask whether the gold that is recovered trom cyanide
solutions is still considered hazardous? In addition,
you request whether the cyanide solution from which the
gold has been reclaimed (and which the cyanide content
has been so substantially reduced as to fall well below
the criteria for cyanide in a reactivity test) must be
delisted before they are considered non-hazardous.
Gold, silver, or other precious metals that are
reclaimed from a solid/hazardous waste and that are suitable
tor direct use of that only have to be refined to be
useable are products, not wastes. See 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2);
see also 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985. Thus, reclaimed,
metals (as described above) are not subject to the KCRA
Subtitle C regulations. With respect to the remaining
solutions, they must be delisted (it they are listed
wastes) before they can be handled as non-hazardous*
(Ot course, if the cyanide solution is not a listed
waste, but is hazardous because it exhibits a characteristic,
the solution becomes non-hazardous when it no longer
exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics).
4. You further request clarification of the regulatory status
of neutralized acid solutions that are generated in the
processing of reclaiming gold.
As indicated in No. 3, the neutralized acid solutions
would need to be delisted (before it could be considered
non-hazardous) if the acid solutions were listed wastes.
On the other hand, if the acid solutions are character-
istically hazardous/ these wastes become non-hazardous
when they no longer exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics.
Please feel free to give ne a call if I can be of any further
assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Mate identification Branch
-------
U EG ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEl
9441.1986 (01)
JAN 6
Mr. John Robbins
Project Chemist
Kohler Co.
Kohler, Wisconsin 53044
Dear Mr. Koot»ins:
This is in response to your letter dated November 25,
1985, regarding the regulatory status of foundry sands that
are recycled. In particular, you indicate that the molding
and casting sandsl/that are generated from your foundry
casting operations may potentially be recycled by running
them through a foundry sand reclamation process. The reclamation
process removes the deactivated clay binders and concentrates
of metals, and results in a sand that is suitable for reuse
as a foundry sand.
As you may be aware, the Agency promulgated on January
4, 1985, a set of rules which dealt with the question of
which materials being recycled are solid and hazrdous 'wastes .
See 50 FR 614, a copy of which is enclosed. Under those
regulations, foundry sands that are generated from your
casting operation would be defined as a solid and hazardous
waste and thus would be subject to regulatory control under
RCRA.2/ See 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3). Therefore, the generator of
the elands is subject to 40 CPR Part 262 while the transportation
of these materials are subject to 40 CPR Part 263; in addition,
any person that stores these sands prior to reclamation would
be subject to the appropriate storage standards (i .e., owners
or operators of facilities that store these materials would
be regulated under all applicable provision* of Subparts A
through L of Parts 264 and 265 while generators of these
materials would be subject to 40 CFR 262.34 provided these
materials are stored in a tank or container for no longer
than 90 days). The actual reclamation process, however,
I/ These sands (as generated) are hazardous due to the EP
toxictty characteristic of lead.
2/ Foundry sands are defined as a spent material—materials
~~ which have been used and are no longer fit for use without
being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed.
HtS-467-853
-------
is exempt from regulation. Moreover, tne sands thax are
regenerated fron the reclamation process are no longer
considered solid wastes and thus are no longer subject to
regulation, even if the sands are shipped off-site to a
foundry sand coater for coating.
please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
waste Identification Branch
(footnote'2 cont.)
Spent materials that are hazardous (whether listed or exhibiting
one or more of the characteristics) and reclaimed are defined
as a solid and hazardus waste. See Table 1 at 50 PR 619;
see also preamble to regulation at 50 FR 618, 624, 633.
-------
9441 . 1986(02
UNITED STATE' NVIRQNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JAN 7
Mr. John L. Cherill
Corning Manufacturing 6 Engineering
Division
Corninq Glass Works
Corninq, New York 14831
Dear Mr. Cherillt
This letter confirms our discussion and your letter of late
November with regard to Coming's use of a vacuum truck to filter
the dust and the regulatory status of the "empty" truck.
While the RCRA regulations are not specific in this regard,
you are correct in your assessment that the definition of "empty",
as applied to containers in 40 CPR 262.7, is also applicable to
other situations, such as your truck. Generally, we have supplied
the interpretation that the empty container definition may be
applied to tanker vehicles as well as to containers. Thus, if
you have emptied your vacuum truck by means normally used for
such vehicles, the vehicle is considered "empty" if no more than
one inch of material remains, or an equivalent volume (as defined
in 40 CPR 261.1).
You should be aware that RCRA is intended to be implemented
by the States. When a State has been authorized to conduct the
hazardous waste management program in that State, their rules
prevail in lieu of the federal standards. You should check with
the appropriate State office in the jurisdictions of concern
to you for their interpretation of the regulatory status of your
operations. The interpretation given above is only pertinent to
those States where federal regulations prevail.
If you have any further questions or need additional helo in
the RCRA regulations please call our hotline at 800-424-9346. I
can be reached at 202/382-4770.
Sincerely,
Alan S. Corson
t»r*nrh Chiaf
-------
Uh _'D S,«TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC 'N x rtCv 9441.1986(03)
JA!! T I9S;?
Ms. Elizabeth Rose (6H-CE)
EPA Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas. TX 75270
D«»ar Ms. 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 hazardous
waste contained in 40 CFR Part 261 and the delisting criteria
related to leachate levels.
«261.3(a)(2)(iii) the deals with wastes which are included
in Subpart D solely because they meet the characteristics of
hazardous waste described in Subpart C (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity). Thus, a mixture of D002
waste (included solely for corrosivity) and a solid waste would
not be hazardous if the mixture no longer exhibits the characteristic
of corrosivity, nor any other hazardous waste characteristics.
However, waste which are listed in Subpart D because of the presencs
of specific hazardous constituents (e.g., K048, K049, and K051,
all of which are listed for hexavalent chromium and lead) remain
hazardous unless thy are excluded from the list under SS260.20 and
260.22 (i.e., delisted).
The delisting criteria include a sliding regulatory scale
which dictates allowable leachate levels for specific volumes of
wastes. For wastes which are typically disposed of in a landfill,
thin scale is described at SO PR 7882, February 26, 1985 and 50
PR 48886, November 27, 1985* In general, the allowed leachate
levels for landfilled wastes range from 32x the drinking water
standards for small volumes of wastes (< 475 yd3) to approximately
6x the drinking water standards for large volumes of waste
(>^ 5000 yd3)* Also, as required by the Hazardous and solid
Waste Amendments of 1984, the Agency's evaluation of petitioned
wastes is not restricted to the constituents for which the waste
was orginally listed. Rather, the Agency evaluates all factors
(including additional constituents) which could reasonably be
expected to be present and would cause the waste to be hazardous.
It should also be noted that the type of leachate test to be performed
may vary, depending upon the nature of the waste being evaluated.
For example, oily petroleum refinery wastes are typically subjected
to Die EP £u'-- Oilv Haste p-oec.dur.fi.?Athe? than -t**e- otandard -B4»
iieaulia Lc l|tf & L .
-------
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 November 27, 1985 (50 FP 48943). While these models have not
yet been made final, it is expected that the allowed leachate
levels for these disposal scenarios will be store strigent than
those described above for landfilled wastes.
Should you have any further questions concerning the hazardous
waste definitions or the delisting program, please contact roe or
Mr. David Topping of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
9441 . 1986( 04!
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JAN 71986
Dale D. Parker, Ph.D.
Executive Secretary
Utah Solid and Hazardous Wastes
Committee
3180 State Office Building
P.O. Box 45500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0500
Dear Dr. Parker:
This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1985, in
which you inquire as to the regulatory status of hazardous wastes
remaining in "empty* containers. Specifically, you ask whether
burning of the residue in empty drums constitutes Incineration
(treatment) as defined in the RCRA regulations.
The regulations, at 40 CFR 261.7UH1), clearly state that
"(a]ny hazardous waste remaining in «.. an empty container... is
not subject to regulation under ... RCRA." Since the residue is
not regulated, its management does not constitute hazardous waste
management. In your referenced example, the burning of residue
by a drum recycler would not be considered incineration of
hazardous waste and would not require a permit. The management
of the ash and waste from such burning as hazardous is not required
by the federal regulations; the drum recycler is probably taking
this approach as being environmentally preferable.
I believe this confirms the answer given to you by the RCRA
hotline. Of course, State regulations, in authorized States,
would prevail in lieu of federal regulations and may be more
stringent. If you have further questions please let me know.
Sincerely,
cc: Connie S. Nakahara
Alan S. Corson
Branch Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
-------
UN l ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC' x ,ENCY 9441.1986(05
JAM 1 6 B65
Mr. John Slemmer
Environmental Manager
Solid Tek Systems, Inc.
5371 Cook Road
P.O. Hox B88
Morrow, Georgia 30260-OB88
Dear Mr. Slemmer:
This is in response to your letters dated November 27
and December 27, 1985, concerning the identification ot
residues generated from the treatment of hazardous wastes.
In particular, you ask whether the identifiction numbers that
go on the manifest that accompanies the treated waste should
be based on the hazardous waste characteristics of the treated
waste, the composition of the treated waste, or both.
The answer to this question depends both on which wastes
are being treated and the characteristics of the treatment
residue. If the TSD facility is treating only characteristic
hazardous wastes, the identification number that goes on the
manifest for the treatment residue would be that number that
is assigned to the characteristic for which the waste still
exhibits (i.e., if the treated waste exhibits the characteristic
of ignitability, the identification number would be D001).
Of course, if the treatment residue no longer exhibits any
of the characteristics of hazardous waste, the waste would
no longer be hazardous and subject to Subtitle C control.
If, on the other hand, the treatment facility treats both
listed and characteristic hazardous wastes or just listed
hazardous waste, the identification number that goes on the
manifest for the treatment residue would be that of the
untreated listed waste and that number that corresponds to
the characteristic for which the waste exhibits, if any.
Thus, in the example provided in your letter, you are correct
that the identification number for the treated residue is
U012. You are also correct that the TSD becomes a generator
of the treated waste.
t»6i-«67-«J
-------
I hope this adequately responds to your request. If I
can he of any further assistance, please tcel free to give me
a call at (2D2) 415-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH562B)
-------
ri\wic\..iur«Aucr«ui
9441.1986(06)
JAN 2 I 1955
Mr. D. P. Goirlsnith
D. F. Goiosnith Chcr.ical
ar.d Metal Corp.
9nq pitr.er Avenue
Evar.ston, Illinois 6020
Hear Mr. Goldsmith:
This letter is in response to your request of August 2,
1905, concerning the regulatory status of the scrap mercury
that is refined at you facility in Chicago. First, I would
like to apologize for taking so long in responding to your
request; I hope this delay has not caused you any problems.
With regard to your specific request, you indicate that scrap
mercury, in the form of free-flowing mercury, is shipped to
your facility in 76 pound flasks for refining. The scrap
mercury purchased by your facility comes from a variety of
sources, including the following: scrap dealers that accumulate
small quantities of mercury; manufacturers or reclaimers of
instruments and electric switches; private citizens who have
accumulated mercury; and firms who dismantle chlor-alkali
facilities. The mercury, as received, is at least 99 percent
pure mercury; this material is distilled to instrument quality
(over 99.99 percent pure mercury). Based on your reading of
the January 4, 1985 recycle/reuse regulations, the scrap
mercury that is refined at your facilitiy is not a solid
waste and, thus, would not be subject to the RCRA hazardous
waste rules.
In general, I agree with you that the free-flowing mercury
that is received and refined at your facility is not a solid
waste (although I do not necessarily agree with all the
arguments you present in your letter)•!/ In particular, we
have stated (which you note in your letter) that metals that
are suitable for direct use, or that only have to be refined
to he usable are products, not wastes, see 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2);
I/ It should be noted that this regulatory interpretation
~" reflects the federal hazardous waste rules. The State
of Illinois may take a different interpretation.
-------
see also preamble discussion at 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985.
Thus, the scrap niercury—that is the 99 percent free-flowing
mercury—that you receive is not subject to any of the hazardous
waste regulations (i.e^, the material does not have to be
manifested to your facility, you need not comply with the
storage requirements, etc.),2/
Please feel free to give me a call if I can b« of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
waste Identification Branch
2/ It should be noted that if you receive electrical switches
instruments, scrap batteries, or other forms of spent
materials from which you recover/reclaim the mercury and
these spent materials are hazardous (i.e., they exhibit
one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics),
these materials would be solid and hazardous wastes
and would be regulated under 40 CFR 261.6(b) and (c).
-------
9441. 1986 (07
JAN
Requlatorv Interpretation with Pesn*ct to Leaks,
Spills, and Illeoal Discharges of Listed Wastes
to Surface Waters
Harcia E. Williams, Director
office of Solid Waste
TOt navid Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste Branch, 5RS-13
Region V
This is in response to your memoranda, dated August 8
and December 24, 1*85, in which you request clarification of
the mixture rule as it aoplies to leaks, spills, and illegal
discharges of listed wastes to surface waters, resulting in
contamination of the sediment. First, let •«• apologise for
taking so long in gettino back to you* I hone this delay
has not caused you any problems.
In your memoranda, you indicate that the Corps of
Engineers in carrvino out their resoonsibilies to maintain
the navigability of Astabula Harbor found that the bottom
sediments of the harbor were severlv contaminatedt subsequent
investigation suggested that the source of the contaminants
is primarily from Fields *rook, a tributary to the harbor.
Unnn further investigation, it appears that some of the
contamination may have occured as a result of soills or
leaks from treatment, storage, and disnosal units. Therefore,
you surmise by aoplication of the mixture rule, that the
contaminated ••diments would be hazardous under PCPA and
subject to the appropriate manaoement standards* You believe
such a reading of the* rules was never intended, but rather
the contaminated sediments should only be considered hazardous
if they exhibit one or more the characteristics of hazardous
waste. Unless such an interpretation is taken, you believe
that all sediments contained in the industrialized harbors
on the Great Lakes (a total of 109) should he manaaed as
listed wastes.
-------
The regulation of contaminated materials depends in laroe
oart upon the regulations being applied and upon the source
of the contamination. As written, the mixture rule would
not cause the sediments in the harbors on the Great Lakes
(nor in any other harbors or rivers) to be considered hazardous,
More specifically/ the mixture rule states that any mixture
of a hazardous waste with a solid waste causes the entire
mixture to be hazardous. Therefore, Tn" order for the mixture
rule to be triggered, wastes must be mixed or somehow combined
together. In the example cited in your letter, however,
wastes are not being mixed (i.e., we would not normally
consider sediments in rivers as wastes). Rather, a waste is
being disposed of with a non-waste material. Therefore, the
mixture rule is not causina these sediments to be hazardous.
However, application of the mixture rule is not dispositive
of the issue of whether the mixture of a hazardous waste and
another substance is regulated. A part fro* the mixture
rule, the nixture of a hazardous waste and a non-waste material
is still subject to Subtitle C control. For example, ground
water contaminated with a hazardous waste Is currently subject
to the appropriate reouirements in 40 CPU Parts 2(4 and 265.
In addition, if listed hazardous wastes are being discharged
into surface waters, this could constitute disposal requiring
regulatory control under Subtitle C of *CRA. The major
Question to answer is whether the discharge resulted from
illegal discharges or from point source discharges subject
to regulation under the Clean Water Act.
As you are aware, 40 CPR 261.4(aH2) specifically exemnts
industrial wastewater discharoes that are point source
discharges subject to reoulation under Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended. (This authority covers
the addition of any pollutant to water of the United States
from any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance,
exceot discharoes of dredged and fill material reiulatert
under Section 404.) The) point of the wastewat«r exclusion is
to avoid potentially duolicative regulation of point source
discharges under PCRA and CWA. Thus, once wastewater flows
from an NPDES discharge point into waters of the United
States, that wastewater is exemot frot FTP.A regulation.I/
I/ This is true even if the discharge could be regulated
~* under $402, but is not.. A ooint source discharge
without an NPDKS permit would be a violation of the CWA,
and should be subject to an enforcement action under
the Act.
-------
Therefor*, it is imoortant to know the source of the
contamination. If, for example, there 1» evidence to
demonstrate that hazardous wastes have been dumn«d into the
surface water in a manner that does not triqqer Section 402
of the CWA, thla conatitutaa diapoaal und«r RCRA and would
be sublet to the appropriate regulatory control*. (If these
hazardous wastes were illegally disposed of, enforcement action
should also be undertaken.) If this occurs, that sediment
which is contaminated by these discharges would be subject to
regulation. On the other hand, if the source of the oollutants
is from a ooint source discharge, then you should assume
that hazardous wastes have not been discharged into surface
waters. Under this situation, these sediments would be
reoulated under Subtitle C of PCBA only when they are dredoed
from the surface waters and only if they exhibit one or more
of the hazardous waste characteristics. Thus, I cannot
agree with your suggestion that contaminated sediment should
not be categorized as listed wastes, no matter the source of
contamination. Such an interpretation could invite abuse by
persons who illegally dispose of hazardous wastes.
Please feel free to contact Matthew A. Straus at
8-475-8551 if you have any questions.
-------
UNI rtiO if A r£-3 EN
w A s 1 1 1 n . • o ft
JAN 24I996
Mr. Earle F. Young, Jr.
Vice President
Energy and Environment
American Iron and Steel Institute
1000 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Young:
This is a follow up to our December 13, 1985 meeting when
we discussed the information EPA would need in order to consider
classifying the waste-derived fuels produced at iron and steel
mills as products rather than exempt hazardous waste fuels.
Our decision as to whether coke or coal tar produced from
the recycling of a listed hazardous waste, coal tar decanter
sludge, should be classified as a product rather than a waste-
derived fuel turns on whether the recycling significantly
affects the composition and, thus, the risk that coke or coal
tar may pose during transportation, storage, or use as a fuel.
Specifically, we must determine whether hazardous constituents
in the recycled decanter sludge significantly increase levels
of those constituents in the coke or coal tar.
To determine whether levels of toxic organics or toxic
metals in the coke and coal tar are significantly increased by
recycling the sludge, we need triplicate analyses of the levels
of particular metals and organics (see the enclosed table) in the
coke and coal tar materials produced with and without sludge
recycling.
The metals listed in the enclosed table were selected for
evaluation because they are present in coal, and either cause
carcinogenic or other nonthreshold health effects, or are fairly
volatile, or both.
The detection limits suggested are about an order of magnitude
lower than the average levels of these metals in coals. Our
concern with metals levels in the coke is that some of the more
volatile metals may become concentrated in the sludge and could
conceivably be reintroduced into the coker in a less volatile
form, thus increasing levels in the coke product. Similarily,
if volatile metals are concentrated in the sludge, mixing the
sludge with the coal tar could increase metals levels.
-------
The organics were selected for evaluation because they are
typically produced from thermal treatment of coal/ they are less
volatile than phenol and napthalene already shown not to be
carried over into the coke at significant levels, and they are
representative of polyaromatic molecules (POMs), many of which
are considered to be carcinogens. Our concern with organics in
the coke is that some of the less volatile, difficult to crack
POMs that are likely to be found in the sludge could conceivable
be carried over into the coke product. Similarily, if POMs con-
centrate in the sludge, mixing the sludge with the coal tar could
increase POM levels.
If you have questions, please contact Matt Straus or Bob
Holloway.
Sincerely,
Stev&n Silverman
Attorney
Office of General Counsel
Enclosure
-------
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
(See SW-846 for description of methods.)
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Method1
6010, 7060,7061
6010, 7130, 7131
6010, 7190, 7191
6010, 7420, 7421
6010, 7471
Detection Limit
1 ppm
0.1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
0.1 ppm
* Use acid degestion method 3050 for preparation of coal tar
samples.
Organics
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Benzo(a)anthracene/
chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Napthalene+
Phenol+
Method
8100
8100
8100
8100
8100
8100
8040
Detection Limit
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
+ Napthalene and phenol levels in the coke as well as the coal
tar should be determined for comparison with previous data.
-------
B • £ ffl|
*" "^ 9441.1986(09)
CERCIA And RCJLA Liability of Municipal Sponsors of Household
Hazardous' Waste Collection Program*
P. T.sfSiin, Director
Waste Management and Economics Division (WH-565)
Basil G. Constantelos, Director
Waste Management Division
Region V
I am responding to your October 29, 1985, memorandum
requesting an Agency policy statement concerning the liability
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of municipal sponsors of household
hazardous waste collection programs. In addition, this
memorandum clarifies the issue of potential liability under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
following interpretations are based on discussions of these
Issues with the Office of General Counsel (OOC) and the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OBCM).
In a June 7, 1984, memorandum to the Deputy Administrator,
Lee Thomas (then Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response) clarified the issue of
RCRA liability. This memorandum, which is attached, stated
that household hazardous wastes are by definition exempt from
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. Section 261.4(b)(l)
unconditionally exempts household wastes from being designated
as hazardous even when accumulated in quantities that would
otherwise be regulated or when transported, stored, treated,
disposed, recovered, or reused. However, when household
wastes are mixed with hazardous wastes from small quantity
generators, this resulting mixture is subject to the small
quantity generator rules (Section 261.5(h)). In addition,
when household waste is mixed with other regulated hazardous
wastes, the entire mixture becomes subject to full hazardous
waste regulation (Section 261.3(a)(2)). Por this reason,
sponsors of household hazardous waste collection programs
should be careful to limit the participation in their programs
to households to avoid the possibility of receiving regulated
hazardous wastes from commercial or industrial sources.
With regard to CERCLA, we cannot offer relief from long-
ten liability. CERCLA does not contain any type of exclusion
for household waste or any type of exclusion based on the
amount of waste generated. As a general matter, any waste that
qualifies as a hazardous substance under CERCLA is subject to
the liability provisions of Section 107. Hazardous substances
are both defined under Section 101(14) and designated under
Section 102(a). Therefore, if a household waste contains a
subetance that is covered under either section (whether or not
-------
it is a RCRA hazardous waste), potential CERCLA liability
would apply regardless of whether the material was picked up
as part off a cosssnnity's routine trash collection service or
was gathered as part of a special collection day program.
With respeet to household hazardous waste, such waste would
clearly qualify as a "hazardous substance" if they contain
any substance listed in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302. See
50 Federal Register 13474 (April 4, 1985).
With regard to enforcement under CERCLA, you noted that
John Skinner, former Director of this office, recently cited
a policy statement in a May 4, 1984, letter (attached) from
Region I Administrator, Michael DeLand, to Dana Duxbury of the
Massachusetts League of Women Voters. This policy statement
relied on enforcement discretion in indicating that EPA had no
intention of taking enforcement action against a Massachusetts
town that sponsored a contracted collection day, if problems
arose in the transportation or disposal of the household
hazardous waste collected during the collection program.
Further clarification was offered by Courtney Price (OECM)
in a memorandum dated May 11, 1984 (attached), to Alvin Aim,
former Deputy Administrator. For the specific ease of that
Masssachusetts town, the company collecting and transporting
the wastes and the disposal facility owner or operator would
be considered the responsible parties.
While you are correct in stating that the Agency's general
policy is to not give "no action" assurances in enforcement
matters (see attached Courtney Price memorandum of November 16,
1984), Ms. Price addressed a specific household hazardous
waste collection program in the May 11, 1084, memorandum and
explained their position in the Region I case in Massachusetts.
The decision of "no action" in the Massachusetts case was
based on the facts about that specific program. An important
feature was limiting collections to household hazardous wastes.
No wastes from small commercial businesses were accepted.
Courtney Price indicated that OECM would have to look at the
specific facts of any situation involving wastes from small
businesses to determine whether an exercise of enforcement
discretion would be appropriate.
Zn our recent discussions with OECM, we have considered
the coaoept of "no action" as a possible general policy for
sponsors of household hazardous waste collection programs.
OECM has not yet completed their analysis of this issue. They
expect to complete their analysis in the next several weeks
and will supply their policy statement in a separate memorandum.
If you have any questions regarding the issues addressed
in this memorandum, pleas* contact Michael Flynn of my staff
at 382-4489.
-------
>«
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
5441.1986(10)
/ /
/ ' OP^ICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMf BCENC" RESPONSE
Honorable Stewart B. McKLnney
Member, United States
House of Representatives
Federal Building
915 Lafayette Boulevard
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Dear Mr. McKinney:
This is written in response to your letter of January 21,
1986, requesting a reply to an inquiry from Mr. Vern Sielert.
Mr. Sielert wishes to know whether there are federal regulations
classifying wood treated with creosote as a hazardous waste.
Creosote treated wood is not likely to be defined as
hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA and, thus, not subject to
the hazardous waste regulations. Under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), wastes are
defined as hazardous if they are listed or exhibit any of
the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity).
EPA has issued regulations listing only the commercial product
creosote, when discarded, and two manufacturing process
wastes (i.e., bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol (K001) and wastewater treatment
sludges generated in the production of creosote (K035)) as
hazardous under RCRA. Creosote treated wood is not covered
by any of these listings. In addition, it is unlikely that
creosote treated wood would exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics. It should be noted that wastes not
defined as hazardous under EPA's regulations may still be
hazardous under an authorized State program.
The disposal of creosote treated wood, however, is
subject to regulation under rules developed under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In
particular, on July 13, 1984, EPA issued its Rebuttable
Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) for the three major
wood preservatives—namely, creosote, pentachlorophenol, and
inorganic arsenicals. Among other things, these rules require
-------
that wood which has been treated with creosote should not be
burned in an outdoor fire or in stoves or fireplaces; rather,
this wood should be buried in a non-hazardous waste landfill
unless otherwise required by the State. This requirement
was included to ensure that no toxic contaminants would be
released as a result of the burning process.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9441.1986(11)
Mr. William F. O'Keefe
Vice President
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. O'Keefet
This is in response to your January 24, 1986, letter regarding
applicability of our November 29, 1985, "burning and blending"
regulations to petroleum refinery fuel products derived from
recycled used oil.
As Bob Holloway explained to you on January 28, the exemption
we provided for hazardous waste-derived refinery fuel products —
based on data you provided us -- also exempts refinery products
when both hazardous waste and used oil are introduced into the
process. Had we been aware that crude oil petroleum refineries
typically recycle used oil as well as their hazardous wastes, we
would have explicitly addressed the issue in the preamble.
When both oil-bearing hazardous wastes and used oil are
introduced into the crude oil refining process, the fuel products
are exempt from the November 29 rule* This is because mixtures
of used oil and hazardous waste are subject to regulation as
hazardous waste, and hazardous waste-derived refinery fuel pro-
ducts are exempt from the rule.
Although we understand that virtually all refineries reint.ro-
duce their process-generated, oil-bearing hazardous waste into
the refining process, if a refinery were to recycle used oil but-.
not its hazardous waste,, the November 29 rule would not explicitly
exempt the refinery fuel products from regulation as used oil
fuel. As you note, however, EPA did not intend for used oil-
derived refinery products to be subject to regulation as used oil
fuel. If in fact there are refineries that recycle used oil but
not hazardous waste, please let me know so that we can take
-------
whatever actic . is necessary to ensure that their products are
not subject t regulation.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: Lehman
Del linger
Holloway
Walker
Silverman
-------
t.* »-i>'irvvr»mtniAL. r KU •
9441.1986 (14)
FEB 2SB86
Mr. Christian Vo!z tsq.
HcKenna. Connor, and Cunco
1575 Eye Streot
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Volz
This in response to your letter dated January 9, 19&6, in
which you request an interpretation of the hazardous waste rules
regarding the regulatory status of the Torpedo Propulsion Units
that are shipped tor recycling to the San Tan facility ot the
Garrott Pneumatic Syst«ns Division (GPi>D). As we understand
the process, GPSD designs, manufactures. and supplies to the
Honoywell Unaerseas Division the afterbody of the MR 50 Torpedo.
Contained in the afterbody of the torpedo is a chemical energy
Propulsion system (referred to as the "boiler") that generates
the thermal energy used to propel the torpedo. (Keat tor the
process is caused by a chemical reaction between two reactive
compounds — lithium and sulphur hexafluoride.)
After a torpedo has been run and tested, it is disassembled
and the boiler (as well as other componcts) is shipped back
to GPSD's San Tan facility for reuse. Before the boiler can be
reused, however, it must be cleaned to renove any unreacted
chemicals and the residues lett by those chemicals that did
react. This cleaning operation appears to be carried out in
two steps:
* the boiler is first flushed with a mixture of water and
ethylene glycol this mixture reacts with any unreacted
lithium r.etal to torm lithium hydroxide in an aqueous
solution. These rinsewaters may be corrosive when it
leaves the boiler. The rinsewater is collected in a
sump, from, which it is then pumped into a 10,000 gallon
holding tank. As the rinsewater is punped out of the
sump, sulfuric acid is added in line through an educator
and mixed to neutralize the excess alkalinity in the
rinsewater as well as convert the lithium hydroxide in
the rinsewater to lithium sulfide; at thic point, the
rinsewater no longer is corrosive nor does it exhibit
any other hazardous waste characteristics. The lithiun
sulfide settles.out in the holding tank. After a sutficivnt
amount has settled out, the material will be filtered and
-------
5?;nt to a rofinery of lithiun ore tor use in its orocess.
You indicate that the lithiun sulfido does not exhibit
any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
* any rcnaininc lithiun salts (i .o., products or the reaction
when the torpedo is run) are then removed with a high-velocity
water jet. The lithiun salts are collected and placed
in druns for eventual return to a refiner of lithiun ore.
You also indicate that the lithiun salts also do not
exhibit any or the hazardous waste characteristics.
Based on this recycling process, you believe that the used boilers
(and the used torpedoes and afterbodies ot which the boilers are
apart) are not subject to the hazardous waste regulations, cither
at the Federal or State level.
As you arc aware, on January 4, 1985, EPA promulgated its
final rules dealing with the question of which materials art
solid and hazardous wastes when they arc recycled. Among other
things, these rules state that materials that are directly used/
reused are not solid wastes. See 40 CFR 261.2(e). Although
the boilers aro shipped to the San Ian facility to be reused/
the boilers must be regenerated before they can be reused
(i.e., they nust be decontaminated before being reused). Since
thfcc boilers would be defined as scrap metal, these boilers
would be defined as solid and hazardous wastes when reel a in-sea. I/
See 40 CFR 2C1.2 (c)(3). ilowevcr, hazardous scrap nc-tal
that is recycled is currently exempt from regulation. See 40
CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iv). Therefore, the transportation and storago
of the boilers prior to processing is exempt from the hazardous
waste regulations.I/
With regard to the cleaning operation, these activities
generate materials that also need to bo evaluated with ruaard to
their regulatory status. The lithiun salts that are removed
fron the boiler with the high-velocity water .lot would not be
subioct to Subtitle C control since these salts are not hazardous.
The other rinsate (i.e., ethylone glycol/water mixture)/ howc-vet/
is hazardous (or may be hazardous) when first generated and nay
be subject to the hazardous waste rules.
In particular, this rinsing solution is placed in a sunp
prior to neutralization. While we agree with you that the
neutralization of this rinsewater is exempt fron regulation and
l_/ This assumes, of course, that the boilers exhibit one or rorc-
of the hazardous waste characteristics.
2/ This interpretation represents tho regulatory status of these
boilers under the federal r&nulations ano not necessarily
up.dvr St?te lav/. .Mou&vor, since the 5;an Tan iacility is on
Incian lands, the federal regulations would apply in this c£.c;
-------
tht hancllinq of this naterial after neutralization is also exempt
f-rom regulation (since tne rinsewater is no longer hazardous),
the regulatory status or the rinsewater in the sump is still
at issue. Here specifically; in November, 1980, EPA exempted
trora regulation those wastewaters that are stored/treated in
tanks; however, this exemption only applies if the tanks are
part of a wastewater treatment system that are subject to
regulation under either Section 402 or Section 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act (CV.'A). Therefore, it the sump (which I assune
would be defined as a tank) is part of a wastewater treatment
systen that is subject to regulation under the CWA, the storage
ot the hazardous rinsewater would be exenpt from regulation.
If, however, the sur.p is not part of a wastewater treatment
system that is subject to regulation under the CWA, the sunp
holding the hazardous rinsewater would be subject to the appropriate
standards (i_._e_. , the sunp would be subject to 40 CFR 262.34 or
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265). It should be noted that if the sunp
is not a tank, but rather a surface impoundment, the sump would
b«» subject to regulation no matter whether this unit is part ot
a wastewater treatment facility that is subject to regulation
under the CWA. Sec 40 CFR Parts 260.10 (definition of wastewater
treatment unit and tank) and 264.1(g)(6) for specific regulatory
language.
I hope this letter adequately remponds to your request.
Please teel free to contact Mr. Matthew A. Straus, of my stari*
if you have any other questions; Mr. Straus can be reached at
(202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1986(16)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 86
4. Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Exclusion
A coal combustion process produces a mixture of fly ash and bottom ash, a
waste that is deemed non-hazardous in 40 CFR 5261.4(b)(4). Vften quench
water cones in contact with the ash to cool it, the water some tunes becones
alkaline to the point of corrosivity. A pipeline transfers this mixture to
a dewatering facility, and the dewatered ash is placed on a true*. Is this
corrosive quench water a hazardous waste, even though it is fron an excluded
ash?
Fly ash, bottom ash, slag and flue gas emission control wastes generated
primarily iron the burning of fossil fuels are exanpt from hazardous
wast* regulation under RCRA according to 40 CTR $261.4(b)(4) and Section
3001(b)(3) (A)(i) of RCRA. The quench water becomes corrosive solely as
a result of contact with the ash. Because the hazardous waste charac-
teristic of the quench water is derived from an exempt waste, the resul-
ting corrosive quench water retains the exempt status of that waste. In
other words, whatever makes the water corrosive is already exempt, so the
water is also exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste.
Source: Ephraira King (202) 382-7709
-------
9441.1986(17)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 86
5. Definition of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Section 261.2(e)(1)(i) was promulgated on January 4, 1985, (50 FR 664) as
part of the new definition of solid waste. It states t.-.au materials are net
solid wastes when they can be shown to DC recycled Dy being used or reused
as ingredients in an industrial process to maXe a product, provided the
materials are not being reclaimed. This is significant because materials
that are not solid wastes per $261.2(e)(1)(i) are not hazardous wastes, and
therefore, are not subject to RCRA regulations.
A chwucal manufacturing plant generates spent sulfuric acid. The spent acid
is reintroduced into the production process, where it is deconposed into its
constituents (e.g., 502). These constituents can then be used to produce
more sulfuric acid. Vould the process of re introduction and decomposition
constitute reclamation, thus precluding the plant from the exemption?
Spent sulfuric acid is frequently used as a feedstock in the production
of virgin sulfuric acid. Accordingly, EPA has promulgated a specific
exclusion stating that spent sulfuric acid recycled in this way is not
a solid waste (S261.4(a) (7)). The recycling process more closely resembles
a manufacturing operation tnan a reclamation process, tote that: ll)
spent sulfuric acid is subject to the speculative accumulation provisions,
as defined in $261.1 (c); and (2) the spent acid would be a hazardous
waste if disposed (assuming it is corrosive or exhibits another hazardous
waste characteristic) and could be a hazardous waste if recycled in
sane other manner (see the January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 642)).
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-855!
-------
UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTK U
9441.1986(19)
.1r. .'•ic.Marvl
Aero Snort, Inc.
St. Aurjustin» Airport
P.O. Drawer 1980
St. Augustine, Florida 32085
Dear Mr. '.*eavert
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1996, concerninq
the regulatory classification of off-specification jet fuel when
it is burned as kerosene. Under the Environ/Dental Protection
Agency's (£PA) rules (40 CPR $261.2(c)(2)(1i)), an off-specifica-
tion commercial cheiuical product is not a solid waste as long as
it ia used for its original purpose. In this case the product,
jet fuel, although not used to propel jets, is still being used
as a fuel and, therefore, is neither a solid waste nor a hazardous
was te.
Sincerely,
Marcia B. Williams
Director
Office of Solid N'aste (WH-562)
-------
9441.1986(21)
March 13, 1986
Mr. George D. Culotta
Vice President-Sales
Progressive Recovery, Inc.
1020 North Main Street
Columbia, Illinois 62236
Dear Mr. Culotta:
This is in response to your letter of February 21, 1986, in
which you requested that we review your interpretation of the
applicable regulations for in-house liquid solvent recovery
units. In addition, you asked for the Environmental Protection
Agency's position regarding recycling of spent solvents by
generators.
The spent solvents that you described in your example are
RCRA hazardous wastes. F001 through F005 are listed hazardous
wastes (40 CFR 261.3) and D001 exhibits a hazardous
characteristic (40 CFR 261.21). As a result, the storage,
treatment, and disposal of these and other hazardous wastes are
regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. However, exemptions from
general permitting regulations are provided for certain types of
tanks, small quantity generators and operational units reclaiming
or recycling hazardous wastes. In your example, no Subtitle C
treatment permit is required under Federal regulations for in-
house solvent recovery equipment as long as the wastes meet the
definition of a recyclable material, and owners or operators of
treatment facilities are in compliance with 40 CFR 261.6
requirements.
As part of 40 CFR 261.6 regulation, operational units are
exempted from permitting regulations when those operations
involve recycling of hazardous wastes. However, there is no
exemption for certain recycling practices constituting disposal.
Additionally, the storage, transport and generation that precedes
this activity are regulated without any special considerations
for recycling activities. In your spent solvents example the
wastes meet the definition of a recyclable material. If the in-
house solvent recovery equipment are in compliance with 40 CFR
261.6 requirements, no RCRA Subtitle C treatment permit is
required for the activities of recycling these particular
hazardous wastes.
Although storage is subject to regulation as described in
the previous paragraph some general exemptions from the storage
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
regulations exist. These exemptions apply when the wastes are
either accumulated on-site less than 90 days as stated in the 40
CFR 262.34 requirements, or are accumulated on-site up to 180
days by small quantity hazardous waste generators (less than
1,000 kg per month) as stated in the 40 CFR 261.5 requirements.
I also would like to emphasize that the proposed rule for
small quantity hazardous waste generators is scheduled to be
promulgated later this month. Although changes might occur in
the final rule, the proposed rule for small quantity hazardous
waste generators would exempt generators that store wastes for
180 days if they do not accumulate more than 6,000 kg of
hazardous wastes during that period. In addition, the August 1,
1985, proposal (50 FR 31304 and 31305) would allow accumulation
for 270 days if the waste is being shipped 200 miles or more for
off-site treatment, storage, and disposal. I would suggest that
you also contact the State authorities of your clients because
States may regulate recyclable materials in a different manner.
I also am enclosing the January 4, 1985, final rule defining
a solid waste (40 FR 14 through 668), as well as the August 20,
1985, technical corrections to this rule (50 FR 33541 through
33544). These notices provide detailed information on our
rationale in defining a solid waste. If you have additional
questions, please contact Matt Straus, Chief, Waste
Identification Branch, at (202)475-8551.
Finally, I would like to point out that the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 establish as national policy the
minimization of hazardous wastes. It is EPA's policy to
encourage environmentally sound techniques that reduce the volume
or quantity and toxicity of hazardous wastes generated. The
recycling of spent solvents is one of the most frequently used
practices for volume reduction. We believe that properly
designed and operated solvent recovery can provide effective
reduction in the volumes of solvents requiring disposal as
hazardous wastes.
Sincerely,
Marcia B. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1986(22)
MAR I 9 !92r
Ms. Joan Keenan
91 Harvard Avenue
Rockville, N.Y. 11570
Dear Ms. Keenan:
This is in response to your letter dated February 21, 1986.
In your letter, you requested a declaratory ruling and advisory
opinion on a number of questions concerning the regulatory status
of a qasoline/water mixture and a fuel oil/water mixture that
is recycled. Our response to these questions are as follows:
First State of Facts
1. Where the separated gasoline is being legitimately recycled
for use as a fuel, does EPA consider the gasoline and water
mixture a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its attendant regulations?
No. The gasoline/water mixture is considered a
mixture which contains a commercial chenical product
(CCP). CCPs that are reclaimed are not considered
"solid wastes" (i.e., it's not "discarded" because
it's normally a fuel and not being abandoned). Since
hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste, this mixture
is not defined as a hazardous waste (i.e., it must be
a solid waste before it can be a hazardous waste).
2. Does the Agency consider the unused (virgin) gasoline a
solid waste under RCRA and its attendant regulations?
No. See explanation to previous question.
3. Does the Agency consider the unused gasoline an industrial
commercial waste under RCRA and its attandant regulations?
No. Since gasoline is typically burned as a fuel,
we would not consider it a waste when recycled in the
manner described in your letter.
4. Has the gasoline 'resulted from" an industrial or commercial
process to justify a determination of the virgin product
as a waste?
-------
Additional information is needed betore we can respond
to this question. Please contact Matthew A. Straus at
(202) 475-8551.
5. Does the Agency require that ABC Company obtain any permits
or other letters of authorization of any kind from the
Agency?
No. Since the qasoline/water mixture is not a solid
and hazardous waste, this mixture is not subject to the
Federal regulations under RCRA. This mixture may still
be subject to State law and to the transportation rules
promulgated by the Department of Transportation.
6. If the virgin qasoline is incinerated to recovery energy,
does the Agency consider it to be a waste?
No. Since gasoline is typically burned as a fuel,
it is not considered a waste when burned to recover
energy under Federal regulation (see 40 CFR 261.33).
Second State of Facts
1. Where the separated oil is being legitimately recycled for
use as a fuel, docs the Agency consider the oil and water
mixture a hazardous waste under RCRA?
No. The fuel oil/water mixture is considered
a mixture which contains a CCP. CCPs that are reclaimed
are not considered "solid wastes" (i.e., it's not "discarded1
because it's normally a fuel and not being abandoned).
Since hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste, the
mixture is not defined as a hazardous waste.
2. Does the Aqency consider the unused (virgin) oil a solid
waste under RCRA?
No. See explanation to previous question.
3. Does the Agency consider the unused oil an industrial-
commercial waste under RCRA?
No* Since fuel oil is typically burned as a fuel,
we would not consider it a waste when recycled in the
manner described in your letter.
4. Has the oil "resulted from" an industrial or commercial
process as that term -is used in 527-0303 of the New York
Environmental Conservation Law?
-------
Since you are requesting for an interpretation of State
law, you should contact thr N*W York D^partrncnt ot Environ*
mental Conservation for an answer to this question.
5. Docs the Aoency require* that ABC Company obtain any permits
or other letters of authorization of any kind from the
Department?
No. Since the fuel oil/water mixture is not a solid
and hazardous waste* this mixture is not subject to federal
regulation under RCRA. This mixture nay still be subject
to State law and to the transportation rules promulgated
by the Department of Transportation.
6. If the virgin oil is incinerated to energy recovery* does
the Department consider it to be a waste?
No. Since virgin fuel oil is typically burned as a
fuel, it is not considered a waste when burned to recover
enercy under Federal regulation (see 40 CFR 261.33).
Please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew A. Straus if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
farina! signed by.
Marcia E. WilKam*
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNT ESTATE /WIRONMENTAL PROTECT
9441.1986(23)
"3 2 Itee
Mr. Thomas J. Jackson
Thorp, Heed, and Armstrong
One Riverfront Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Dear Mr. Jackson:
This is in response to your letter dated, February 28,
1986. In your letter, you requested an interpretation of the
Federal hazardous waste rules concerning a mixture of methanol
and a non-hazardous waste which does not exhibit the ignitability
characteristic. Under the Federal hazardous waste rules,
this mixture would not be defined as a hazardous waste,
provided the waste does not exhibit any of the other hazardous
waste characteristics (i.e., corrosivity, reactivity, and
extraction procedure (Et) toxicity). In particular, a mixture
of a characteristic hazardous waste, including wastes that
are listed solely because they exhibit one or more of the
hazardous waste characteristics and a solid waste is not
hazardous if the mixture does not exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics. In the example described in your I/
letter, methanol (a hazardous waste due to its ignitability)^
is mixed with a non-hazardous vastestream; the resulting
mixture is no longer ignitable. Therefore, this mixture
would not be considered hazardous (as long as the wasto does
not exhibit any ot the other hazardous waste characteristics)
under the Federal hazardous waste rules (i.q_., a delisting
petition is not necessary). States, however* nay have rules
that are more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal
rules. Therefore, this waste remains hazardous under
Pennsylvania lav, unless it is exempted in accordance with
State law.
I/ If the methanol is being used as a solvent, the spent methanol
would be defined as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F003.
-------
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
cc: Bob Allen, EPA Region III
David Friedman, Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC 9441.1986(24)
MAR 2 I 1985
Robert Winlow, director
Pyrnont
110 Serpentine Road
Albany
Western Australia 6330
AUSTRALIA
Dear Mr. winlowt
In response to your inquiry of March A, 1986r the Environmental
Protection Aqency regulates wastes containing chromium, in part,
by use of the Extraction Procedure Toxicitv Characteristic which
does not differentiate between the tri- and hexavalent oxidation
states, but rather requlates on the basis of total chromium.
As you are aware, EPA had prooosed to chanqe the renulation
to classify only hexavalent chromium wastes as hazardous. However,
preliminary studies by Or. Clifford, of the University of Houston,
indicated that, under conditions prevalent durino drinking water
disinfection usinq chlorine, oxidation of the trivalent chromium
miqht occur. Since chlorine disinfection is a popular method of
qround water treatment in the United States, EPA decided not to
finalize the chanqe pending further study.
Our research laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, has the responsi-
bility for determining the conditions under which trivalent chromium
will undergo conversion to the hexavalent form; Mr. Thomas Sorn
leads thin activity. I have sent him a copy of your letter an<«.
requested he contact you directly once he has completed his
studies.
However, with respect to regulation of tannery wastes, EPA
continues to exempt from regulation as hazardous waste those
tannery wastes which are hazardous solely by reason of trivalent
chromium. EPA expects to continue this exemption until the
chromium toxicity and environmental behavior questions have been
resolved.
-------
One final point relative to the paranranh on narje 72031
in the October 30, 1980 Federal Heaister, the Extraction Procedure
Toxicity Characteristic requlatory thresholds are 100 times the
corresDondino drinkinq water standard. Thus, since the drinkinrj
water standard for chromium is 0.05 mo/1, the EP level is set at
5.0 mq/1.
Sincerely,
cc: Marcia Williams
Alan Corson
Kenneth Shuster
Eileen 8. Claussen
Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
Thonas Sorg
Environmental Research Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
9441.1986(25)
March 26, 1986
Kevin Bromberg
Small Business Administration
Office of Advocacy
1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20416
Dear Kevin:
Enclosed for your information is a table (see Enclosure 1)
that summarizes the dominant risk constituents associated with
small quantity generator (SQG) waste streams in the hazardous
waste tank risk analysis. This table, title Dominant Risk
Constituents for SQG Waste Streams, presents the constituent that
dominates the risk for each SQG waste stream that is listed in
Exhibit 4-14 (see Enclosure 2).
For comparative purposes, this table presents a relative
ranking of the magnitude of risk each constituent poses in
relation to the other constituents. This summary table presents
the information necessary to evaluate Exhibit 5-27 (see Enclosure
3) / by providing the relative levels of risk associated with the
SQG waste stream constituents.
As explained in the risk analysis report, we summarize the
risk associated with each waste stream by using the dominant risk
constituent as the measure of relative risk. The computer
printout that you specifically requested examining includes all
the risk estimates for each of the constituents associated with
all of the SQG waste streams. Because it is difficult to
interpret these printouts straightforwardly, we have provided you
with the enclosed summary table. However, if you would still
prefer to examine the computer printout I will send you a copy
immediately.
In addition, I apologize for the confusion that resulted
from Exhibit 4-15 (see Enclosure 4) regarding the number of SQG
tanks represented in this analysis. Exhibit 4-15 is inadequately
labeled, understandably leading to misconceptions of what we
assume about the number of SQG tanks affected by the hazardous
waste tank regulations. I hope to clarify this problem by making
the following points.
First, the purpose of Exhibit 4-15 is to present the SQG
survey data results indicating the waste streams associated with
SQG tank facilities. Thus, the data does not represent the
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
estimated number of SQG tanks, since SQG facilities may have more
than one tank apiece. Second, this data is not weighted to
represent the secondary standard industrial classification
industries. Thus, the number of SQG facilities with tanks
presented only represents the primary SIC industries.
Finally, the waste streams listed in this exhibit are those
that we chose to represent waste streams contained in SQG tanks.
The enclosed computer printout (see Enclosure 5) provides the
complete list of waste streams associated with SQG tank
facilities according to the SQG Survey. As you can see form this
printout, the representative SQG tank waste streams used in the
risk analysis do not include all of the waste streams that the
survey data associates with SQG tanks. The risk analysis has
excluded such SQG tank waste streams as empty pesticide
containers and heavy metal solutions due to their low frequency
of occurrency.
For the final draft of the risk analysis report, we will
clarify the headings for exhibit 4-15 to ensure that readers
understand that this data was used to choose representative SQG
tank waste streams, not to determine the number of SQG tanks or
SQG tank facilities.
Sincerely,
Betsy Tarn
Economic Analysis Branch (WH-565)
Enclosures
cc: Hazardous Waste Tank Risk Analysis Docket File
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
Enclosure 1
Dominant Risk Constituents for SQG Waste Streams
Waste Stream
Spent Solvents/Ignitable
Paint Wastes/Ignitable
Wastes
- halogenated
- non-halogenated
Strong Acid or Alkaline
Wastes
Waste Ink with Solvents
or Heavy Metals/Ink
Sludge with Chromium
or Lead
Filtration Residues from
Dry Cleaning
Photographic Wastes/Sol-
utions or Sludges with
Photo Silver
Waste Pesticides/Pesticide
Washing and Rinsing Sol-
utions
- persistent, hal-
ogenated low
mobility pest-
icides
- non-persistent,
"modern" high
mobility pest-
icides
Wood Preserving Waste-
waters
Heavy Metal Wastewater
Sludges/Spent Plating
Wastes/Cyanide Wastes/
Other Reactive Wastes
Dominant Risk
Constituent
Contribution*
to Risk
Carbontetrachloride
Benzene
Lead
Toluene
High
High
Low
Low
Tetrachloroethylene
Methanol
Lindane
Aldicarb
Acenapthene
Cadmium/
Nickel/
Chromium
Low
High
High
High
High
Medium**
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
* As illustrated in Exhibit 5-27, risks are either relatively
high (10~4) or very low for this tank technology. Thus,
waste stream contribution to risk is designated as "high" or
"low".
** This waste stream is not included in Exhibit 5-27, but for
the above ground SQG tank, it presents moderate (i.e.,
"medium") risk (on the order of 10"6) .
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1936(26)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Carbon Regeneration Facilities
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director C:
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562).-*r.: - * *"•••• sc.
TO: Steohen R. Wassersuq, Director
Hazardous Waste Management
Division (3HWOO)
This is in response to your March 11, 1986, memorandum
regarding the applicability of the RCRA hazardous waste rules
to carbon regeneration facilities. In particular!
1) Is the spent carbon a solid waste?
In general, yes. As you correctly state in your
letter, spent carbon can be defined as a spent material or a
sludge (i.e., spent carbon would normally be considered a
spent material, unless it results from pollution control in
which case it is considered a sludge). Spent materials
(whether or not they ar« listed or contain a listed hazardous
waste) and listed sludges being reclaimed are solid waste.
In addition, if the spent carbon contains a characteristic
spent material (and the spent carbon itself exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic), it also is a solid waste. On the other
hand, if the spent carbon contains a characteristic sludge
or by-product, it is not defined as a solid waste (even if the
spent carbon exhibit* a hazardous waste characteristic).
2) Is the spent carbon a hazardous waste?
Yes. That spent carbon defined as solid waste (as
described above) is also hazardous if it contains a listed
hazardous waste or exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic.
3) Which Part 264 standards apply?
If the spent carbon is a solid and hazardous waste,
the owner or operator of the facility must comply with the
-------
storacc- facility requirements, including receiving a permit.
Tn<-- actual regeneration facility, including th* afterburner,
is exempt trom reculation, however. In particular, recyclablt-
materials other than those used in a manner constituting
disposal are currently subject only to transportation and
storage standards.!/ The- recycling facility itself, including
emissions troro the facility, art' not currently subject to
regulation. (You should note that if the facility did not
(voluntarily) use an afterburner to minimize organic emissions,
tho question ot RCRA applicability would not even have been
raised.) In tho future, wo intend to look at other recycling
operations such as carbon regeneration to determine if standards
are warranted.
Your concern that a determination that the- otf-gas is an
unregulated emission would have adverse ramifications tor incin-
eration facilities do«_s not appear to be a major problem. You
expressed concern that an incinerator operator could vaporize
his wnstc in a nontlame- device prior to injection in an incinerator
and clain that the unconfined gas is an unregulated treatment
emission. Such a claim is not likely to be successful bwcauso the
operator would need to show that the vaporization constitutes bona
t ide recycling not integral to the incinerator* We don't believe
such a showing can be nade.
It you have further questions or comments, contact hatt
Straus at 475-8551 or Robert Holloway at 36*-7336.
Recyclable materials burned for energy recover are only
subject to the transportation and storage rules. The actual
burning itself will be regulated in the future (i.e., we
plan to propose this suztncr standards that would control
emissions trora boilers and industrial Lurnacos burning
hazardous waste anc1 ott-specification uso
-------
UN -D STATE*-NVIRONMENTAL'^ROTEC N
9441.1986(27)
APR 2
Mr. Loan E. Lataille
Senior Environmental Scientist
Mabbf-tt, Capaccio, and Associates, Inc.
2007 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
Dear Mr. Lataille:
This is in response to your letter dated March 12, 1986,
concerning the regulatory status of off-spec and broken
mercury thermometers that are reclaimed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste rules. In
general, these otf-spec and broken mercury thermometers arc-
not subject to any of the hazardous waste regulations. In
particular/ the hazardous waste regulations indicate that
commercial chemical products!_/ that are reclaimed are not
solid wastes. Since a material must be a solid waste in
order that it be hazardous, they are not defined as a hazardous
waste. The mercury thermometers (as I understand) are unused
products that are either otf-spec or are broken during tho
manufacturing process; thus, these thermometers are defined
as commercial chemical products. Therefore/ these mercury
thermometers are not subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
rules.
You should be aware, however, that States may choose to
regulate these materials when they are sent for reclamation.
Therefore, you need to contact a representative in the State
hazardous waste program to determine the regulatory status of
these off-spec and broken mercury thermometers under the
State hazardous waste rules.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if
I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
-------
i AL. muiC Oi.. m
9441.1986(28)
Dr. Tom Tseno RE: CJ1305
Conservation and Protection
Ontario Region
Environment Canada
25 St. Claire Ave. K.
Toronto, CA
H4 Tl f!2
Dear Dr. Tseng:
Current U.S. EPA regulations control environmental releases
fron wood preserving and surface protection facilities under several
Concessional statutes, including the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). In addition,
exposures of workers and consumers to the preservative formulations
during application and usage of the treated wood is controlled by
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The current applicability
of the authorities to environmental releases is summarized below,
along with a description of our present investigations under RCRA.
Wastewater Effluents under the CWA
Process wastewaters effluent discharges fron wood preserving
facilities which use arsenical/chromates, creosote, and/or penta-
chlorophenol are regulated under the Clean Hater Act (CWA). The
final regulations wore promulgated in 1981 (46 PR 8260-8295) and
vary according to whether a facility was in existence at the tine
of the regulation (pretreatment standards for existing sources,
PSES) or for new plants (new source performance standards, NSPS).
The release of pentachloroohenol and creosote in wood preserving
wastewaters is controlled by the use of the indicator pollutant,
oil and grease. The effluent standard for arsenic, chromium, and
copper is based on specific concentration limits. No discharge of
any wantewaters is mandated for Boulton processes and non-pressure
processes.
Process wastevaters for the wood preserving subcategory of
timber products is defined as all wastewater sources excepting
noncontact cooling water, material storage yard runoff (either raw
material or processed wood storage) and boiler blowdown (46 PR
fl?fl7, eaJ^ 2t * 41* Hojtffljwr. nreeinitation fallino in the 1/4 to
i /9 *f-r-o *T-ft»mri th* fcrcatinn cylinders and tank »reas i* defined
is a process wastejwater whacn must »e collected and ttenten.
3iii'aanc'e- "nay"T>'e"T«jh'a"IH"nl*Kt"Docilnent for • Ef fiucnt-
. uind.^tan'«ardj5...fQr
-------
Point Source Category (EPA Publication No. EPA-440/1-81/023, p.
82), which-states:
"Rainwater that falls on or in the immediate vicinity of the
retorts and work tank area—an area of from about on-quarter
to one-half of an acre for the average plant—becomes contaminated
and can present a treatment and disposal problem at any plant*
but especially at plants in areas of high rainfall. For
examnle, a plant located in an area that recieves 152 cm (60
in) of rain annually must be equipped to process an additional
1.5 to 3.0 million liters (400,000 to 800,000 gallons) per
year of contaminated water."
Current Dioxin/Furan Chlorophenolic Regulations under RCRA
Certain associated wastes from oil or water based Chlorophenolic
formulations used by wood preserving or surface protection facilities
(either at sawmills or at wood treaters before air seasoning) may
be subject to regulation as acutely hazardous wastes because of
their contamination with polychlorinated dioxins and furans under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The hazardous
waste listings which may apply are found in Part 261.31, Volume 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations as Hazardous Waste Nos. P020,
F021, F026 or F027.
If a facility mixes Chlorophenolic formulations on-site, then
it may be covered by either the F020 (tri- or tetrachlorophenol)
or F021 (pentachlorophenol) listing if wastes are generated during
the process. An example would be filtering the unused formulation
before storage, thus generating a filter residual.
If a facility discards an unused (not spent) formulation
containing chlorophenolics the associated wastes and formulation
itself are covered by Hazardous Waste No. F027.
If a waste is generated from the use of equipment (tanks, etc.)
that previously was used to mix Chlorophenolic formulations, then
these wastes would be covered by Hazardous Waste No. F026. An
example would be mixing jt-butyl tin oxide in the same tank that
was used for chlorophenolics previously, and generating a filter
waste when the TBO formulation was transfered to the process or
storage tank.
A container or an inner liner removed from a container that
that has held an acute hazardous waste such as F020, P021, or
F027 must be either "triple rinsed" with an appropriate solvent or
cleaned by another established scientific method or the inner
liner must be removed and discarded (as a hazardous waste).
Otherwise, this container itself is considered to be the hazardous
waste itself, either F020 or F021. This regulation may be found
in the Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 40, Part 261.7(a)(3>.
Examples would be a storage tank taken out of service that previously
-------
contained unused formulation, a formulation nixino tank, or empty
chloroohenolic drums or kraft baqs.
Whf»n a waste is listed as "Acutely Hazardous" under Part
261.31 (Hazard Code "(H)"), then special management standards
apply under RCRA over those normally imposed for other hazardous
wastes. For example, under Part 261.5(a), generators of less than
1000 kilograms of hazardous waste a month would nornally be exempt
from the management standards contained in Parts 262-265 and Parts
270 and 124 (surface impoundment specifications, qround water
monitoring, hazardous waste manifesting, etc.). Part 261.5(e)
instead states that the generation of i kilogram of acutely waste
generated a month or a total of 100 kilograms of contaminated
soils subjects the generator to the full management standards of
Parts 262-265, 270, and 124.
(As described below, we are currently investigating the addition
of other wood preserving wastes to the acutely hazardous waste
categories because of their contamination with polychl^rinated
dioxins and furans.)
Hastewater Treatment Sludges fro^ Creosote and PentacMoronhenol
under RCRA
At the present time, wastewater treatment sludaes from wood
preserving processes which use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
are regulated as Hazardous Waste No. K001 under Part 261.31. This
includes oil/water separator sludges, the sludges which form at
the botton of surface impoundments used to treat or dispose of
wastewater (percolation or evaporation ponds), filter media (carbon i
sand, soil), spray irrigation fields (considered land treatment
units), sludge dewatering/drying beds, etc.
There has been a lot of activity over the past years in "closin
unlined lagoons, ponds, etc. used for process wastewaters. The
issue of "how clean is clean" for removing the sludges and contaninat
subsoils (nuch less punping and treating contaminated ground water)
is decided on a case by case basis. The criteria to be used for
closure of waste management units such as surface impoundments,
land treatment units, waste piles are given in Parts 265-and 267.
IE all contaminated materials cannot be removed, then post
closure care aa specified under Part 265.310 is required. This
woulr.1 include maintaining a cover for the unit, leachate collection,
etc,
The RCRA management standards would not apply to wastewator
treatment sludges (or wastewaters if they are listed as hazardous
wastes in the future) while they are managed on-site in tanks
which meet certain design -roauiroments (Part 264.1(n)(6) and Part
265. l(c) (10)). However, as soon as the slud^s are ramoved from
these units, the full RCRA permitting requirements annly. flany
facilities have therefore chosen to install wastewatar treatncrnt
trains in structures that meet our tank specificntions, rather
than surface impoundments, to avoid around water nonitorino and
other RCRA permittino reauirenents.
-------
Creosote or Pgntachlorophenol Wastewators under RCRA
In 1980, we proposed to add wastewaters thenselves from creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol facilities to the list of hazardous wastes
under Part 261.31 (45 FR 33137). In 1984, we started obtained the
necessary analytical data by site sampling missions to support
this proposed hazardous waste listing. We have been obtaining
analyses of the wastewaters themselves as well as documenting
ground and surface water contamination with polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorophenols, and polychlorinated dioxins/furans
Since wastewaters are typically managed in the same units
that manage the currently regulated wastewater treatment sludges
(Hazardous Waste No. K001), few additional controls of wastewater
units under RCRA would occur. However, if wastewaters were listed,
we would have the authority of controlling such waste nanagoment
practices as their "treatment" by evaporation in the treating
cylinder or the plant boiler.
Any RCRA authority over wastewaters would be limited to their
management on-site at a facility (Part 261.4(a)(2)[Comment]).
when released to the navigable waterways or sent to a publically
owned treatment work (POTW), the statuatory authority becomes the
Clean Water Act (CWA). This means that it is oossible to have
different toxic substances of concern or "action levels" for a
wastewater while it is managed on-site under RCRA than after release
off-site under the CWA. For example, under RCRA we may be considering
wastewater contamination with polychlorinated dioxins and furans,
yet the CWA standards currently only consider the indicator pollutant,
oil and grease.
Inorganic Arsenical and Chrornate Wastes (Wastewaters, Sludges,
Contaminated Soils) under RCRA
At the current time, any wastes generated by a wood preserving
facility that fails the "Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test" (EP
Toxic) is a regulated waste. This test procedure (described in
Appendix II of Part 261) involves extracting the waste with 20
times its weight with water, adjusted to a pH of 5 with acetic
acid. The extract is analyzed, thus yeilding the "EP Toxicity"
value. If the sample is an aqueous liquid, then the sample itself
is analyzed, giving the "EP Toxicity*.
The maximum allowable concentration for raetallics in the "EP"
extract is compared to the values given in Table 1 of Part 261.24.
If either the total arsenic or chroreiun in the "EP" extract exceeds
5.0 parts per million* then the waste is classified as either EPA
Hazardous No. D004 or 0007, respectively.
Thus many inorganic salt wood preserving wastes are controlled
by the RCRA management standards of Parts 262-265, 270, and 124.
This would include contaminated soils in the treated wood drippaqe
area, process wastewaters, sludges, snilled formulations, etc.
-------
We are currently investioatinq whether or not to specifically
list inorganic salt wood preserving wastes under Part 261.32.
This would give the Anency the additional advantage of oversight
of treatment of all the wastes generated through its delisting
process under Part 260.22. Currently, for "EP Toxic" wastes, the
facility has the ability to determine on its own whether or not a
waste is hazardous and whether or not treatment is adequate.
Corrective Act_ion under P.CRA
As the result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1934 (HS'.JA) (Congressional Records of Oct. 3 and 11, 1984), the
authority of RCRA has been extended to other solid waste management
units (SMUs) at facilities, even if these units do not not nanacie
a waste that is listed in Part 261. This is the corrective action
requirement for continuing releases at permitted facilities under
Section 3004(u) and (v) of HSV;A.
This requirement for permitting all solid waste management
units applies only to facilities that current have hazardous waste
management units subject to the permitting standards of RCRA.
Since few facilities/ if any, have final permits, any plants with
surface impoundments managing K001 wastewater treatment sludges
must also obtain a permit for the treated wood drippage/storage
area, process areas, and any landfills.
If there is any contamination in those areas (release) corrective
action must be undertaken. A release from a solid waste management
unit is defined in terms of whether or not the unit is designed
for adequate containment. For example, treated wood drippage
(currently a "solid waste" but not a "listed hazardous waste") is
typically managed by land disposal (drippaqe to the ground). This
ground usually does not have a clay liner, runoff containment,
etc. Therefore, disposing of this drippage on the open ground
constitutes a release for the purposes of corrective action.
Leakage from a tank would also be a release.
Current Efforts under RCRA to List Additional Wastes
At the present time, our branch is involved in investigating
whether or not to add additional wastes from wood preserv-ing and
surface protection facilities to the list of hazardous wastes
under Parts 261.31 and 261.32. Mew wastes which are being considered
are listed below, and apply to either wood preservation or surface
protection facilities and to any of the preservative formulation
types, whether creosote, chlorophenolics, or arsenical-chromates:
•Storage tank, treating tank, retort, dip tank, spray booth
sludges
•Treated wood drippag'e/storage residuals
•Fugitive emissions, dripnage in the process and tank aroa
•Maintenance area, shop area wastes
-------
•Wastewaters (including storm water runoff)
•Wastewater treatment sludqea from arsenical-chromate processes
or chlorophenolics frora surface protection processes
All of these wastes, where aoplicable, are being studied to
determine whether or not they should be listed as acutely hazardous
waste because of contamination with polychlorinated dioxins and
furans. This includes any wastes that can be cross contaminated
with chlorophenolics/ such as wastes generated from a creosot« process
where a contnon oil/water separator is used for both creosote and
pentachlorophenol, sludges from an arsenical process that uses
pentachlorophenol make-up water, wastes from a non-chlorophenolic
dip tank that previously held chlorophenolics, etc.
As described in previous sections, all of these wastes are
covered under the RCRA authority at some wood preserving facilities,
especially because of the corrective action provisions under HSWA.
Very little coverage under RCRA currently exists for sawnills
practicing sapstain control, however* Adding new waste streams to
the list of hazardous wastes would nake hazardous waste management
standards uniform at all facilities, and ease the burden .to State
and Regional enforcement personal in formulating a regulatory authority
rationale.
If you have any questions, please'do not hesitate to
call me at (202)382-4786.
Sincerely,
Gate Jenkins, Ph.D.
Project Officer, Wood Preserving
and Surface Protection
Waste Identification Branch
Mail Code WH-562 B
-------
9441.1986(29)
Determination of Status of Waste Produced by
Wells Aluninum Corporation, North Liberty, Indiana
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Haste Identification Branch
TO: William H. Miner, Chief
Hazardous Waste Enforcement Branch
EPA Region V
Rased upon your description of the Almecolor process used
by Wells Aluminum, it has been determined that the resulting
wastewater treatment sludge is exemot from the F006 listing, as
ner exemption fl — sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum. As
you noted in your ^emo, the background document expands this
excluded process to specifically encompass coloring and sealing
stens whereby "unsealed anodic coatings on aluminum are colored
by innersion in a solution of organic or inorganic dyes," after
which sealing is accomplished by "i-entersion in a hot solution
of nickel or cobalt acetate." The Almecolor process you
described appears to meet this description and is, therefore,
excluded from the listing and would be regulated only if
the resultant sludge meets the characteristics of a hazardous
waste described in Subpart C. Even though this specific process
nay not have been evaluated when the exclusion was developed,
the exclusion is still applicable, just as other electroplating
processes which may have been developed after the listing was
nade final are included In the listing.
Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation,
please contact me or David Topping of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
-------
3441.1986(30)
APR I 6 1966
Mr. Jack A. Russell
501 East Tg.t^-'Street, Apt. 8F
New York, New York 10021
Dear Mr. Russell:
I am responding to your letter, dated March 11, 1986, to
Georqe Lord of the EPA's Office of the Small Business Ombudsman.
In that letter you asked a nunber of questions regarding
the regulatory status, under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), of a planned business for reprocessing
waste solvents. Your service would involve the use of a truck-
mounted distillation unit which would be operated at your
customer's site, that is, at the site of hazardous waste
Generation.
You also stated that both recovered solvent and any
generated solvent still bottoms would be left at the customer's
site. Under this arrangement your "vehicle will enter and depart
from [your] customer's sites containing no hazardous wastes."
You asked three specific questions reaardino: use of
hazardous waste manifests: the need for a federal permit; and
insurance requirements.
Since the States you propose to ooerate in, that is, "the
New York metropolitan area", are each authorized to implement a
RCRA hazardous waste program in lieu of the U.S. EPA, you
must comply with those States' rules and regulations, not U.S.
EPA's. I am sorry that I am unable to tell you what those States'
requirements are, except that they must be at least as stringent
as federal requirements.
As a means of providing you with some information, however,
I can offer you the following:
- If your vehicles do not transport hazardous waste over
public roads you would not, under federal reguirements,
be required to register as a hazardous waste transporter
or use the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest.
-------
- Federal requirements do not apply, currently, to actual
reclamation activities. Federal requirements apply only
to transportation and storage associated with recyclina
not to actual recycling units.
I hope that these answers will be of some value to you.
Respectfully,
Bernard J. Stoll
Program Manager
Financial Responsibility and
Assessment Branch
cc: Georae Lord (A-149C)
-------
9441.1986(31)
2 I 1986
G.N, Weinreich, P.E.
Environmental Manager
ANG Coal Gasification Co.
P.O. Box 1149
Beulah, ND 58523
Dear Mr. Weinroichi
I am responding to your letter of March 18, 1986, in which
you request a clarification of whether precipitation which contacts
coal gasitication ash waste resulting from the processing of coal,
and becomes corrosive is subject to the hazardous waste provisions
of RCRA. As you state in your letter, the ash is currently exempt
from regulation under RCRA pursuant to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4). See
also Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i) or RCRA. The precipitation becomes
corrosive solely as a result of contact with the ash. Since the
hazardous waste characteristic of the precipitation is derived
from an exempt waste, the resulting corrosive water retains the
exempt status of that waste (i.e., the water is also exempt from
regulation as a hazardous waste).
I hope the above clarifies your concerns regarding the proper
classification of this aqueous waste. If you have further questions,
please contact Mr. Edwin F. Abrares of my staff at (202} 382-4737.
Sincerely
Marcia £. Yni'ams
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office ot Solid Waste
-------
9441.1986(32)
2 I I9B6
Mr. Thomas J. pronaofel, T
'•vaste Hanaqement Section
Division of Environmental
Protect ion
S*at* of Nevada ^eoartfent
of Conservation an»1
Natural Resource*
Cacitol Comdex
Carson City, Nevada 99710
^ar Mr. Pronsnfel:
To follow UD on our recent conservation, and in response
to /our letter of Aorll 2, 1936, this confirms that wastes from
"Iry-cleaninq services and maintenance services at hotels and
Betels are not excluded as household wastes under the exclusions
of 40 C*«* 261.1.
The exclusion cited above was intwr; <«c1 to remove normal
households from reaulatory control under rh* Resource Convervat ion
anr*. ''ecoverv Act ( PCPA ) . This was exten-1?-! to normal household-
type waste froT hotels, motels, etc. For example, e^oty containers
^nr! tne liice resultinn fro-n normal roon rleaninn or
vlno of the room coul<* he exclu^e^, :'owev»r,
vehicle fleet or equipment maintenance sr« not routine
operations; wastes resultinc ft^n, such activities at
hotels an<1 motels, if hazardous, ^re *uh1«ct to FC^A
control .
This ir»t«rnr»t*tion is for the P>-1eral °r.°^ nrorjva^. cinc«
has finel authorization for the Pr*^ r.i-Tjt^"', it i«> thsir
rules which will apply tn this case; in arcnv-Janc* with i-.-^e statute,
your regulations or stan'lar'ls nay he Tore striment than tw.e
Federal rules. If you have any other questions, olaas* call our
at 800/424-0^46 or call r-»« direct at ?
Alan Corson
neoutv Director
ion
-------
9441.1986(33)
2-3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT. Anolication of: RCRA to Calqon Carbon
Regeneration Facility
FROM. Marcia Williams, Director
Ottlce of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO. Thomas W. Devine, Director
Wast* Management Division, Region IV
In response to your memorandum or March 11, we have reviewed
the intormation relating to the Calgon facility. Based on that
review and additional discussions with Calgon personnel, we have
concluded that the August 23 memorandum from John Skinner is not
directly applicable- to the Calgon case. Nevertheless, Calgon
does believe they can demonstrate that no rixinq has occurred
in the solids transport system. As a result, some of the
principles underlying the August 23 memorandum may apply to
their case. In the following paragraphs, wr will elucidate
our position on the Calgon case and then suqgest what data is
probably needed tor the demonstration.
The Calgon system of interest is a solids handling system that
is used to transport hazardous wastes (spent carbon contaminated
with various listed wastes) and solid wastes (spent carbon
applied to streams other than those currently r
-------
transport the spent carbon, the water is not defined as a
solid waste). It is at that point where Calgon must establish
the stream is not a mixture of a solid and hazardous waste.
Calgon's position is that they should be allowed to make the
demonstration after treatment of the water in the clarifier
and carbon columns based on an extrapolation of the interpretation
presented in the Auqust 23rd ra«moranduiB.
We can not agree with the Calqon position. First of all, the
Auqu*t 23rd menorandum is strictly confined to additional, on-site
dewatering to remove non-regulated wastewater unintentionally
comminaled with the waste at the point of waste generation. Key
to the exemption is the return of the wastewater to the system
from whence it came and a clear demonstration that the hazardous
waste is not present in the returned stream. The exemption
applies only for a waste Generator who is continuing to remove
the non-listed material at the site of generation. The Calgon
case, on the other hand, is related to treatment of a mixture
after the addition of a large volume of material to a hazardous
waste.
The sole question in the Calgon case is whether or not mixing
has occurred. Mixino may not have occurred if Appendix VIII
constituents are kept on the carbon and the spent carbon solids
containing the hazardous constituents do not escape the sump.
Under those conditions, the river water will not have become mixed
with the hazardous constituents, and would not contain hazardous
waste. If Calgon can demonstrate two points, they may have a
basis for application of the August 23 guidelines. First, they
must analyze any solids escaping the sump during the unloading and
feeding of the spent carbon to show that they are not the regulated
waste. Secondly, Calqon must show that the hazardous constituents
have not desorbed from the carbon into the water. This demonstration
may be made by providing mass flows and constituent concentrations
for the carbon, the influent water, and the sump effluent. Do
not hesitate to contact Ben Smith of my staff at (202) 382-4791
if you have questions relating to our response or other questions
relating to the August 23rd memorandum.
-------
UNIicD STA, cS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT ,„.' /
9441.1986(34)
S&6,
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT; Regulatory Interpretation Concerning the MCI/MCL
Material Generated by FMC at its Middleport Facility
FKOM: Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
TO; Richard M. Walka, Chief
Solid Waste Branch (2AWM-SW)
This is in response to your memorandum dated March 18, 1986,
concening the regulatory status (under the Federal hazardous
waste rules) of a mixture of methyl isocyanate (MCI) and
raethylene chloride (MCL) that is to be shipped to another
facility for recycling. Based on the information provided in
the attachments to your memo!/ and as I have discussed previously
with Mr. Paul Ingrisano, of your staff, this material would
not be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. In
particular, as described in the letters from Mr. Kennedy,
the MCI/MCL is a mixture of unused commercial chemical products
that FMC intends (or at least would like) to ship to its
Institute, West Virginia facility for recycling into the
carbofuran manufacturing process. In order to determine
whether this mixture is a hatardous waste, one must first
determine whether the material is a solid waste. Pursuant
to 40 CFR 261.2(c), when a commercial chemical product (or a
mixture of commercial chemical products) is reclaimed or
used for its originally intended purpose, it is not a solid
waste and* therefore, cannot be a hazardous waste. This
material can thus be shipped to its carbofuran manufacturing
facility in Institute, West Virginia without a manifest; in
addition, the plant in West Virginia does not need a storage
permit. This material would be subject, however, to all
state regulation*.
I/ See letters dated March 5 and 10, 1986, from Rick W. Kennedy
of Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, and Goodyear.
-------
Please fool free to give me a call if you have any
additional questions, my telephone number is 8-475-8551.
-------
9441.1986(37)
May 1, 1986
Mr. Mike Rinehart
Operations Analyst
Continental Pipe Line Company
P.O. Drawer 1267
Ponca City, Oklahoma 74603
Dear Mr. Rinehart:
Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1986, concerning the
status of crude oil tank bottoms. In your letter (question
"l(a)"), you used the term "recyclable material." This is the
term the Environmental Protection Agency uses to describe
hazardous wastes that are recycled (i.e., used, reused, or
reclaimed) in some manner. In order to determine whether you
have a hazardous waste, however, you must first determine whether
the material is a solid waste. Crude oil tank bottoms are
considered a by-product. When a non-listed by-product is
reclaimed, or used as an ingredient or a substitute for a
commercial product, it is not a solid waste and, therefore,
cannot be a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR §261.2). If, however,
the non-listed by-product is used to produce a fuel or disposed
of, then it would be a solid waste; if it also exhibits a
characteristic of 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, it is a hazardous
waste. If the crude tank bottoms are used to produce a fuel at a
petroleum refinery, the fuel would be exempt from regulation; if
the tank bottoms are disposed of, you would be required to comply
with all applicable hazardous waste rules in 40 CFR Parts 262-
266, Part 270, and the notification requirements of RCRA Section
3010. In all cases, you are subject to all applicable state
regulations.
With respect to your second question, if the crude oil
bottoms are not a solid waste, as described above, then their
transportation is not regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. If,
however, the tank bottoms are used to produce a fuel at a
refinery, the transportation and storage of these bottoms would
be regulated (as long as the bottoms are hazardous). The
generator must determine whether the material he produces is a
solid waste (and if so whether it is a hazardous waste) and this
determination depends on how the material is to be managed. That
is, if the crude oil bottoms are to be reclaimed or used or
reused as described above, then it is neither solid nor hazardous
waste. If it is used to produce a fuel or disposed, it is a
solid waste and it may be a hazardous waste. In any case,
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
-2-
however, you would remain subject to any applicable U.S.
Department of Transportation and state regulations.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to
contact Matt Straus of my office.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC
9441.1986(38)
Mft -I
Mr. oeorcje W. Harding
President
t>oly-Jonn Enterprises Corporation
U45> i2lj street
v.'nitin-j, Indiana 40394
Dear rtr. Hardingi
In response to your recent letter to Or. John Skinner, th*?
recent changes tnat nave been raade in the HCRA, regulations wouH
not have any impact on tne use of forraaldeliyde-basod toilot
deodorants.
Use of formaldehyde-containing toilet deodorants consti-
tutes the intended use of the product. The normal use of theso
products requires that they be poured into toilets, ultimately
entering sowers and cesspools. This action does not constitute
disposal, as defined by the hazardous waste regulations, nor is
tne product considered a solid waste. Under tSe har-tr^ous waste
regulations, a product N»cornea a waste only it discarded actor
serving its intended purpose, or discarded without beinq used.
since using the product for its intended purpose destroys the
product (i.e., it ceasas to retain its original identity hut
rattier lust becomes part of the nixed sowaqe), a toilet deodorant
would only be considered as a solid waste, ounject to potential
regulation under KCKA, it" it was to be discarded unused. Only
under such conditions would a toilet deodorant consisting of
formaldehyde as its sole active ingredient be identified oy tho
regulations as a hazardous waste, and, at that point, the provi-
sions ot the 100 kg/month small generator exclusion come into olfl
*ou should also keep in mind the fact that RCJU is a State
administered program in those States which have annliocl -for and
received authorization. In such States, it is the State program
that must he adhered toj some States havo more stringent renula-
tions than those of the Federal program. Thus, while disposal
or a specific toilet deodorant may not be regulated under the
Federal program, it may under a .State program. However, I an
not aware of any State which currently regulates such orotiucts.
-------
For information on any future reoulatory chanoes that r-.ay
atfect your industry, I recomtiend that you contact the RCKA/
ouperfun-1 Hotline at (300) 424-334i.
Sincerely yours,
Eileen B. Claussen
Director
Characterization & Assessment
Division (V7H-562Q)
bcc: M. Williams
A. Corson
Hotline
K. Conners
M. Straus
D. Friedman
-------
3441.1986(39)
UNI'. STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIC «G
'/'V
Mr. William R. Blackburn
Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
Deerfield, Illinois 60015
Dear Mr. Blackburn:
This VB in response to the letters you nave submitted
to the Agency in which you raise a number of questions tor
our consideration. First, let ne apologize for the time it
has taken to respond to your letters; I hope this has not
created any problems for you. You first request that we
confirm that the deionization (DI) acid that is generated
at Travenol'a plant in Cleveland, Mississippi is not a
waste. Based on the information provided,27 we agree with
you that the DI acid is not a waste and, therefore, is 'not
subject to the federal hazardous waste rules. In particular,
before a material can be a hazardous waste, one must tirst
determine whether the material is a solid waste. In general/
corrosive materials that are neutralized are normally considered
wastes. However, where such corrosive materials can be
shown to: (1) meet relevant specs with regard to contamination
levels, (2) be as effective as the virgin material for which
they substitute, and (3) be used under controlled conditions,
we believe such materials may not oe wastes. The information
provided in your letters clearly indicate that the DI acid
generated at your Cleveland plant is benefically reused and,
therefore, is not a waste. As a result, this material is
not subject to the Federal hazardous waste rules. This
material would be subject, however, to any State regulations.
With respect to your request regarding the exclusion
and whether it applies retroactively under the old regulations,
we believe that since the 01 acid has always b*en benefically
I/ See letters 6at«di Novemoer 14, 1985, from William R.
Blackburn to Jack Lehman I December 5, 1985, irom Michael Str.ith
to Robert Tonetti; January 13, 1986, from Michael Smith
to Matthew Straus; February 6, 1905, froin William R. Blackburn
to Matthew Straus; and April 17, 1986, froin Michael Smith
to Matthew A. Straus.
-------
recycled _and since this acid is neither listed nor a sludge,
this material is not now (and has never been) subject to
regulations. Therefore, Travenol does not need to go through
closure for this impoundment; we have discussed this inter-
pretation with our Ofticc of General Counsel and they agree.
Finally, you requested written explanation as to why no
hazardous waste permit is required to dispose of the alcohol
to the drain; a verbal response was provided to you by
Ms. Irene Horner. A written response, however, has been
prepared and should be sent to you shortly.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any
further questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia C. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1986(40)
.a 3 '• . •
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT» Used Oil Regulations
FROMt Marcia E. Williams, Director "
Office of Solid Waste
TOi David Wagoner, Director
Waste Management Division
Region VII
This is in response to your July 11, 1986, memorandum regarding
the used oil regulations published on November 29, 1985. We are
considering a range of options regarding the regulation of used
oil and it is possible that the final regulations will differ
substantially from the proposed listing.
We are aware that the used oil recycling industry is
undergoing major changes and share your concerns about impacts
on'the industry and the ultimate disposition of used oil. We
have received a number of calls and letters, primarily from used
oil processors/ expressing the concern that many industrial
burners are no longer willing to burn used oil if it exceeds the
November 29 specification. la addition* we are now developing
a response to three rulemaking petitions requesting that we delay
the effective date of toe lead specification. Attached for your
information is an interim response from Win Porter to one of the
petitioners, the National oil Recyclera Association.
As you may note from Win's letter, we believe a large part
of the problem is that there is a serious misunderstanding of the
Federal requirements. It appears that many burners ars equating
the acceptance of off-specification used oil fuels (and the re-
quirement to notify EPA to obtain an identification number) with
becoming subject to the RCRA hazardous waste management rules.
This confusion was probably caused by our proposing to list used
oil as a hazardous waste on November 29, 1985, and our suggestion
that marketers and burners of off-specification used oil fusl
notify EPA using the standard form entitled* "Notification of
-------
Hazardous rVaste Activities." Actually, the November 20 final rule
•imply require* a ourner of off-specification used oil fuel to
notify LPA and comply with two other aiinor paperwork requirements.
Further, on March 10, 1986, EPA requested comments on the option
of regulatiny used oil recycling without a listing (50 FR oiOG),
•o ourners of off-specification fuel may never have to oecor.;e
hazardous waste facilities.
Another factor having a major impact on the industry is the
dramatic drop in fuel oil prices sine* our rules were published.
The drop in virgin fuel oil prices has apparently led many burners
to the decision not to contend with any EPA, regulation for a fuel
that is only mildly discounted (5 to 10 cents per gallon less
than virgin fuel oil according to one processor), especially when
their total fuel bill is substantially lower than in previous
years because of the drop in virgin oil prices.
To get burners to continue burning off-specification used
oil fuel, it appears thati (1) they need to understand that they
are not handling a hazardous waster and (2) in light of the
depressed virgin fuel oil price* and ZPA's paperwork requirements,
used oil fuel must be discounted more heavily than in the past.
To get the message to the public, we are sending copies of Win
Porter's letter to the Regions, States, and those used oil
marketers that have expressed concern. We also have developed
an information bulletin (copy attached) for general distribution
that suflsmarises the points covered in Win's letter* Finally, we
will also discuss these issues in a Federal Register notice
responding to the mistaking petitions.
We do realise, however, that the drop in virgin oil prices
coupled with the paperwork requirements of the November 29 rule
are causing painful changes in the industry. To enable processors
to offer burners a greater discount to accept off-specification
used oil fuel, the processors (and independent collectors) may
have to charge generators a fee to pick up their used oil. This
is new apparently a ecsvaon practice, while a year ago, generators
could have tattir oil picked up at no charge or were even paid for
their oil. fe) 4o not expect major problems with generators
dumping their fJil because i (1) they can increase their fees for
an oil change to cover the costs; and (2) there was an active
used oil recycling industry prior to the increase in virgin oil
prices in the early 1970s when generators either received nothing
or paid to have their used oil picked up.
Of greater concern, however, is the disposition of used oil
generated by do-it-yourselfers who take their oil to a service
station for ultimate recycling. Obviously, we can expect service
stations and other generators to stop accepting do-it-yourself
oil if the generator must pay to have the oil picked up. We
-------
don't nave a good answer to this proolen. .«e would ;icte, r»owwv
that only" a portion of do-it-yourself oil naa historically b<--e
recovered by the recycling system. w« are still trying to iJe
*» ** ^ • * ^
v^ w - -—— — — - + — - — — — ^ — « 4 —
ffective solutions to that probl«n
The ourning of metal-bearing used oils and used oils raixed
with hazardous waste can cause serious health effects. Clearly,
we must strike * balance between the reduction in adverse health
and environmental impacts from burning used oil achieved by the
rule and the adverse impacts resulting rrosi any dumping of used
oil caused by the rule. For the reasons discussed above, however,
we do not believe the rule will result in a substantial increase
in used oil dumping.
I do not want to imply that we have all of the answers. We
are feeling our way along this process of regulating the used oil
recycling industry and are attempting to ensure that the rules are
structured and timed in a manner that does more good than ham.
Comments from the Regions are always welcome and appreciated.
Several Regional personnel participated in the work group that
developed this rule. If you or your staff have other comments,
suggestions, or questions, please contact Hike Petruska of my
staff at (202) 382-7936.
Attachments
-------
, 9441.1986(41)
0
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
»'-., -«<*'
OPP'CE Of
SOLiD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Frederick Boucher
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Boucher:
Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1986 regarding
your constituent's concern about fees assessed on the generation
of hazardous waste. There is currently no such fee assessed
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
My staff checked with officials in the State of Virginia,
which is fully authorized to run its own RCRA program. The
State indicated that it, too, does not impose a fee such as
the one described by your constituent.
Your constituent nay be referring to the waste management
tax approved by the House as part of its CERCLA reauthor ization
bill. See the December 10, 1985 Congressional Record, p. H11666;
see also H.Rep. No. 99-253, Part 2, pp. 9-16. The proposed
waste management tax actually includes two different taxes: a tax
on hazardous waste received at RCRA Subtitle C facilities, and a
backup tax on RCRA generators if their waste is not received at
a Subtitle C facility within 270 days. As explained below, it
appears that your constituent would not be subject to the first
tax, i.e., the tax on RCRA Subtitle C facilities. However, your
constituent may be subject to the second tax, i.e., the backup
tax. We agree 'that such a tax may serve as a disincentive for
recycling. The Administration did not include a backup tax in
its CERCLA reauthorization proposal.
Given your description of your constituent's waste, it
appears that these used solvents are a hazardous waste under
RCRA; see 40 CPR $261.31. The solvents are then sent to a second
company where they are stored prior to recovery. Presumably the
storage unit would meet the House bill's definition of a "qualified
hazardous waste management unit", which is provided in proposed
S4675(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (IRC). If so,
the waste would be subject to the first tax at a rate of $4.15
per wet weight ton. However, the second company would receive a
credit or refund for any tax paid for such waste. The credit
for certain qualified solvents is outlined in proposed $4673(c)
of the IRC. This credit .was specifically designed to avoid
creating a disincentive for solvent recycling.
-------
Your_ letter states that after cleaning the used solvents,
the second company returns the recovered solvents to your
constituent for future use. Presumably this "cleaning" of the
wastes is actually reclamation. If so, then these recovered
solvents are not wastes. See 40 CFR §261.3(c)(2). This issue
is specifically discussed in the praamble of our January 4, 1985
revised definition of solid waste (50 Fed. Reg. 614, 634).
Since these solvents are not wastes under RCRA, they would not
be subject to the first tax, which is imposed only on certain
RCRA hazardous waste. See proposed IRC §§4671(a)(l) and 4675(a)(l).
The second company must properly manage the spent solvents
that were not reclaimed. Such spent solvents are typically
blended with oil and then sold as fuel. Such waste-derived
fuel is still considered a hazardous waste under RCRA. See
40 CFR S261.2(c)(2). The fuel may be burned in an industrial
boiler or furnace, or a RCRA Subtitle C incinerator. If so,
then the second company may receive a credit or refund under
the incineration provision. See proposed IRC §4673(b).
As noted above, your constituent may be subject to the
proposed backup tax. That tax is imposed on hazardous waste
which is not received at a qualified hazardous waste management
unit within 270 days of its generation. See proposed IRC
§4674(a). Thus, your constituent's potential liability under
this tax would depend on whether one of the second company's
RCRA units fits the House bill's dpfinition of a "Qualified
hazardous waste nanagement unit." If not, then your constituent
would be liable for the backup tax. Until the Treasury Department
promulgates regulations, the waste would be taxed at the
disposal rate.
Let me reiterate that the Administration did not include
a backup tax on generators in its proposal to reauthorize CERCLA.
In designing a waste-end tax, we decided that the tax ought to
be on the management of the waste, not the generation.
Finally, I agree with you that EPA should encourage recycling
as a means of reducing the amount of hazardous waste requiring
land disposal. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, of 1984
established as national policy the reduction of hazardous waste.
In particular/ Section 224 of the 1984 RCRA amendments requires
EPA to submit a report to Congress by October 1, 1986, on the
desirability and feasibility of establishing waste minimization
regulations to implement this national policy. As part of
this effort, the Agency has identified incentives and disincentives
currently affecting the utilization of waste minimization
practices such as recycling. The report to Congress will
discuss possible actions to alleviate some of the disincentives
associated with recycling-and to promote further use of recycling
and other waste minimization practices.
-------
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance-,
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
cc: Robert L. Allen, Branch Chief
Waste Management Branch
Hazardous Waste Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region III
William F. Gilley, Director
Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
Virginia Department of Health
-------
9441.1986(42)
Mr. Paul B. Guptill
Missouri Hospital Association
P.O. Box 60
4713 Highway 5fr West
Jerterson City, Missouri 65102
Dear Mr. Guptill:
This is in response to your letter dated April 14,
1986, regarding the regulatory status of used x-ray film
being sent to refiners tor silver reclaaation. In order
to answer this question, one must first determine whether
the used x-ray film is considered a solid waste. Under
the hazardous waste rules, all spent staterials, and listed
sludges and listed by-products that are sent for reclaaation
are defined as solid wastes, (see 40 CPR 261.2(c); used
x-ray film would be defined as a spent material.!/ Therefore,
used x-ray film would be defined as a solid and Hazardous
waste if it is listed or exhibits one or more of the hazardous
waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity).V
Since these films are not specifically listed, they would
only be defined as hazardous if they exhibit any of the
hazardous waste characteristics. Based on test data provided
by the National Association of Photographic Manfacturers (NAPM),
I/ A spent material is any material that has been used and
~~ as a result of such use can no longer serve the purpose
for which it was produced without processing.
2/ In your letter, you argue that used x-ray tilm going
to a refiner should not be considered hazardous,
regardless of their hazardous levels. However, the
Agency has always defined the hazardouaness of the
waste based upon the characteristics of the waste
and not how it is managed.
-------
these £iima, in and of themselves, do not appear to be
hazardous under RCRA. Therefore, used x-ray tilras are
probably not subject to thw Federal hazardous waste management
regulations (see enclosures).
You should b« aware, however, that although the data
provided by NAPM appears to suggest that these tilras are
non-hazardous, each generator is still responsible tor
making this determination. It the generator determines
that their used x-ray films are hazardous, they would be
subject to the hazardous waste rules. However, the only
requirements under the Federal regulations that would be
imposed upon the generator would be to get an identification
number and to comply with the unitonn hazardous waste
manifest. I, therefore, question the cost figures estimated
by tha Missouri Department ot Natural Resources (DNR) tor
hospitals to comply with the hazardous waste rules.
Please feel tree to give me a call if I can be of any
curther assistance my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Matthew A. btraus
Chief
Waste Identitication Branch
-------
UNITED < FES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A
9441.1986(43)
Mr. Bruce J. Lawrence
President u.y 30 fiftfi
Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc. Wl ww ^"^
Hellertown, Pennsylvania 18055
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
This is in response to your February 26, 1986, letter in
which you request confirmation that the mercury that is sent
to your facility to be triple distilled is not a waste.
First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in
responding to your request; I hope this delay has not caused
you any problems. With respect to your specific request, I
agree with you that mercury (which is at least 99 percent
pure) that is received and refined at your facility is not a
solid waste.I/ In particular, we have stated that metals
that are suitable for direct use, or that only have to be
refined to be usable are products, not wastes. See 40 CFR
261.3(c)(2); see also preamble discussion at 50 PR 634,
January 4, 1985. Thus, the mercury—that is 99 percent free-
flowing mercury—that you receive at your facility is not
subject to any of the hazardous waste regulations (i.e.,-the
material does not have to be manifested to your facility, you
need not comply with the storage requirements, etc.).
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification
I/ It should be noted that this regulatory interpretation
~~ reflects the Federal hazardous waste rules. The State of
Pennsylvania may take a different interpretation; you,
therefore, need to contact the state for further information
on the status of this material.
MS860133
-------
Tci bNVlKONMENTAL PROTECTION A
9441.1936(44)
Air
Mtt 3 0 BB6
George I.*. Rambo, Ph.D., R.P.C.
Director, R,?searcn, Education,
and Technical Resources
National Pest Control Association, Inc.
&luu Oak Street
Dunn Loring, VA 22027
Dear Dr. Ramon:
Thank you tor your letter of May 16, 1986, requesting an
interpretation ot the applicability of the hazardous waste
regulations to washwaters generated from washing the exterior
of trucks and service vehicles.
As you are aware, in a July 22, 1985 memorandum to our
Region VI office, we indicated that washwatere generated by
washing the exterior of an aerial pesticide applicator's airplane
would not be considered hazardous via the mixture rule. (Sc<=
enclosure.) Since the Agency sees no difference between washwaters
from aerial versus qround application equipment, it is logical
that the interpretation issued in July 1985 should also extend to
the washwaters from ground equipment.
Consequently, this rinsewater would not be considered a
hazardous waste under the mixture rule and would only be considered
hazardous if the rinsewater exhibited one of the characteristics
of a hazardous waste identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (i. c_.,
ionitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity).
If you have any further questions on this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact Matt Straus at (202) 475-8b51.
Sincerely,
Harcia £. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
1115-467-SS!
-------
cc: Air and Viater Management Division Directors (I-V and VII-x)
Air and Waste Management Branch Chiefs (I-X)
!-• f+ -_ _. At *_.«.•.•
S. Scatzow
P. Gray
B. Weddle
J. Lehman
O.K. Ehart (State of Wisconsin)
-------
.~-. — nc.
MAY 86 9441.1986(45a)
3. Treatment Without A Permit
A facility generates a waste that is in powder form and which exhibits
the characteristic of EP toxicity. The waste is stored in a tank
pursuant to the standards specified in 40 CFR 262.34. When the tank
is partially full, the generator pours in sand, and mixes the contents
of the tank until a homogeneous mixture is formed. The sand dilutes
the original waste. The resulting mixture no longer exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste. How is the generator regulated
under RCRA? Can the State in which the facility is located recjuire
the facility to get a permit?
Under federal law, if the facility did not accumulate the waste
for longer than the applicable time period specified in $262.34
(90 days), then the facility would only have to comply with the
applicable provisions of §262.34. Rendering a characteristic
hazardous waste non-hazardous by dilution is treatment; however,
such treatement does not require a permit if $262.34 is followed.
The EPA clarified this interpretation in the March 24, 1986
Federal Register which states, "Of course, no permitting would
be required if a generator chooses to treat their hazardous
waste in the generator's accumulation tanks or containers in
conformance with the requirements of §262.34 and Subparts J or I
of Part 265. Nothing in §262.34 precludes a generator from
treating waste when it is in an accumulation tank or container
covered by that provision. Under the existing Subtitle C
system, EPA has established standards for tanks and containers
which apply to both the storage and treatment of hazardous
waste...the Agency believes that treatment in accumulation
tanks or containers is permissible under the existing rules,
provided the tanks or containers are operated strictly in
compliance with all applicable standards." (51 FR 10168)
States with existing standards may administer and enforce them
as a matter of State law. Further, a State with the appropriate
authorization could require a generator that treats hazardous
waste in a tank to operate under a RCRA permit or interim status
if the requirement was incorporated in the State's approved
program.
Of course, a non-listed characteristic hazardous waste that is
treated so that it no longer exhibits a characteristic of
hazardous waste need not be disposed of at a RCRA Subtitle C
facility, instead, the waste could be disposed of at an approved
State or local facility according to applicable Subtitle D
standards.
Source: Mark Greenwood (202) 382-7703
Research: Kevin Weiss
Charlotte Mooney
-------
9441.1986(45)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 86
1- Small Quantity Generators/Parts WashersAfaste Counting
An owner/operator (o/o) of a service station leases a parts washer
containing mineral spirits fron the Safety-Kleen Corporation. The
o/o uses the mineral spirits on a daily basis to degrease parts
on-site. The spent mineral spirits exhibit a flash-point less
than 140° F. The o/o's written contract with Safety-Kleen requires
Safety-Kleen to collect the mineral spirits for reclamation and to
deposit regenerated or new mineral spirits at the service station
every eight weeks. The o/o is a "100-1000 kg/mo generator" of
hazardous wastes.
When, if ever, do the o/o's mineral spirits become regulated as a
hazardous waste? According to the revised small quantity generator
regulations which appeared in the March 24, 1986 Federal Register,
are the mineral spirits counted in determining the amount of
hazardous waste generated?
Section 261.4(c) exempts "[a] hazardous waste which is
generated...in a manufacturing process unit or an associated
nonwaste-treatment-manufacturing unit" frcnt regulation under
Parts 262 through 265 and the notification requirements of
Section 3010 of RCRA. The material is only subject to
regulation when it is removed from the unit in which it was
generated or if the material remains in the unit for more than
90 days after the unit ceases to be operated for manufacturing
purposes. In this specific case, the parts washer leased from
Safety-Kleen is functioning as a manufacturing process unit.
The parts washer is a containerized unit used in degreesing
operations. Therefore, the mineral spirits will not be subject
to regulations under Parts 262-265, 270, 271, 124, and Section
3010 until they are emptied from the parts washer container
or until they remain within a nonooerational parts washer for
more than 90 days, whichever occurs first.
Under the March 24, 1986 rules, waste exempt frcm some regulations
under $261.4(c) are not counted. As long as the waste is exempt
under S261.4(c), it need not be counted. However, the mineral
spirits would be counted in determining the amount of hazardous
waste generated on-site as soon as the mineral spirits are
removed from the parts washer unit or after they remain in the
non-operating unit for
-------
9441.1986(46)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION *
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN 21986 OMKT.O,
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of Byproduct Material
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Waste Management Division
Region IV
In response to your memorandum of March 12, 1986, we have
outlined below how you and the State of South Carolina can proceed
with permitting and/or enforcement actions leading to issuance of
a RCRA permit at the Savannah River Plant (SRP).
Universe of Mixed Waste
EPA has seen and reviewed some of the waste stream booklets
prepared by DOE facilities. We reviewed the one for SRP several
years ago, but we understand that it was since revised. The
booklets do not provide definitive lists of wastes that are and
are not regulated under RCRA. They merely provide a starting
point for negotiating with the facility to determine which
wastes are regulated under RCRA.
The definition of "byproduct material" in the Atomic Energy
Act (AEA) does not explicitly resolve the question of which wastes
are, in their entirety, byproduct material, and are thus exempt
from RCRA, and which are mixtures of byproduct and hazardous
waste and are thus regulated under RCRA. The definition of
byproduct in 10 CFR 20*3 which you referenced in your memorandum
is merely a restatement of the statutory definition and, thus,
does not provide definitive guidance to determine which byproduct
wastes are -regulated and which are excluded.
DOE recently proposed a revised definition of byproduct
material (November 1, 1985, 50 FR 45736). The proposal did not
meet with favorable public comments and it is unlikely that they
will finalize the rule in the near future. The only way States
will be able to judge which waste streams at any DOE facility
should be regulated is to work directly with the facility to
make case-by-case decisions based on the AEA definition.
-------
- 2 -
However, EPA considers all mixed waste streams to be subject
to Federal regulation under RCRA. We would expect that-States
with the same radioactive waste exemption as EPA would also
include all mixed wastes in their regulatory universe. However,
until the States are authorized for mixed wastes, it is possible
that their interpretations of their statutes may differ from
EPA's interpretation of RCRA.
Use of RCRA Authorities
The Savannah River Plant should provide to the State of
South Carolina a permit application for all waste units regulated
under State law. Based on that information, the State should
proceed to process and issue a RCRA permit covering all RCRA-regu-
lated units at the facility. Units containing mixed wastes (or
suspected of containing mixed wastes) are currently not covered
under the authorized RCRA program in South Carolina. However,
if the State regulates mixed wastes under State law, units
containing such wastes may also be addressed within the State
permit.
The State should obtain security clearances, where
necessary, and use its full range of enforcement authorities
to gain access to the site and to require sampling and analysis
by the facility to determine whether units should be regulated.
Headquarters DOE has assured full cooperation in obtaining
security clearances for State personnel.
EPA can also use its HSWA authorities to supplement an auth-
orized State's authority over RCRA-regulated units. Under $3004(u),
EPA can jointly issue a permit with the State and impose corrective
action requirements on hazardous waste management units and solid
waste management units (SWMU's) at facilities that contain RCRA-
regulated units. Although mixed waste units are not RCRA-regulated
under authorized State RCRA programs, mixed waste will be considered
to be a "solid waste" for purposes of corrective action at solid
waste management units.
The Federal definition of "solid waste" is to be used in
determining what units are SWMU's, because State.definitions were
not scrutinized in evaluating applications for State authorization
(except as was necessary to assess the adequacy of the State's
universe of hazardous waste).* Because mixed waste is considered
a solid waste under the Federal RCRA program, units containing
mixed wastes are SWMU's and are subject to corrective action if
there is another unit requiring a RCRA permit at the facility.
* Therefore, in order to obtain authorization for corrective
action, States must obtain authorization for their definition
of solid waste, which may not exclude mixed waste.
-------
- 3 -
As noted earlier, a mixed waste unit is not a RCRA-regulated
unit in an- authorized State. Therefore, there must be a"t least
one non-mixed, hazardous waste unit at a facility in order for
EPA to subject mixed waste units to corrective action requirements
under §3004(u).
Similarly, EPA may issue an order under §3008(h) requiring
monitoring, investigation of releases and corrective action, but
the order can apply to mixed waste units only if there is one or
more unit subject to interim status requirements at the site.
Response to Specific Questions
In response to the three bullets and the three numbered
items on page 2 of your memorandum, we have the following
answers:
* If you suspect that Part B's have not been submitted
for all RCRA units, EPA and/or the State should take
immediate enforcement action. You and the State should
determine who should appropriately take enforcement
action. If there are mixed waste units in question,
EPA cannot enforce submission of the Part B's in an
authorized State. While EPA cannot issue penalties to
another Federal agency, the dispute resolution process
described in the revised Federal Facility Compliance
Strategy may be used.
* Review of the Part B submitted by SRP may provide you
and/or the State with sufficient information to make
such a determination. However, if it does not, then
EPA and/or the State should require SRP, through enforce-
ment action, to make such a determination through
sampling and analysis or whatever other method (e.g.,
application of knowledge of waste generation process)
may be appropriate.
' As stated earlier, the booklets only provide a starting
point for negotiations. EPA HO will not be reviewing
or approving the individual facility booklets.
1. The May 10 letter to DOE did not delegate any authority.
Therefore, it need not be withdrawn.
2. The AEA definition of byproduct is the only appropriate
and legally enforceable definition that can be used.
You should use that definition to make case-by-case
decisions, as described on page 1 of this memorandum.
3. There is no documentation available of the EPA review
of the SRP waste stream booklet.
-------
- 4 -
I hope this sufficiently clarifies your and the"State's
current authorities with respect to permitting and enforcement
actions you might take at SRP. We will continue to work with
you to resolve any remaining issues, and would appreciate
being kept informed about the progress you and the State of
South Carolina are making in resolving these issues with SRP.
cc: Jim Scarbrough, Region IV
Richard Campbell, Region IV
Joe Freedman/ CXJC
Tony Baney, OWPE
Peter Guerrero, OSW
RCRA Division Directors, Regions I-III, V-X (with incoming)
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-III, V-X (with incoming)
-------
9441.1986(47)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O C 20460
OC = 'C= Of
. SOLID WASTE -1N3 £MERC£scv aESPCN
Honorable Robert S. Walker
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Walker:
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 1986, on behalf of your
constituent, concerning his questions pertaining to three
chemicals which he uses in his trade as a painting contractor.
Specifically, he requests information on any federal regulations
relating to the disposal, sewage treatment, and neutralization
of methylene chloride, muriatic acid, and isocyanates, as well
as information on any health hazards associated with their use.
We are reading the first two chemicals in your letter to
be methylene chloride and muriatic acid. Methylene chloride
is used as a solvent and is a listed hazardous waste — EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F002. The listing includes the following
spent halogenated solvents: tetrachloroethylene, methylene
chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichlorothene, 1,1,2-tri-
chloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane,
ortho-dichlorobenzene, and trichlorofluoromethane. Unused methylene
chloride that is discarded is also defined as a hazardous waste.
Muriatic acid is also likely classified as a hazardous waste
based on its -corrosivity (i.e., it likely has a pH less than 2).
The third chemical/ isocyanates, is a class of chemicals; thus,
before we can respond to your request, we would need to know
specifically which compound or compounds your constituent is
using in order to address his concerns.
If your constituent generates more than 100 kilograms
(220 pounds) of methylene chloride, muriatic acid, or any other
hazardous waste in a calendar month at his place of work or
at individual work sites, he is classified as a hazardous
waste generator and thereby subject to the hazardous waste
regulations. New regulations were just promulgated for generators
of between 100 kilograms and 1000 kilograms per calendar month
of hazardous waste. (See enclosed brochure and Federal Register
notice. These requirements become effective on September 22,
1986.) If your constituent generates less than 100 kilograms of
waste in a calendar month, good disposal practice would dictate
that he use an off-site hazardous waste storage, treatment, or
-------
disposal -facility for his waste, although he may legally dispose
of such waste at any state approved solid waste facility.
Your constituent should contact the organization at the address
listed below for additional information pertaining to small
quantity generators.
Ms. Eleanor W. Winsor, Executive Vice-president
Pennsylvania Environmental Research Foundation
Mezzanine—Lewis Tower Building
225 South 15th Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
(215) 735-0966
With respect to the question relating to neutralization
of these chemicals, it is our opinion that it is not possible
for your constituent to neutralize methylene chloride at his
place of business. Muriatic acid, however, can be neutralized.
With respect to the potential health hazards associated
with methylene chloride and muriatic acid, he should be aware
that methylene chloride is a potential carcinogen. Muriatic
acid, on the other hand, while a corrosive chemical is not
highly toxic. For further information on the proper use and
storage of these chemicals in the workplace, he should
contact the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) at the address given below.
Dr. Janes Melius
NIOSH/DSHEFSS
Mail Stop R12
Rm 40A Ridge Bldg.
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati Ohio 45226
(513) 841-4428
I also strongly recommend that your constituent contact
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources at the
address listed below to discuss these issues in greater detail.
Depending on the specific nature of his business activities, he
may be subject to more stringent state regulations pertaining
to hazardous waste disposal.
-Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-6239
-------
Please feel free to write me if you have any further
questions.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
9441.1986(48)
June 10, 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Regulatory Interpretation Assistance
Request-Application of Mining Waste Exclusion
to a Ferroalloy Facility
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: David Wagoner, Director
Waste Management Division
Region VII
In your memorandum of May 13, 1986, you sought guidance on
the regulatory status of a ferroalloy facility and the wastes it
generates in the production of ferrosilicon (silvery iron). The
ferrosilicon alloy is produced by mixing quartzite ore,
metallurgical coal, and steel scrap in submerged arc electric
furnaces. Based on telephone conversations between our
respective staffs, I understand that steel scrap is the
predominant input. Wastes generated by this process are kish
reclaim system rejects, venturi scrubber sludge, and baghouse
dust. The scrubber sludge has been identified as being EP toxic
for lead.
The ferroalloy sector was included in the studies supporting
the reinterpretation of the mining waste exclusion. Most
ferroalloys are produced from various combinations of ores, metal
oxides, lime, and 'coke or other reducing agents. However,
ferrosilicon is made from scrap steel and quartzite in the
presence of metallurgical coal as the reducing agent.
As you know, the Bevill exclusion for mining waste only
applies to wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and minerals. The Agency has consistently
held that metal scrap is neither an ore nor a mineral.
Therefore, if the predominant input to the process is steel
scrap, the waste from the ferroalloy facility does not qualify
for the mining waste exclusion. This ferroalloy facility would
be in the same category as a secondary lead smelter, reclaiming
lead from old batteries, or other secondary processes; their
wastes are not excluded from regulation either. (In fact, there
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
are two listed hazardous wastes (K069 and K100) generated by
secondary lead smelters.)
As you also know, last October the Agency proposed to
reinterpret the mining waste exclusion as it applies to
processing wastes so only large-volume wastes would qualify for
the exclusion. Under this rulemaking, all ferroalloy facilities
using ore (rather than scrap) and generating hazardous waste
would become subject to the Subtitle C regulations because none
would qualify individually or collectively as generators of
large-volume processing wastes. Altogether, the 10 plants
producing ferrosilicon in 1984 generated about 18,000 metric tons
of slag; 36,000 metric tons of furnace emission control dust;
3,000 metric tons of product crushing and sizing emission control
dust; and unknown quantities of emission control sludge. The
sludge quantities are believed to be in the 3,000 - 36,000
tons/year range. It should be noted that the emission control
dust tested EP toxic for selenium at one ferrosilicon facility
(not at Keokuk).
In summary, it would appear that the facility in question is
currently subject to RCRA requirements. Its status will be
further clarified by promulgation of the final rule on the
reinterpretation of the mining waste exclusion.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITE: ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
JUN I 6 1986
Mr. G. N. Weinreich, P.E.
Environmental Manager
ANG Coal Gasification Co.
P.O. Box 1149
Beulah, North Dakota 58524
Dear Mr. Weinreich:
This is in response to your May 13, 1986, letter requesting
further clarification on the proper classification of residual
water that acquires a high pH from a waste that is exempt
from regulation. Like the precipitation run-otf discussed in
my letter of April 21, 1986, the residual water (which becomes
corrosive due to its contact with coal ash) is also exempt
from regulation pursuant to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) (i.e., since
the residual water is derived from an exempt waste, the
resulting corrosive water retains the exenpt status of the
waste) .
Please feel free to write me if I can be of any further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Kareia *. "I'V*"?
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
WH-562B/MSTRAUS/pes/475-8551/5-30-B6/Congresaional 0419
OSW-209 DUE DATE: 6/6/86
-------
9441.1986(51)
JUL 2 (986
Honorable John Paul Hammer sc hit id t
House of Reoresentatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Hammerschmidt:
Thank you for your May 27, 1986, inquiry on behalf of your
constituent, Mr. nean Dunaqan of Cove, Arkansas. The Agency is
unaware of any order issued in August of 1985 regarding the
hazards of used batteries. We can apprise you, however, of the
current Federal renulations affecting Mr. Dunagan's business of
rebuilding batteries for resale.
Used batteries are not specifically listed as hazardous
wastes. The Agency, however, considers them hazardous because
of the corrosive nature of the battery acid and their ability to
leak the toxic metal, lead. Nev-ertheless, the Agency also has
exempted used batteries that are regenerated from regulation
under the Federal hazardous waste rules. (See 40 CFR 261.6 (a)
(3)(ii)) Regeneration includes those activities where the electro-
lyte is drained and replaced or one or more bad cells are replaced.
Batteries that cannot be rebuilt and are sent to junk dealers
and battery manufacturers are considered hazardous but are also
exempted from regulation. The Agency has exempted these activities
frora regulation since they present minimal environmental risks.
With respect to the reference regarding the hazard of used
motor oil, the Agency did propose to list used oil as a hazardous
waste on November 29, 1985. However, the Agency has received
well over 600 comments, most of which opposed the listing of
used oil because it was too broad and would seriously impact the
recycling of used oil. Thus, until such time that the Agency is
able to fully evaluate all of the comments received, we will not
be in a position to make any final determinations on regulating
used oil.
If you have need of further assistance, nlease contact this
office.
Sincerely,
Porter
&r1"i8 n i g t rat-Hr
-------
UNITED S .$ ENVIRON** .JTAL PROTECTION A .Y
9441.1986(52)
Mr. Richard T. Boulware <**- *-
Vipont Botanical Laboratories
2403 E. Kivett Drive
High Point, North Caroline 27260
Dear Mr. Boulware:
This is in response to your May 27, 1986 letter, requesting
an interpretation of. the Federal hazardous waste rules as they
apply to the wastes to be generated in your extraction process.
As you state in your letter, this process uses the solvent
methylene chloride to recover alkaloids from plant matter.
The two wastes for which you request specific information on
are: (1) the solid cake remaining in the basket centrifuge,
and (2) the wastewater stream discharged to a POTW.
Solid Cake - I agree with your understanding that the
solid cake in the basket is not a listed hazardous waste,
namely, a spent solvent;—and would only be hazardous it
it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity); in addition, when the TCLP is
promulgated, you will also need to determine whether the
solid cake exhibits this characteristic.
Wastewater - This wastestream, as you state in your
letter and as we discussed on June 27, comes off the
centrifuge as a wastewater that contains methylene
chloride; the nethylene chloride is then stripped off to
be reclaimed while the wastewater is discharged to a
POTW. Under this scheme/ the wastewater also is not
considered a listed waste (nor does it contain a listed
waste). Therefore, this stream also would only be
hazardous if it exhibits any of the existing or future
hazardous waste characteristics.
Finally, although you did not request an interpretation
of the status of the spent methylene chloride under the
federal hazardous waste rules, you should be aware that the
spent methylene chloride that comes otf the liquid extractor
is considered a listed hazardous waste and may be subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. (See the Final Definition
-------
oi Solid.V.'astc Rulenakinq. 50 FR 614, January 4, 1*85 and
t'»«. Final Tank Rules that were" signed by the Administrator
on Juno 30, 1986, to determine the actual regulatory status
or the solvent spent roethylene chloride.)
Please feel tree to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chiet
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1986(53)
JH 3 1986
Mr. Nicholas J. Lardisri
Start Vico President
Environmental Resources
f.cott Pao«r Company
Scof.t Plaza
Philadelphia, PA 13113
Hoar Mr. Lardiori:
Thank you for your letter of May 30, 1086, requesting an
internretation of the application of tho hazardous waste
r^oulatory proqram under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) to rocyclable cloth wipers and disposable industrial
winors, rennoctively. As not»d in your letter, the Aaoncy r^akos
no roqulatory distinction between wipers which are disposed of
and wipers which are recycled.
Under the sxistinq rules, both disposable industrial wincrs
and cloth towels which are recycled are r«qulat
-------
-2-
Despite the accuracy of your interpretation of the RCRA
rules, however/ it should be noted that the manner in which the
waste is ultimately managed may greatly affect a hazardous waste
nenerator's potential lone ten* liabilities under Superfund. For
exanple, disposal of hazardous waste contaminated wipers in a
landfill may create more significant potential liabilities as a
practical matter than would incineration or recycling.
Finally, you may be interested to know that we arc currently
examining the larger issue of the appropriate regulatory ntatus
of wipers, whether disposable or recyclable, which are brouaht
into the hazardous waste regulatory system as a result of being
used to clean up a hazardous waste. Specifically, we are
considering whether the existing regulations, as they apply to
industrial wipers, result in the most effective and appropriate
regulatory outcome.
If I can be of any further assistance, plftaso do not
hesitate to contact either myself or Matt Straus, of my staff,
who may be reached at 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED S', S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC ,y 9441.1936(54)
5 1986
Mr. Groqory J. Harvoy
Industrial Hygenist
Occupational Medical Services
Air force Station, OH 43057-5000
Dear Mr. Harvey:
This letter is written in response to your request that
determine whether certain activated carbon canisters that are
saturated with spent solvents should be managed as hazardous
wastes under RCRA. More soecitically , these canisters ar* used
to collect vapors ot the solvents Freon 113, 1 ,1,1-trichloroethane/-
and roethylene chloride that are generated during their use as
c-iqreasing agents in paint spray booths.
As you are aware, the Agency has listed these compounds
as hazardous wastes when they are used as solvents and have
become contaminated with physical or chemical impurities and
are no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed,
or otherwise re-processed. Use as a solvent is detined as being
used tor their solvent properties, that is* to solubilize
(dissolve) or mobilize other constituents; this includes use as
a degreasing agent. (See 51 PR 6538, February 25, 1986.)
However, solvent vapor is not a solid waste (see Section
1004(27) ot the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, where
the term "solid waste" is defined to include, among other
things, contained gaseous material). Since these solvent
vapors are not contained, they are not defined as a solid or
hazardous waste. Furthermore, when the solvent vapor is
adsorbed onto activated carbon, it would not be covered by
the listing or by the mixture rule. Rather, these wastes"
would only be hazardous if they exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics. At this time, we do not know whether
these cannisters would be defined as hazardous. However, you
should be aware that on June 13, 1986, the Agency proposed a
new extraction procedure (TCLP) to be used in the toxicity
characteristic and also proposed to expand the toxicity
characteristic to include, among other constituents, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and raethylene chloride. (See enclosure.)
Should this rule become final in its present form, your
-------
_ (Pee enclosure.) Should thin rule become final in: its
present forr, your spent activated carbon ray exhibit the
characteristic of toxicity, if the canisters are not already
hazardous for some other reason.
In sunnary, the subject waste is not currently a listed
hazardous waste under RCRA an* voul^ only be hazardous if it
exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste; however,
this waste nay soon be subject to the regulation as hazardous,
if it is not already hazardous, due to the toxicity characteristic.
Since you recognize that these canisters nay pose a substantial
present or potential threat to human health or the environment,
I urge you to Manage then appropriately.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENviRONMtNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1986(55)
JUL 16 1986
Clayton Yeutter
The United States Trade
Representative
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Mr. Yeutter:
Thank you very much for your June 20, 1986fietter exoressing
concern about the impacts of potential mining waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Speci-
fically, you requested that the Agency very carefully examine
the effects such regulations might have on the competitiveness
of the U.S. mining industry.
As vou may know, I have determined that regulation of
mining waste under the Subtitle C (hazardous waste management)
provisions of RCRA is not warranted at this time. .The deter-
mination of June 30, 1986, published July 3, 1986/"'(copy
enclosed) imposes no immediate requirements on industry.
The Agency plans to develop criteria for mine waste
sites through a State-administered program under Subtitle D
(solid wastft management) of PCRA. The Agency will work closely
with mining States, mining associations, and other interested
groups in the development of these criteria. EPA will avoid
duplicating existing regulations and will analyze costs,
impacts, and benefits* complying fully with Executive Orders
12291 and 12498 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
I can assure you that the Agency is aware of the
economic conditions prevailing in many sectors of the U.S.
mining industry and will strive to develop the least burden-
some program possible that will adequately protect human
health and the environment.
Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely,
M* Xbo&aa
-------
UNITED ST .0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC ,f „, 1QQC/C,,
9 441.19 oo(5o/
JUl 2 8 1985
Mr. Robert D. Westbrook
Westbrook and Williams, Inc.
402 N. 3rd Street
Sterling, Colorado 80751
Dear Mr. Westbrook:
This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1986,
in which you request that I confirm that your recycling
business (i.e., the purchasing of used junk lead-acid batteries
tor recharge and resale as a reconditioned battery) is
currently exempt from the federal hazardous waste rules.
First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in
responding to your request; I hope this delay has not caused
you any problems.
*
With respect to your specific request, I agree that the
way you regenerate used batteries is exempt from the federal
hazardous waste rules (see S261.6(a)(3)(ii)).!/ The Agency
believes that this practice presents minimal environmental
risk and is very similar to the reclamation of commercial
chemical products, an activity not currently regulated.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
I/ It should -be noted that this regulatory interpretation
reflects the federal hazardous waste rules. The State of
Colorado may take a different interpretation under their
regulations.
EPA Form U2C-I (12.70)
-------
9441.1986(57)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 86
6. Spent Solvents
A company uses methylene chloride to remove varnish fron pieces of
equipment. The varnish is stripped off in clumps and is collected
in a container with the methylene chloride. The clumps of varnish
are removed from the methylene chloride, and the methylene chloride
is used again for more stripping. Would the clumps of varnish be a
hazardous waste when disposed?
V*ien methylene chloride is used as a solvent/stripper and
becomes spent through use, then it is a listed hazardous waste,
F002 (§261.31). fohen the clumps are removed fron the methyleno
chloride (F002), they become a new solid waste. If intended
for disposal, the clumps would be considered F002 because of
the "derived from rule" in $261.3(c)(2)(i), which states that
any solid waste generated from the treatment of a hazardous
waste is still a hazardous waste. Once the clumps are removed,
the once-spent methylene chloride would then be reclaimed ami
would no longer be regulated as POO2.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Jim Ginley
-------
9441.1986(58)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 86
1. Treatment Studies and Permits
A generator of hazardous waste would like to send hazardous waste
samples to a facility that will perform innovative treatment studies
on the samples. These "treatability studies" involve investigating
new methods or techniques to change the physical, chemical, or
biological character or composition of the waste and render the
waste less hazardous, or non-hazardous. Vhat regulations frust a
facility comply with if the facility accepts hazardous waste samples
for treatability studies and the facility uses technology for which
Parts 264, 265 and 266 standards have not been promulgated to date?
On September 25, 1981 (46 FR 47426), EPA excluded samples of
hazardous waste from RCRA regulations in Parts 262-270 when
stored, transported and tested for hazardous waste characteristics
or composition. This lab sanple exclusion is codified as
5261.4(d). Samples of hazardous waste collected for "treatability
studies" are not included in the S261.4(d) lab sample exclusion.
Therefore, "treatability studies" are subject to PCM. interim
status or permit standards in Parts 264, 265, 266 and 270.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) added
Section 3005(g) to provide EPA the authority to issue research,
development and demonstration (RO&D) permits for treatment
activities. The purpose of RDiD permits is to authorize
experimental testing of new hazardous waste treatment technologies
or processes. This new authority has been codified in 40 CFR
$270.65 (50 FR 28752, July 15, 1985). The statute and $270.65(a)
authorize EPA to issue permits for innovative and experimental
hazardous waste treatment technology or process activities,
including those which are not yet subject to RCRA Parts 264.
The EPA is developing Part 264 permit standards for miscellaneous
units (Subpart X) and experimental facilities (Subpart Y). The
Subpart X regulations will provide permit authority for units
that are currently not regulated in 40 CFR Parts 146 and 264.
These units include deep mines/ silos, salt mines, thermal
treatment units and open detonation units. The Subpart Y
regulations may replace $270.65 authority and will provide
permit standards for experimental facilities. Proposed regulations
for Subpart X are scheduled for publication in the federal
Register by the Fall of 1986; Subpart Y is expected to be
proposed at a later date.
Source: Ken Gray, Office of General Counsel (202) 382-7700
Research: Caroline Dane*
-------
9441.1986(59)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 86
5. Regulation of Sludges When Reclaimed
Why are some RCRA sludges considered solid wastes and others are
not solid wastes when reclaimed?
To be subject to RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction, a material must
meet the regulatory definition of a solid waste. Sludges are
defined in RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 260.10 as residues from
treating air or wastewater, or other residues from pollution
control devices. 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3) defines sludges which are
listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or 261.32 as solid wastes when reclaimed,
and states that unlisted sludges that are reclaimed are not
solid wastes even if they exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous
waste, provided they are not being accumulated speculatively.
The EPA has structured the regulations so that the EPA must
evaluate sludges individually before determining whether they
are subject to RCRA jurisdiction when reclaimed (see 50 FR 619,
January 4, 1985). The definition of solid waste is limited to
listed sludges to avoid including sludges that are routinely
processed to recover useable products as part of ongoing production
operations. The October 2, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 40297)
states that: "Nevertheless, sludges can be listed and thus be
solid wastes if they are more waste-like than product-like. EPA
will make this determination on a material-by-material basis
considering:
1) How frequently the material is recycled on an industry-
wide basis,
2) Whether the material is replacing a raw material and the
degree to which it is similar in composition to the raw
material,
3) Tne relation of the recovery practice to the principle
activity of the facility, and
4) Whether the secondary material is managed in a way designed
to minimize loss."
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Kevin Weiss
-------
. > .- co i iKurtfrtcf* i AL rKGitw
9441.1986(61)
AUG I 8 1986
Mr. Randall F. Andrews
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
Route 2
Box 521-C
Red Springs/ North Carolina 28377
Dear Mr. Andrews:
This is in response to your letter of May 27, 1986,
regarding the regulatory status of the spent pickle liquor
that your company picks up and processes at your facility.
First, I would like to apologize for my delay in getting back
to you; I hope this has not caused you any problems. With
respect to your specific reguest, I agree with Ms. Kneller
and Brock of the RCRA/Superfund Hotline that the spent pickle
liquor that is processed at your facility is not a solid-and
.hazardous waste. In particular, the processing of the spent
pickle liquor that occurs at your facility does not constitute
reclamation, as that term is defined in the hazardous waste
regulations. Rather, the spent pickle liquor is being
used/reused (as defined in 40 CPR 261.1(c)(5)) and, therefore,
is not a solid waste (provided it is not speculatively
accumulated) and is not subject to the hazardous waste rule.I,/
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; ray telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
I/ It should be noted that this regulatory interpretation
reflects the Federal hazardous waste rules. The State
*ji. UOt Lli C&Lvjl Ilia may ^-"•"SfbNPurfKrKCty L yn'- Interpretation;
ut
(ti5 tor urter nnor"rnac.on|.
-------
UNITSr 'ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOh -ENCY
9441.1986(62)
ALJ6 i 9 086
*
-------
leads to .an industrial wastewater treatment plant that handles
1.8 million gallons a day. You have stated that your biological
treataent plant biodegrades the alcohol prior to discharge.
The following are specific responses to the questions in
your letters:
Issues from the July 19, 1985 letter
(A) Does the dilution of noncorrosive, unlisted, characteristic
hazardous waste to a nonhaxardous condition constitute
hasardous waste treatment if the dilution occurs in a sewer
line leading to an industrial wastswater treatment plant
after the waste is poured to the drain from a container?
Treatment is defined in $260.10 as "...designed to change
the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of
any hazardous waste...to render such waste nonhazardous* or less
hasardousi safer to transport, store* or dispose of...." Pouring.
the 50% water/50% alcohol ignitable waste down the drain renders
the waste nonhaxardous by the time it reaches the treatment
plant* In this case, pipes are designed and used to convey, not
treat, wastes to the biological treataent plant that degrades the
alcohol. Thus, the dilution is incidental to the transport of
the waste to the waste water treatment plant where treatment takes
place. Therefore, in this case the dilution is not treatment;
and, if properly handled, this practice can be environmentally
more acceptable than storing drums of the ignitable waste for
off-site treatment or recycling.
(B) If the answer to (A) is "yes" (dilution is treatment), does
the sever line in which the waste is treated serve as (1) a
•wastewater treatment unit;* (2) a "totally enclosed treatment
facility;* or (3) any other type of exempt hazardous waste
treatment facility?
Since dilution is not considered to be treataent when the
characteristic waste is diluted while being conveyed to acceptable
treatment, these questions are not applicable. Furthermore, once
the waste stream is so dilute as to be rendered nonhazardous,
treatment of the nonhazardous waste stream that occurs in the
wastewater treatment plant is not subject to RCRA regulations.
(C) If the answer to (A) is "yes" (diluting characteristic waste
in a sewer line is treatment), and there is no exemption for
tne treatment in (B), what provisions of 40 CFR 264 and 265
govern tne pipeline treatnent?
Tne c;jestion is not appiicaolo for the reasons explained
a.^ove.
-------
(D) If the waste is diluted in the sink prior to discharge down
the drain, is the sink a "wastewater treatment unit?"
If hazardous waste is diluted in the sink, it is hazardous
waste treatment, since the dilution is intentional, rather than
merely incidental to conveyance to the treatment plant. Inten-
tional dilution of waste prior to discharge to decrease its
incompatibility, ignitability, reactivity, etc., in th* pipelines
constitutes treatment.
Since your 50% water/50% alcohol waste is not a wastewater
by our guidance of a few percent contaminants (see the February 2,
1982, notice, 47 PR 4707), the sink is not a wastewater treatment
unit.
Issues from the August 26, 1985, letter
(A) If corrosive hazardous waste from water deionixation units
travels through an open channel within the building to the
sewer leading to an industrial wastewater treatment plant,
does the neutralization of that wast* in the sewer mean
that the sewer is: (1) a totally enclosed treatment facility;
(2) an elementary neutralization unit; or (3) a wastewater
treatment unit? (4) Does the answer change if the channel
is enclosed?
(1) No. An open sewer is not totally enclosed on all sides
in accordance with Agency guidance.
The issue you raise is whether or not an open sewer in a
building can be a totally enclosed treatment facility. Spills
within the building can release hazardous constituents into the
air or cause a release that leaves the confines of the building.
Therefore, systems that can release hazardous constituents
within buildings are not considered totally enclosed.
(2) Tanks are defined in $260.10 as* "* stationary device
designed to contain an accumulation of hazardous waste which is
constructed primarily of non-earthen materials...which provide
structural support." According to the preamble of the proposed
pernit-by-rule in the November 17, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR
76078), the elementary neutralization unit "...is intended to
include. . .tanks as well as devices such as flumes, gutters,
throuqhs [sicj and oipes which are not commonly considered to
b» tanks, nut which nevertheless meet the exnansive definition
o* tank in ;?6P.ln." Although this preamble Iviuage was only
inc1ude^ in tho nronos-^J nomit-bv-rule regulations, the Acency
i? apnlyina this; infrpratat ion of tank to th? exclusions in
Sf.2fi5.HO (10) , 264. J(rr)(G), *'id 270. 1 (C ) ( 2) (v ) as well.
-------
From*the information you provided, the sewer qualifies for
the elementary neutralization unit exclusion. The in-line neu-
tralization system adds caustic to wastes that are only hazardous
on the basis of corrosivity, and it meets the definition of an
elementary neutralization -lit (as defined in $260.10) for the
reasons described above. _n this case, neutralization is treat-
ment rather than dilution incidental to the transport of waste as
described in the July 19, 1985 letter.
Although the open channel is upstream of the neutralization,
the channel is not subject to RCRA regulation as a tank, because
it is part of the neutralization system. Elementary neutraliza-
tion units may consist of a series of tanks, just as wastewater
treatments may involve a series of connected tanks.
(3) The sewer is possibly a wastewater treatment unit if
it meets the three criteria outlined in 40 CFR $260.10. First/
the waste is a wastewater for RCRA purposes (i.e., contains at
roost a few percent materials other than water, 47 PR 4707). You
said that the corrosive waste is 95% water and 5% total dissolved
solids/ so the corrosive waste appears to meet the Federal cri-
teria of a wastewater for the RCRA wastewater treatment exclusion.
Second/ the facility is subject to control under Section 402 or
307(b) of the Clean Water Act. And third/ the units meet the
definition of tank in $260.10. For the purposes of the exclusion/
the pipes are tank like for the same reason that pipes can be part
of an elementary neutralization unit. Since Mississippi has
jurisdiction over your facility/ you must ask the State if your
facility is eligible for a wastewater treatment exclusion.
(4) Enclosing the channel would possibly change the answer
to (I)/ i.e./ whether or not it is a totally enclosed treatment
facility. However/ enclosing the channel may not be sufficient
to create a totally enclosed treatment facility unless you
comply with the enclosed guidance and any additional guidelines
from the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources.
(B) If the corrosive hazardous waste in (A) is piped directly
from the deionization units to an enclosed tank where it
is pretreated to brinq the pH near, but not to, the non-
hazardous ranne and tnpn discharged via pipe to the sewer
for final neutralization by dilution with wastewater, does
the p_ipino, tank, and sewer constitute a totally enclosed
treatment facility?
Possioly. The :'.ississippi Department of natural Resources
woulu have to review tne details or design and operation of tne
syste-n to coi'.ciuce ciiat it -.toes neot their criteria tor totally
Sfj treatment•
-------
According to further discussions you had with ay staff, the
corrosive waste from the deionization units will for the short
terra be managed according to scenario "A" in your August 26,
1985, letter/ which meets the EPA criteria for either elementary
neutralization or wastewater treatment* (However, the facility
is subject to State regulation.) Por the purposes of determining
the applicability of the small quantity generator exclusion of
5261.5, our regulatory approach does not count waste until it is
subject to regulation. The waste is not subject to regulation
in the deionization unit in which it was generated according to
$261. 4(c) nor in the exempted neutralisation process. Since
there is no hatardous waste leaving the sewer, the corrosive
waste from the deionisation unit is not counted towards the waste
exceeding 1,000 Kg a month. This policy is explicitly outlined
in the $261. 5(c) small quantity generator regulations promulgated
March 24, 1986 (56 PR 10174).
The additional information you provided by telephone leaves
serious questions about whether you can design a totally enclosed
systae and still meet your Pood and Drug Administration require-
ments. However, scenario "B" still qualifies as an elementary
neutralisation unit and, as explained above, the corrosive waste
does not count towards the small quantity generator limits,
because the waste nas not yet become subject to regulation. In-
other words, you do not have to be a totally enclosed treatment
facility in order to qualify for small quantity generator status.
I appreciate your patience for the length of time it too*
EPA to address the policy issues raised by your request. Please
address any questions on this response to Irene Borner of my
staff at (202) 382-7917.
Sincerely,
John P. Lehman
Director
Waste Management and
Economics Division
Enclosure
cc: James Scarbrouqh, Region IV
Jack McMillan, Mississippi DNK
-------
9441.1986(64)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 86
6. SQG Quantity Determinations
The new small quantity generator (SQG) regulations, effective
Septentoer 22, 1986, establish standards under 40 CFR 261.5(c)
and (d) for counting hazardous waste generated on a monthly
basis. 40 CFR 261.5(d)(3) states that an SQG need not include
spent materials that have been reclaimed and subsequently reused
on-site in the quantity determination, provided they have already
been counted once. The regulation does not specify, however,
Aether this allowance applies only within a month or applies
to all waste counting. For exanple, if an SQG counts and
reclaims a solvent on-site in October and uses it again in
November, must the SQG include the spent solvent in the
quantity determination for Novenber?
Yes; the SOG must include the reused material in the quantity
determination for the subsequent month, assuming that it becomes
a spent material, and hence, a hazardous waste again in November.
All counting occurs on a month-to-month basis, so the "multiple
counting" exemption only applies within one month. Therefore,
a SQG would only count a material once if the SQG reclaim and
reuses it more than once within one month. In addition, the SQG
should note the allowance in 40 CFR 261.5(c) (51 FR 10174) which
excludes from monthly counting wastes that are subject only to
waste identification, RCRA §3010 notification, recordkeeping and
biennial report requirements. The SQG nust count wastes that are
subject to the rest of Ifcrt 262 (manifesting, on-site accumulation,
exports), §261.6(b) or (c), or Part 266 Subparts C, D, or F.
Source: Bob Axelrad (202) 382-4769
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1986(65)
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP 31986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Ernest J. Corrado
Vice President
American Institute of Merchant Shipping
1000 16th Street, N.W., Suite 511
Washington, D.C., 20036
Dear Mr. Corrado:
Thank you for your August 6, 1986, letter in which you set
forth the maritime industry legal analysis on the application of
the Resource Conservation and Reovery Act (RCRA) regulations to
vessel wastes. While I do not agree with a number of the conclu-
sions you have drawn regarding Congress1 intent to limit RCRA
jurisdiction to land disposal, I do agree that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) did in fact promulgate an exemption from
RCRA regulation for raw material and product transport vessels.
In my February 5, 1986 letter to Vice Admiral Rots of"the
Coast Guard, we concluded that different types of wastes.generated
in vessels were regulated differently under the hazardous waste
rules. This conclusion was based on the intent underlying EPA's
exemption of hazardous waste generated in product or raw material
transport vessels until the waste is purposely removed from the
vessel. 40 CFR S 261.4(c). We believe that the exemption was
intended to cover only those hazardous sediments and residues
produced in the units containing valuable product or raw material.
As articulated in the preamble to the rule, EPA judged that:
[Tlhese hazardous wastes are contained against
release into the environment . . . and the risks
they pose to human health or the environment
are very low and are only incidental to the
risks posed by the valuable product or raw
material with which they are associated (emphasis
added).45 Fed. Reg. 72024,72025 (Oct. 30, 1980).
Sine* wastes generated on other parts of the ship,
including engine room wastes, are not directly associated with
the storage or transport of valuable product, we did not deem any
other hazardous wastes generated aboard the ship to be covered
by the S 261.4 exemption. However, as a result of the points
that you raised in the June 6, 1986 meeting with members of my
staff, we have taken another look at this issue.
-------
The language of $ 261.4(c) refers to hazardous waste
generated in a product or raw material transport vessel as being
exempted, rather than the product-containing unit itself. EPA
defined the term "vessel" in S 260.10 to include "every descriotion
of watercraft....," which describes the whole vessel rather than
any particular tank or unit in the vessel. Thus, we believe that
there is a regulatory basis for considering all waste generated
in the vessel to be exempt from regulation until it is purposely
removed. In addition, we understand that the regulated community
has relied on this broader view of the exemption since 1980. Given
the fact that there has been substantial reliance for some time
on a legitimate, although unintended, reading of the regulatory
language, we have become convinced that it is reasonable to view
the exemption as extending to all hazardous waste management
activity on the product or raw material transport vessel. However,
as specified in $ 261.4(c), all hazardous wastes generated in the
vessel become subject to RCRA regulation as soon as the waste is
removed from the vessel (anywhere within U.S. waters) or within
90 days after the vessel is no longer operated as a product or
raw material storage or transport vessel.
Therefore, when any hazardous waste is removed from the
vessel, the owner of the product or raw material, the operator of
the vessel, and the person purposefully removing th*e hazardous
waste from the vessel would all be considered."generators", as
defined in 5 260.10 of the regulations. Any of those parties
deemed to be a "generator" of the waste, therefore, could perform
any or all of the duties of the generator. As EPA pointed out in
the October 30, 1980 preamble to the rule, the Agency would look
initially to the operator of a central facility operated to
remove sediments and residues from the vessel to perform the
generator duties, which includes obtaining an EPA identification
number. Of course, this should not be construed as requiring a
central facility or terminal to remove hazardous waste from a
vessel. In situations where hazardous wastes generated in the
vessel are not removed at a central facility, the Agency would
look to the vessel operator to perform the generator duties. See
45 Fed. Reg. at 72027.
While we have some concern that the literal reading of
$ 261.4(c) exempts from regulation some hazardous wastes that
Were not intended to be exempt when EPA promulgated the regulatory
amendment (i.e., waste generated aboard vessels in other, than
product or*av material cargo tanks), we believe that such a
literal reading of $ 261.4(c) poses low risk to human health
and the environment for several reasons. First, as indicated in
the February 5 letter, we do not believe that generation of
hazardous wastes in units not related to product or raw material
storage or transportation, such as bilges, to be a serious problem
while aboard the vessel since the ship itself is designed
to prevent leaks. Second, to the extent that oily residues from
propulsion systems are not contaminated with listed wastes, such
as spent solvents, the oily wastewater now required to be discharged
-------
to shoreside reception facilities under MARPOL would not meet the
definition of hazardous waste. ^/ Finally, as noted above, any
hazardous wastes generated in oroduct or raw material transport
vessels are subject to RCRA when they are discharged from or:
otherwise exit, the vessel. Thus releases to the environment
would still be regulated under RCRA.
I hone that this has been responsive to your concerns.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further
questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
*/ As you correctly point out, EPA has proposed to list used
oil as a hazardous waste; however, EPA is reconsidering the
entire used oil issue. Should the Agency move forward in finalizing
rules in this area, those rules would take into consideration the
special problems of shipboard wastes.
-------
3441.1986(67)
I t* \
%* ^_rt<*
UN iD b ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP 81985
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Frank H. Murkowski Re: File 115579
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Murkowski:
Thank you for your August 8, 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent, Mr. George Kelly, regarding the potential
impact of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regu-
lations on the dry-cleaning industry.
Unfortunately, the article which Mr. Kelly enclosed
provided an incorrect explanation of our Small Quantity
Generator (SQG) rule issued under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA rules actually require
dry cleaning hazardous wastes to be counted for purposes of
determining a dry cleaner's regulatory status only when
they are physically removed from the dry cleaning process
as wastes.
The two types of hazardous wastes typically generated
by dry cleaners are filter cartridges containing listed
spent solvents and still bottoms from solvent reclamation.
Under our counting rules, these wastes are only counted as
hazardous waste when they are removed from the dry cleaning
process for subsequent management, including accumulation,
transportation, treatment, or disposal. Under no circumstances
are these materials regulated under the hazardous waste
rules while they are in the dry cleaning machine.
The.so-called single counting system referred to in
the article actually simplified the counting of hazardous
waste by eliminating the need to count the same waste more
than once in a calendar month. It is intended to apply to
regulated materials which are used and reused over and over
during a .calendar month. However, this rule only comes
into play if the hazardous waste is subject to counting.
Since the solvents in the dry cleaning machine are not
considered to be solid or hazardous wastes while part of a
closed loop reclamation process (see 51 Federal Register
25422, July 14, 1986), they are not subject to counting
while in the dry cleaning machine. However, when the spent
-------
-2-
solvents contained in filter cartridges are removed from
the dry-cleaning machine, they are no longer exempt from
regulation. The still bottoms from solvent reclamation,
while solid and hazardous wastes, are not required to be
counted until they exit the unit and become subject to
substantive regulation (see 51 Federal Register 10152,
March 24, 1986 and 40 CFR 261. 5(c) ) .
I trust that this explanation will clarify the confusion
that exists over the article that Mr. Kelly attached. For
additional information, I have enclosed a copy of a handbook
we have developed for small businesses to help them comply
with the new statutorily mandated regulations for small
quantity generators. Should Mr. Kelly have any additional
questions on the hazardous waste regulations, he should
feel free to contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, at (202)
382-4761. If I can be of further assistance, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
9441.1986(68)
Mr. Carl E.
tx«cutive vic'r-President
Frit Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 850
Ozark, Alabama 363-0850
Dear Mr. Schauble.
Thank you for your letter of May 12, 1986, regarding the
regulatory status of commercial fertilisers that contain
emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel
in electric furnaces (EPA Hazardous Waste No. KO&61) under the
Federal hazardous waste rules.
As you are aware, the Agency received a similar request
from The fertiliser Institute (TPI). In response to that
request, a letter was sent to Mr. Gary Meyer (a copy of which
is enclosed) which indicates that sine micronutrient fertilisers
(i.e., those in which the sine flue dust has been reacted
with sulfuric acid, granulated, and sised) are exempt from
regulation under the Federal hazardous waste provided they
are being produced for the general public's use and provided
this material is handled in a manner commensurate with: the
management of sine fertilisers (see enclosure for specifics).
Therefor*, if the fertiliser you produce is reacted with the
sulfuric acid, granulated, and slsed, and if it is produced
for the general public's use, it is exempt from the federal
hazardous waste regulations.
Please feel tree to call Matt Straus, ot my staff, if
you have any further questions; Mr. Straus can be reached at
(202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia £. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9441.1986(69)
/ ^r- 3 UNITED STATES t^ .IRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*_ ^JV^ r WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20460
r. •>**
SOLID WASTE AND EM6«GENC" "ESPQNSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Wood Treatnent Cylinder
Creosote Surps
FROM: Garcia Williair.s, Director . • ,.
Office of Solid Waste _
TO: Patrick M. Tobin, Director
Waste Management Division, Region IV
Your memorandum of July 9 requests a determination of
the RCRA regulatory status of underground sumps which collect
waste creosote from production pipelines and treatment cylin-
ders .at wood treatment facilities. Based on our understanding
of the case presented, and after discussions with your staff,
we offer the following guidance.
As we understand the sump described in your Memo, it is
routinely used to collect drippage, leakage, or other spillage
of creosote from wood treatment cylinders and associated
piping, and the material is not collected for recycling. The
creosote appears to qualify as a solid wast* as defined in sec
tion 261.2(a)(2) as, among other things, any material which
is discarded by being abandoned. Section 261.2(b)(3) defines
abandoned material as that being accumulated, stored, or
treated (but not recycled) before or in lieu of being disposed
of, burned or incinerated. Since the creosote is not
a hazardous waste, the surop would not be a unit requiring
interim status or a permit.
From the description provided in your memorandum, it
appears that the sump in question is a discernible unit
(presumably a tank) in which solid wastes have been managed.
As such, the sump would be considered a solid waste management
unit (SWMU) for purposes of implementing corrective action
under RCRA §3004(u) or §3008(h). (See the discussion of SWMUs
at 50 FR 28712, July 15, 1985.)
-------
-2-
Please be aware/ if you are not already, that the Agency is
currently developing a proposed regulation (expected to 5e
published in tne Federal Register in the spring of 1987) which
may list as hazardous wastes certain wood preservation and
treatment wastes. Such a listing may affect the regulatory
status of the sump in question. (For additional information
contact Dr. Gate Jenkins at FTS 382-4786.) In addition, you nay
also wish to review a draft memorandum entitled "RCRA Regulatory
Interpretation Assistance Request - Cleanup of Residues of
Commercial Chemical Products Within a Warehouse Storage Area,"
which was circulated to the Regions for review on June 3, and
which deals with issues related to those posed in your memorandum.
The recent decision by Judge Yost in In re Brown Wood
Preserving Co., Inc. (RCRA-84-16-R) does not require EPA to
publish this memorandum. That decision takes the position
that the Administrative Procedure Act requires the Agency to
publish policy memoranda and interpretive statements that set
out new rules or substantially modify existing rules. This
memorandum merely offers an opinion as to whether the facts you
have outlined for this facility fit the existing definitions of
"solid waste," "hazardous waste," and "solid waste management
units." It does not establish a general policy of treating all
process sumps at wood preserving facilities as "solid waste
management units." Nor does it create or change any other
rule or policy.
I appreciate that we need, to be careful to go through
notice and comment on decisions that might be interpreted as
expanding regulatory controls beyond what is evident from
existing rules or statutory language. For example/ if we list
certain wood preservation wastes we may want to discuss in the
Federal Register the regulatory status of areas in which en-
vironmental releases from treated wood are routine and expected.
However* publishing statements of general policy would
not solve th« entire problem presented in the Brown case. The
Regions also need to ensure that the facts of each case show a
violation of the statute or regulations. Complicated scientific
or technical issues may require you to use experts to present or
explain the evidence.
Applying these ideas to the facility described in your memo-
randum/ to regulate the sump as a SWMU you would have to collect
facts demonstrating, for example, that the creosote in the sumps
-------
-3-
was in fact "di scardei, " and that the surrp is a "discrete" un:
This re.^or an dun cannot s-fcstitute for fim factual evidence
concerning the specific facility at issue.
If you have additional questions, please contact
Michele Anders at FTS 332-4534.
cc: Gene Lucero, OWPE
Attachment
-------
9441.1986(72)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
SEP I 5 1986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Ed Herschler
Governor
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
Dear Mr. Herschler:
Lee Thomas has asked me to respond to your letter of August 14,
1986, in which you welcomed our decision to regulate mine waste a's
non-hazardous but expressed concern that a Federal program for mine
waste would not recognize and encourage State programs.
I can assure you that EPA is strongly committed to the
development of a Federal program that will reinforce and support
State programs where necessary, not duplicate them. I plan to
work closely with representatives of all major mining States to
draw upon their experience with the regulation of mine waste.
EPA may also be able to help transfer information on successful
State approaches from one State to another.
Tharik you very much for sharing your views with us. I look
forward to close cooperation with the States in the development of
a reasonable and efficient program for non-coal mine waste that
protects public health and the environment.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9441.1986(73)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
__ ~ OFFICE Of
SuP ^ 5 l^KLf* SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Truck or Rail Shipment of Hazardous Wastes to A POTV?
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director rv^ '-<--
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste branch, Region V
This memo is in response to your September 8, 1986 request
for clarification of the POTW exemption in 40 CFR $261. 4(a) (1) ( ii) .
As you correctly note in your memo, materials which are
directly mixed with domestic sewage that pa&ses through a
sewer system to a publicly owned treatment system for treatment
is neither a solid waste nor a hazardous waste. Whether or
not the material would otherwise be a "listed" or "characteristic"
hazardous waste under other circumstances, however, makes no
practical difference. In addition, the POTW exemption has
no bearing on whether or not the POTW treatment residues are
considered hazardous waste by virtue of exhibiting a characteristic.
The POTW exemption is, in fact, limited to the specific
conditions of 261. 4(a) (1) (ii) . Therefore, the exemption only
applies to the actual mixture of domestic sewage and other materials
while they are in the sewer system. Consequently, any activities
occurring prior to the actual introduction of the material
to the sewer system is not covered by the exemption. In
particular, any material that is either listed in Part 261,
Subpart D or which exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste
and which is accumulated, transported, or managed via any other
regulated activity prior to introduction into the sewer •
system, would still be subject to regulation as a solid and
hazardous waste.
As you know, the accumulation of hazardous waste on-site
in tanks or containers is regulated under $262.34. Accumulation
in other types of units is considered storage subject to
permitting. To the extent that any hazardous waste is
accumulated or otherwise s'tored prior to transportation to a
POTW, it would be regulated exactly as if it was eventually
to be, for example, landfilled or incinerated. Similarly,
the transportation of any hazardous waste is regulated under
Part 253, regardless of the destination. Therefore, a facility
-------
which generates a hazardous waste and which subsequently
ships the waste to a POTW for treatment must comply with all
appropriate accumulation and transportation requirements,
including appropriate use of the manifest system. Since under
§270.60(c), a POTW is deemed to have a RCRA permit provided
they comply with a limited set of requirements, including
notification and compliance with the manifest system, we see no
regulatory obstacle to a facility shipping its waste to a
POTW for subsequent management.
I hope this interpretation is responsive to your concerns.
If you have any further questions on the issue, please feel
free to contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, on FTS 382-4769.
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs
Regions I-IV and VI-X
-------
9441.1986(74)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARi
SEPTEMBER 86
1. Hazardous Wastes Listed Solely for Subpart C Characteristics
Certain listed hazardous wastes (e.g., F003, K044, K045, and K047)
are listed solely because they exhibit a characteristic specified in
40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. The Subpart C hazardous waste characteristics
are ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and EP toxicity.
(a) If analysis indicates that a mixture of one or more of these
listed wastes with a non-hazardous solid waste does not exhibit a
Sub part C characteristic, can the mixture be managed as a non-hazardous,
solid waste based on language in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)? 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iii) states that a mixture of a solid waste and a hazardous
waste that is listed in Subpart D solely because it exhibits a Subpart C
characteristic is a hazardous waste unless the resultant mixture of
a solid waste and a hazardous waste no longer exhibits any characteristic
of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C.
(b) Is the resultant mixture subject to the delisting requirements
of 40 CFR 260.22(c)? 40 CFR 260.22(c)(2) requires that the EPA
determine whether additional factors (including additional hazardous
constituents listed in Part 261 Appendix VIII) other than those for
which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous
waste.
(c) If a waste which is listed solely because of a characteristic
dilute when generated that it does not exhibit a subpart C
characteristic, can it be managed as a non-hazardous waste based on
40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) or is it subject to the delisting requirements
of 40 CFR 260.22(c).
(a) Yes; the mixture of a non-hazardous solid waste with a listed
hazardous waste, listed solely for a Subpart C characteristic,
is not regulated as a hazardous waste if the resultant mixture
does not exhibit any Subpart C characteristic.
(b) No? the more stringent delisting criteria of 40 CFR 260.22(c) (2)
do not apply to mixtures of solid and hazardous wastes where 40
CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) applies.
(c) The dilute waste is subject to the delisting requirements
of 40 CFR 260.22(c).
Source: Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7706
Research: Betty Wilson
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1986(76}
— - - -
3 -:c
Honorable John Glenn
United States Senate
Uashinqton, D.C. 20510
near Senator Glenn:
Thank you for your September 8, 1936, letter enclosing
corresnondence from Mr. Goodman C5. Liber. Mr. Liber raised
several ooints concernina the Environmental Protection Aqencv's
(EPA) reaulation of hazardous wastes that are recycled.
The Aqencv is aware that recycling of hazardous waste is
increasinq and encouraqes this oract ice when it orovides
environmental benefits and protects human health. We are
attemntinq to invest iqate what imped intents exist to further
recycling and are tryinq to identify alternatives to alleviate
these imoedintents. The EPA and the States could have ootential
roles in assistinq orqanizations, individuals, and, specifically,
small businesses interested in recycling. In addition to
evaluatinq various methods of recycling, EPA encourages the
recycling of hazardous waste for those oractices that minimize
risk relative to other methods of managing hazardous waste.
For your information, persona transporting and storing
hazardous wastes before recycling are similar to persons
transporting and storing hazardous wastes before disposal:
there is nothing about the wast* that makes it so valuable
that safe handling is assured absent regulation. A comoany's
decision on how carefully wastes are handled before recycling
activates a rang* of factors — nrincinally the value of the
wastes being, recycled and the value of the end products of
recycling v«OTU« the cost of purchasing additional raw mater-
ials, the profit itarqin of the facility, and the cost of
improving the) integrity of the facility. Unless the wastes
are extremely valuable, there is no incentive to properly
manage the waste. In fact, there have been a large number
of mismanagement incidents relating to hazardous wast* being
recycled; nany of these sites are on the Suoerfund National
Priorties List. Therefore, we believe such regulation is
necessary*
-------
It should be noted, however, that such reaulation only
applies to those wastes that are defined as hazardous under
KCRA. TcTwaKe this point clear, we included a provision in
the reaulations to ensure that the requlatory definition is
not used in unintended contexts, for example to justify
regulation of non-hazardous wastes. In addition, we snecifically
determined not to requlate scrap metal that is reclaimed,
whether or not such scrao metal is defined as hazardous under
RCRA. Thus, any scrap metal that is reclaimed is exempt from
the hazardous waste regulations.
In 1984, as a result of the passage of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), Conqress established a national
policy regarding the minimization of hazardous waste.
Specifically, Congress states that the incineration of
hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiouslv
as possible* The EPA believes that recycling can be a ma lor
component in fulfilling this national policy, fcecyclinq as
part of an overall waste winimixation strategy is one way to
eliminate the amount of waste reguiring management at hazardous
waste facilities.
is currently preparing a report to Congress on waste
minimization in which the Agency will evaluate options to
further promote recycling. One option being evaluated is
financial assistance for waste manaaement activities. The
report will be submitted to Congress on October 1, 1986.
In addition, I am enclosing a folder containing information
compiled by EPA's Small Business Ombudsman office describino
assistance programs for long-term financing of pollution
control equipment. The information is intended primarily to
he lt> small businesses identify potential sources of financing
for equipment. Several federal, state and private financing
programs are available and are briefly described in the
folder. I hope this information will be useful to Mr. Liber.
Mr. Liber suggests the formation of a financial pool,
funded larqely by wealthy generators, to help recyclers comply
with RCRA regulations. As you may be aware, EPA does not
currently have the statutory authority to establish such a
oool. nr. Liber's suggestion does have certain parallels
with the Hazardous Substance Resoonse Trust Fund better known
as the Superfund. Congress intended that Superfund's resources
he used to -fund certain response actions, not provide assistance
to businesses in reoulatorv compliance.
-------
I hope that this information clarifies EPA's regulation
of recycled hazardous waste. If I can be of further assistance,
olease let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PKOTtCTION AGENCY
9441.1986(78)
Mr. ?.R. Gilezan
Manaoer
Manufacturing Enqineerinq
and Environmental Plannino
Chrysler Corporation
P.O. Box 1919
Detroit, Michigan 48288
uear f'r. Gilezan:
This 13 in response to your letter of September 10, 1986
regardinq the Agency's interpretation of the hazardous waste
listing for P006 wastes. You reguested confirmation concerning
coverage of the P006 listing and the implications of this coveraqe
for Chrysler Corporation.
The Agency has re-evaluated the scope of the P006 listing
and determined that chemical conversion coat ing,I/ electroless
plating, and printed circuit hoard manufacturing^/ are not included,
l.'astes resulting from corunon and precious netal electroplating,
anodizing, chemical etching and milling, and cleaning and stripping
processes associated with these processes are included in the P006
listing* Thus, the fourth bullet in the list on page 2 of your
letter is in error. Wastewater treatment sludges from anodizing
and etching processes are still covered by the P006 listing, and
are, therefore, hazardous wastes and must be managed as such in
compliance with the RCRA regulations.
_!/ Chemical conversion coating includes chroma ting, phosphatina,
immersion plating, and coloring. Wastewater treatment sludge
from the conversion coating of aluminum, however, is listed an
EPA Hazardous Waste No. P019.
2/ Wastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board manu-
facturing operations that include processes which are within
the scope of the listing (e.g., chemical etching) are regulated
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
-2-
7o address your ticst concern, the central irnpl icationt; of
th«» A'isncy's decision upon th* r«aulateu community are as rollcws.
'.'aote-<- resulting from tne excluded FOOfc ^rocc-ssc-s mention^1 atovp
arr- not derined as hazardous, and are considered to have never
bovMi induce^ in r.ae P006 listinq. Facilities which csn»;cate,
treat, =ror^, or Dispose or these wastes exclusively are not
"icnc 1 i nc Kct7arco*js wastes, and have ntv^r hancli-H. -ij/atcous
wastes. These facilities generation a waste solely from chemical
ccrwt. ci-ion coatir.q, eJectroless plating, or prints: circuit bo^id
•"anuracturinq (with no listed POO 6 processes) do net have, nor co
tV,-v ree-'l, interim status under PCKA. They would not te re?cuiren
to submit Part H permits nor would they be suMect to corrective
action reouirements under RCRA.j^/ Tf these wastes, however, ate
(r,r have been) mixed with listed FU06 wastes or other listeM wastt-s,
then the resulting waste mixture would t# considered hazardous.
Likewise, if rhe-se wastes, or a mixture containing these wastes,
exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste,
they would fce considered hazardous.
Your second concern was the specific irr.pl icat ions ot the
ro-inttrprffted F006 listinq uoon Chrysler Corporation tacilities.
As a result ot the review of the F006 listinq, the delistinc
til*s tor the 8elv\dere, Illinois (1501) and Fenton, Missouri
(*500 and $502) facilities have been closed. The wastes oenerater^
ty these two tacilities are no longer regulated by the federal
hazardous waste management system, as long as no listed wastes
are combined with the wastes ana it the petitioned waste does not
exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes. Letters
explainincj the Agency's re-evaluation of the F006 listina, and
indicating that these facilities are not generating hazardous
wastes, will be sent to each of these facilities very shortly.
The Part B Permit for the St. Louis plant and Part A closure
plan ror the 8elvid«ref Illinois facility ar» no longer necessary
it no listed or characteristic hazardous wastes are present at
those tacilities. wastes generated solely from chromating, phos-
phatinq, or coloring processes at other Chrysler facilities are
dlpo considered non-hazardous, but, as mentioned above, wastes
generated by anodizing or etching processes or any other process
Tvneratinq a listed or characteristic waste at any facility remain
Hazardous wastes and must be managed as such in compliance with
the PCRA regulations.
except, ir the facility has a hazardovjs waste management unit
seeking a permit, any unit at the facility that contains
solid waste could be subject to corrective action under
Section 3004(u) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, as amendeq by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste-
Amendments.
-------
-3-
If you have any Questions regarding the Agency's interpretation
of the F006 listing as it relates to delistina petitions, please
call Mr. Myl«s Morse at (202) 382-4738.
Sincerely,
iams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Alan Debus, Region V
William Muno, Region V
Fave Sandburg, Region VII
Michael Sanderson, Region VII
-------
9441.1986(79)
October 20, 1986
Mr. J. Mark Morford
Stoel, Rives, Boley, Fraser, and Wyse
900 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Suite 2300
Portland, Oregon 97204-1268
Dear Mr. Morford:
This is in response to your letters of August 14 and
September 26, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of the
materials—namely, zinc bar, nickel plate, cadmium plate, and
steel scrap that are removed from spent alkaline batteries. In
particular, you request confirmation that the materials removed
from these batteries are scrap metal, and that they are exempt
from the hazardous waste regulations. As we discussed, scrap
metal (as defined in §261.1(c)(6))-x is currently exempt from the
Federal hazardous waste regulations whether or not the scrap
metal exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics. See 40 CFR §261.6(a)(3)(iv). In looking at the
samples you sent me, I agree with you that these materials are
scrap metal, and if recycled, would be exempt from regulation
under the Federal hazardous waste rules.&
I must make you aware, however, that if these materials
(i.e., zinc bar, nickel plate, cadmium plate, steel scrap) when
removed from the battery are mixed with non-scrap metal type
material, the mixture would not be considered a scrap metal, and
would be subject to regulation if the mixture itself exhibits one
or more of the hazardous waste characteristics. (This would not
be the case if the scarp metal only contained as oily film.)
-' "Scarp metal" is bits and pieces of metal parts (e.g., bars,
turnings, rods, sheets, wire) or metal pieces that may be
combined together with bolts or soldering (e.g., radiators,
scrap automobiles, railroad box cars), which when worn or
superfluous can be recycled)
-f As you are aware, the State of Oregon's hazardous waste
regulations may be more stringent than the Federal program.
Therefore, you need to check with the State regarding the
regulation of these materials.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
For example, when spend lead-acid batteries are cracked to
recover the lead, the material removed from the battery is a
mixture of scrap plate and a lead oxide sludge type material.
The mixture, we have determined, is not scrap metal; in addition,
we have also determined that this mixture is hazardous since it
exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics.
Therefore, the lead material recovered from spent lead-acid
batteries is subject to the hazardous waste rules. If, however,
the material removed from spent alkaline batteries is just "scrap
metal," this material (if recycled) would be exempt from the
Federal hazardous waste rule.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further
questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matt Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
cc: Jan Whitworth (Oregon DBC)
Ken Feigner (EPA Region X)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES i 1RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1986(80)
OCT 2 0 1986
Mr A L. Hornor
Environmental Specialist
Albright & Wilson. Inc.
P-O. Box 26229
Richmond. VA 23260-6229
Dear Mr. Homer:
I am writing in response to your request for a written
determination as to the regulatory status or 36% phosphoric
acid that is generated as part of the chemical polishinc of
aluminum.!/ In your letter, you state that this material is
an c-ftcctive substitute for 75% technical grade phosphoric
acid and a variety of other potential nutrient materials
used in wastewater treatment plants. In addition, you also
state that it can bt? a substitute tor 54% ^2^5 wet acid
used in specialty fertilizer producers.
As you know. 40 CTR 261.2(e) spficifies which materials
are not solid wastes when they are recycled. Among othor
thinos, materials that are used or reused as effective
substitutes tor commercial products, or materials that are
us«'d or reused as ingredients in an industrial process are
net solid wastes provided! (1) that these materials are not
used in a manner constituting disposal (or used to produce-
products that are applied to the land), (2) they are not
burned tor energy recovery (or used to produce a fuel or
contained in fuels), or (3) they are not accumulated speculatively
Thus, 36% phosphoric acid used as wastewater conditioners
arc not solid waste. (See 50 PR 628, FN 15, January 4,
1985.)
I/ As described in your letter, the process which generates the
36% phosphoric acid involves the submerging ot aluminum
parts in phosphoric acid to increase the brightness of
aluminum. Atter the phosphoric acid bath, the parts are
rinsed with water; a specifically designed rinse operation
is utilized to produce 36% phosphoric acid.
-------
This is also the case (as provided below) for 36%
phosphoric acid used to produce fertilizers however we
think this if a more difficult call. In particular, the
general principle in the Aqency's regulations is that hazardous
secondary materials ultimety applied to the land are hazardous
wastes, as are the waste-derived products in which they are
contained (See 40 CFR S261.2(c) (1 ) . ) However, if the anodizing
phosphoric acid is purer in acid content, and no more contaminated
than virgin phosphoric acid (as it has been described to
us), we do not believe 36% phosphoric acid generated as part
of the chc-mica] polishing of aluminum that is used to produce
fertilizers can be viewed as a secondary material. Thus.
such acid would not be considered a solid or hazardous waste
under FCRA when used in the same manner as virgin phosphoric
acid.
It should be noted that there is a provision in 40 CFR
§261.2(f) associated with this exclusion more specifically,
you must be able to demonstrate that the 36% phosphoric acid
is being used as cited above, and not merely capable of such
use or that it has been used for such purposes in the past.
I suggest that you keep documentation to support your claim
that the 36% phosphoric acid is being used in a manner that
is within the scope of this exclusion.
Please feel free to call me if you have any further
questions my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1986(81;
NOV 3 1996
Mr. Robert E. Schlemmer
President
United States Ceramic Tile Comoany
10233 Sandyville Road, S.E.
East Sparta, Ohio 44626
Dear Mr. Schlemmer:
In your letter of October 14, 1936 you asked whether
the exclusion from hazardous waste regulation under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Aot (RCRA) embodied in
40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) applies to your operations. As you
noted, this exclusion, also known as the Bevill Amendment,
covers "solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation,
and processing of ores and minerals (including coal)
including phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of
uranium ore".
Since 1980, EPA has consistently maintained that the
Bevill exclusion applies only to mining, beneficiation, and
primary processing of ores or minerals, not to subsequent
shaping, alloying, or fabrication of materials derived from
ores and minerals. See 50 Federal Register 40293 (October 2,
1985).
The minerals you use in the production of tiles undergo
varying degrees of primary processing before being shipped
to your facility. For example, ball clay is processed by
shredding, drying, pulverizing, and air separation or
slurrying. Pyrophyllite and talc are processed by crushing,
screening, and air or water classification. The wastes
generated by these primary processing stages are covered by
the exclusion.
Your operation uses materials produced by the primary
processing of various minerals, including talc, pyrophyllite,
ball clay, and wollastonite. As you indicated in your letter,
the tile production sequence includes alloying (blending),
fabrication (pressing), coating, and firing stages. As
stated earlier these steps are not considered "processing
of ores and minerals" as the phrase is used in RCRA and the
Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, wastes generated
by your tile production operation are not within the scope
of the exclusion.
-------
- 2 -
It also should be noted that the industrial waste water
exclusion (40 CFR 261. 4 (a) (2)) "does not exclude industrial
waste waters while they are being collected, stored or treated
before discharge."
If you have further questions, please contact Dan Derkics
(202) 382-3608, in the Special Wastes Branch.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid VJaste
bcc: Bill Constantelos, Region V
-------
9441.1986(82)
Mr. H. Ezura
Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc.
Old Waterworks Road
P.O. Box 19*
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
Dear Mr. Bzura:
This Is In response to your letters of October 15 and
16, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of the etchants ^/
that are used by Old Bridge to nanufacture various copper
salts. Since I wrote you in August 1983* the regulations
defining which materials are solid and hazardous wastes when
they are are recycled have been amended. See 50 FR 614,
January 4, 1985* As we're discussed previously, the amended
definition adopts the approach that for materials being
recycled, one must know both what the material la and how It
is being recycled before determining whether nr not it is a
Subtitle C waste. Thus, under the regulations, any material
that is used in a manner constituting disposal (or used to
produce a product that is placed on the land); used as a fuel
(or used to produce a fuel); or speculatlvely accumulated, £/
is defined as a solid waste, and if hazardous, a hazardous waste;
in addition, certain materials when reclaimed would also be
defined as solid and hazardous wastes. At the same tine,
materials that are used/reused (either as an ingredient or
feedstock In a manufacturing operation where reclamation
does not occur, or as a substitute for conrerclal products)
are not defined as solid wastes.
JL/ The etchants include copper chloride and copper anroniur
chloride.
2/ Speculative accumulation means accumulating wastes that
~ are potentially recyclable, but for which no recycling
market (or no feasible recycling market) exists, or
accumulating wastes before recycling, unless 7*5* of the
accumulated material la recycled during a one-year period.
V Commercial chemical products are not solid wastes if
speculatively accumulated.
-------
-2-
In applying the definition to your situation, I agree
with you that when etchanta are used/reused as raw materials
in the manufacture of various copper salta (and where reclanatlon
does not occur) , these materials would not be defined as
solid wastes, and therefore, not be subject to the hazardous
waste rules. In reviewing your May 31, 19^3 letter, the use
of etchants to produce basic copper aulfate (the first process
described In your letter) would not constitute solid waste
management; that is, these materials are not subject to the
Subtitle C rules. However, the process to produce a copper
sulfate solution (the second process described in your letter)
would constitute reclamation, and therefore, if the etehant
la hazardous (i.e. , Is listed In Subp*rt D of Part 261 or
exhibits one or more of the hesardous waste characteristics
identified in Subpart C of Part 261), the transportation and
storage of these etchants would be subject to the hazardous
waste rules .2^ With respect to the use of the other "copper
by-products" and their regulatory status, I would need to
have more information before making a determination.
Please feel free to give ne a call If you have any
further questions; my telephone nunber is (?02) 175-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Charaterlzation Branch
V Etchant* would be defined as spent materials (i.e.,
materials that have been used are no longer fit for use
without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise re-
processed ). Spent materials being reclained are defined
as solid wastes. See «0 CPR 26l.2(e)(3).
-------
9441.1986(83)
November 13, 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Regulatory Status of Contaminated Ground Water
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid waste
TO: Patrick Tobin, Director
Waste Management Division, Region IV
This is in response to your memorandum of September 18,
1986, regarding the regulatory status of ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate. To answer this
question, one first has to determine the status of ground water
Under the regulations, ground water contained in the aquifer is
not considered a solid waste, since it is not "discarded" in the
sense of being abandoned, recycled, or inherently waste-like as
those terms are defined in the regulations. See 40 CFR 262.2(a)-
(d). Therefore, contaminated ground water cannot be considered a
hazardous waste via the mixture rule (i.e., to have a hazardous
waste mixture, a hazardous waste must be mixed with a solid waste
(see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)). Nevertheless, ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate is still subject to
regulation since it contains a hazardous waste. Therefore, the
treatment, storage, or disposal of ground water contaminated with
hazardous waste leachate must be handled as if the ground water
itself were hazardous since hazardous waste leachate is subject
to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.1' However, if the ground
water is treated such that it no longer contains a hazardous
waste, the ground water would no longer be subject to regulation
under Subtitle C or RCRA.
This memo more precisely explains the position on ground
water contamination presented in John Skinner's memo dated
December 26, 1984.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Taking this interpretation and applying it to the example in
your memorandum, the ground water containing a listed hazardous
waste, once collected, is subject to regulation under the
hazardous waste regulations. However, if as a result of
treatment, the ground water no longer contains the hazardous
waste leachate, the ground water would no longer be subject to
the hazardous waste rules.
Your letter also raises the question of treatment of ground
water within the context of corrective action. If the corrective
action is taken at an interim status facility in compliance with
a §3008(h) order, treatment can take place. We are considering
the possibility of amending the regulations to clarify the
relationship between corrective action and the reconstruction ban
(§270.72(e)). More broadly, the Agency is currently examining
the issue of whether permits should be required for any
corrective actions. We are also developing rules for corrective
action under RCRA §3004(u). Until this analysis is completed, if
the corrective action takes place at a permitted facility, it can
be handled as a permit modification.
Please feel free to call Matt Straus, of my staff, if you
have any further questions; his telephone number is 475-8551
(FTS).
cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors,
Regions I-III and V-X
Gene Lucero, OWPE
Lloyd Guerci, OWPE
Mark Greenwood, OGC
Steve Silverman, OGC
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1986(85)
November 19, 1986
Markus K. Straume
Colonel, USAF
Director, Directorate of
Environmental Protection
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service
Federal Center
74 N. Washington
Battle Creek, MI 49017-3902
Dear Colonel Straume:
This is in response to your letters of April 23, June 20,
and September 30, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of
certain precious metals that are recycled through the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service. First, I would like to
apologize for taking so long in responding to your request; I
hope this delay has not caused you any problems. With respect to
your specific requests, I will respond to them in the same order
that they are presented in your April 23 letter.
• Management of solid items such as buttons, eyeglass
frames, insignia from uniforms, and electronic scrap.
To the extent that these materials are not hazardous
(i.e.. do not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics—ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity), I agree with
you that these materials are not solid wastes and,
therefore, are not subject to the Federal hazardous
waste rules. If, however, these materials are
hazardous, and they do not meet the definition of scrap
metal, they would be subject to regulation under
Subpart F of Part 266 of RCRA, since they would be
defined as spent materials.
* Management of silver recovery cartridges
Although the silver recovery cartridges are used to
recover silver, the reclamation operation is not yet
completed (as I understand the operation); rather the
cartridges are further processed to recover the silver.
Therefore, I do not agree with your assessment. As we
stated in the preamble to the final rules, "The Agency
proposed a clarifying amendment to §261.3(c)(2) (the
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
"derived from" rule) to indicate that commercial
products reclaimed from hazardous wastes are products,
not wastes, and so are not subject to the RCRA Subtitle
C regulations....The principle also does not apply to
wastes that have been processed minimally, or to
materials that have been partially reclaimed but must
be reclaimed further before recovery is completed."
See 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985; see also 40 CFR
261.3(c)(2) where it says "...materials that are
reclaimed from solid waste and that are used
beneficially are not solid wastes..." Therefore, the
silver recovery cartridges are solid wastes and subject
to regulation under Subpart F of Part 266 if they
exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics. You should be aware that some
preliminary data provided to the Agency by the National
Photographic Manufacturers Association indicates that
silver recovery cartridges may not be EP toxic.
Therefore, I suggest you test these cartridges to
determine their hazardousness.
Management of batteries containing silver
For the same reasons described in the previous
paragraph, the residues from the burning operation are
defined as solid wastes and are subject to regulation
under Subpart F of Part 266, provided they exhibit one
or more of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e..
the burning operation only partially reclaims the
silver; the burning residue must be further processed
for silver recovery). In addition, you also should be
aware that if the batteries are hazardous and if the
unit they are burned in is an incinerator (i.e.. it is
neither a boiler (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10) nor an
industrial furnace (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10), the
burning device is subject to regulation under Subpart O
of Parts 264 and 265. As we stated in the preamble to
the proposed rule,"...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...whether
or not energy or material recovery also occurs...In our
view, any such burning (other than in boilers and
industrial furnaces) is waste destruction subject to
regulation either under Subpart 0 of Part 264 or
Subpart O of Part 265. If energy or material recovery
occurs, it is ancillary to the purpose of the unit —
to destroy wastes by means of thermal treatment — and
so does not alter the regulatory status of the device
or the activity." See 48 FR 14484, April 4, 1983.
Finally as you stated in your letter, States may choose to
regulate these materials differently under their State hazardous
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
waste programs. Therefore, you need to contact representatives
in the various States to determine the regulatory status of these
materials under the State hazardous waste rules.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if I
can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1986(86)
November 20, 1986
SUBJECT: RCRA Status for Treatment of Contaminated Ground Water
and Volatiles from Air Stripping
FROM: Bruce Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
Jack Lehman, Director
Waste Management Division
TO: Lloyd Guerci
Office of Waste Program Enforcement
This memorandum is in response to the questions you received
from Region III concerning treatment of contaminated ground water
at RCRA sites. The first part of the memo deals with the general
issues raised in the inquiry; the second with specific facts of
the Uniform Tube Facility situation. The Characterization and
Assessment Division of OSW, the Office of General Counsel, and
Ginny Steiner, of your office, were consulted during the
preparation of this response.
Issue l; Is ground water contaminated with hazardous waste or
hazardous waste constituents considered hazardous waste, and are
air stripping units and holding basin surface impoundments used
during treatment of contaminated ground water RCRA units?
Ground water is not a hazardous waste, since it does not fit
the criteria for being either an "abandoned" or "discarded"
material which would define it as a solid waste (see 40 CFR
§261.2). However, when ground water contains hazardous wastes,
treatment, storage, or disposal of it must be handled exactly as
if the ground water itself were hazardous waste since the
contaminants are subject to regulation under Subtitle C. Ground
water no longer containing the hazardous waste would no longer be
subject to Subtitle C regulation.
The air stripper may fit the definition of a tank (see 40
CFR §260.10). If so, it is subject to the hazardous waste tank
standards, including the secondary containment provisions
recently promulgated (July 14, 1986, 51 FR 25422-25488). Unless
the unit is eligible for the 90-day accumulation exemption
available to generators (see 40 CFR §262.34), is a wastewater
treatment unit (§260.10), or is otherwise exempt from regulation,
it requires a permit or interim status. The holding basin
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
surface impoundment would be subject to standards for storage
under Subpart K of Part 265 or Part 264, and the land treatment
unit would be subject to Subpart M standards. Note that neither
of these units is eligible for the ninety day accumulation
exemption, which applies only to tanks or containers.
Units such as the ones described in the Region's inquiry
may, in some cases, operate without a permit under provisions of
40 CFR §270.72 (changes during interim status). This would be
the case where the construction and/or operation of such units is
necessary to prevent threats to human health and the environment
because of an emergency situation (see §270.72(c)(1)), or it is
necessary to comply with Federal, state, or local regulations (40
CFR 270.72(c)(2)). In general, units added t comply with a
§3008(h) order or an approved closure plan would be considered
necessary to comply with Federal regulations and therefore could
be constructed and operated as a change in interim status,
without triggering a RCRA permit requirement. However, in any
case, the cost of the unit should not exceed the limit
established in §270.72(e). At this time, we are considering
proposing an exemption to the fifty percent of reconstruction
cost limitation established in §270.72(e) for actions taken to
comply with corrective action orders at interim status
facilities.
Issue 2; Are the volatile organic contaminants released to the
atmosphere via air stripping considered hazardous waste under
RCRA? Should a risk analysis be made to consider the trade-off
between removal of a hazardous constituent from ground water and
its release to air?
Volatile organics released to the air are not hazardous
waste because they are not solid wastes. (They do not fit the
definition established in §1004(27) of RCRA as "contained gaseous
materials.") Nevertheless, releases of hazardous constituents to
the air from hazardous waste management or solid waste management
units at facilities with interim status are subject to corrective
action under the authority of §3008(h).
No policy has been set concerning tradeoffs of releases of
hazardous constituents from one medium to another. The statute
requires that contamination of either or both the ground water
and the air resulting from waste management at the facility be
addressed to protect human health and the environment. Future
proposals under §3004(n) will address air emissions for TSDFs.
Use of a carbon unit on top of the air stripper would
significantly reduce or eliminate the release to air.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
Issues Specific to the Uniform Tube Facility;
Turning to the facts of the specific case, several issues
came up during our discussions which need to be brought to the
attention of the Region.
1. If the organics spill which occurred in 1977 was froir a
leaking underground storage tank containing a regulated
substance (as defined in §9001(2)), and if that spill is
subject to corrective action under §9003, RCRA §3008(h) is
not applicable.
2. Spray irrigation of land with waste materials which have
been treated through air stripping and/or stored in the
holding basin impoundment constitutes land disposal. Land
disposal of the wastes described will be restricted under
the land disposal restrictions regulation in the future.
How soon disposal at this facility will be affected depends
on whether the spill is of spent solvents (F001-F005) or of
a discarded commercial chemical product. Restrictions will
be imposed for F001-F005 this November; other solvent
disposal will come later.
3. How will the corrective action order address the chromium
release? As the clean up progresses, the Region should
follow development of land disposal restriction regulations
for the California list, since chromium is included on that
list.
4. The Superfund program has had several experiences with
successfully applying carbon units to the top of air
strippers to eliminate air releases of VOCs. If you are
concerned about these releases, you may want to contact
Nancy Willis at FTS 475-6707 for further information.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1986(87)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 86
1. Hazardous Waste Fuel in Incinerators
In general, according to 40 CFR 261.2(c)(2), off-specification commercial
chemical products listed under 40 CFR 261.33 are hazardous wastes when
burned for energy recovery. One exception to this rule is if the com-
mercial chemical product is itself a fuel or normally a component of
fuel (S261.2(c)(2)(ii)). For example, benzene, listed as U019, is
normally a component of gasoline, and may be burned for energy recovery
without being considered a hazardous waste (see 50 FR 49168, footnote 8
and 50 FR 629, footnote 16). Would off-specification product benzene,
therefore, be an acceptable start-up fuel for use in an incinerator if
it is not regulated as a hazardous waste?
No, the off-specification benzene would not be acceptable
as a start-up fuel in an incinerator because in that
situation it is a hazardous waste. By the definitions in
40 CFR 260.10, industrial furnaces and boilers burn
materials for energy recovery. The primary purpose of
an incinerator, however, is to burn for destruction (see
50 FR 625). Therefore, hazardous materials burned in
incinerators are always considered to be hazardous wastes
per 40 CFR 261.2{b)(2), EPA holds that burning in an
incinerator cannot constitute burning for energy recovery.
Additional policy on the nature of incinerators and use of
wastes as auxiliary fuels appears in a memorandum from Karen
walker to Michael Sanderson (Region VII) dated June 27, 1986.
Therefore, an off-specification product listed under 40 CFR
261.33 that is burned in an incinerator is regulated as a
hazardous waste even if it is used as a start-up fuel.
40 CFR 264.345(c) and 265.345 state .that hazardous wastes must
not be fed to an incinerator during start-up or shut-down
unless the incinerator is operating within steady-state
conditions or conditions specified in the permit. Therefore,
it would not be possible to use hazardous waste as a start-up
fuel. Non-hazardous wastes or virgin fossil fuels are normally
used instead.
Source: Bob Holloway (202) 382-7938
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
9441.1986(88)
True* or Sail Shipment of Haardous Waatea to a POTV
PP.CK: Garcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: OavH A. 3trin*haa, Chief
Solid Wast* Branch, Region 7
This memo is a follow-up response to your September 3, 1986,
request for clarification of th« POTV exclusion in 40 C?R
As noted in ay memorandum to you of September 25, 1986, the
POTV exclusion in limited to the circumstances and conditions
of $26t.4(a)(1)(ll). Thus, a material is not a solid waste
If it is "Any mixture of domestic sewage anasa throuarh a sewer system prior to arriving at a POTW ,
it IB deemed to be a solid waste and, if appropriate, a
hazardous waste. Consequently, POTVs that manage wastes
which have not passed through the sewer systea -and aixed with
domestic sewaae would be subject to all applicable hazardous
waste regulations. 7nder §270.60(c), the POTW would be
t?fte»ned to have a RCTRA uerwit, provided they comply with the
"C3A requirements identified in that Section. In addition,
the PCTW would be required to manage the residues of the
treatment vrocess aa hazardous waste if the alud?e either: 1 )
erhlMts a characteristic of hazardous waste, or 2) was the
result of treatment ol a listed hazardous waste.
We are avare of >the dichotoray which regulating a material
on the basis of its mode of conveyance (i.e., by truck or
sewer) appears to -present. This situation was discussed in the
Agency's February 1986 Report to Conarees on the Discharge of
hazardous Wastes to Publicly 0\rned Treatment Works (Domestic
-------
-2-
3eva*;e Studr; P«. 6-.°5). However, at present this iaplies that
^** COUH exenpt trucked or railed wast* without a statutory
change - highly dubioe legally. Wastes which are shipped to
POT*s by trucV, rail, or dedicated pice would not be covered
by the 526t ,4(a)(1)(ll) exclusion nor would the residues
fro* the treatment of a listed haaardous waste at that P0?>f
be excluded fron re/pulation.
cc: 'etflonal branch Chiefs
He/?ions I-IV and VI-I
-------
CNVIKUNMCfn Al. rhw . ..w I twr» MC w I
9441.1986(89)
!!r. David Hayes
Eoran an 4 Hartson
815 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, DC 20006-4072
Dear Mr. Hayes:
This is in response to your letter of October 6, 1986,
re/rardin£ the regulatory statue under the federal hazardous waste
rules of solvent reclamation operations conducted at semiconductor
firms. Based on the discussions we had on September 10, 1986,
and based on your letter, I agree with your interpretation of
the Federal hazardous waste rules as it applies to solvent
reclamation. In particular, the actual reclamation operation,
which qualifies as treatment, is exempt from regulation. See
40 C7R 261.6(c)(1); see also 50 CFR 643, January 4, 1985 where
it states "We usually do not regulate the recycling process
itself, except when the recycling is analogues to land disposal
or incineration." In addition, the spent solvents would be
subject to the standards for generators (Part 262) and transporters
(Part 263); persons who "store" spent solvents prior to recycling
are also subject to the storage facility requirements. However,
if the spent solvent ie accumulated in a tank or container for
lese than 90 days (or 180 or 270 days for generators who generate
between 100 and 1000 kg/calendar month of hazardous waste;, a
RCRA permit is not required, provided the generator fully complies
with 40 CPR §262.34.
You should be aware that States may choose to regulate the
materials differently under their State proerao. Therefore, you
will need to contact States representatives in the various States
to determine the regulatory status of the spent solvents under
the State hazardous waate rules.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551) if I
can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus
CMof
PY
M.S. 90 l»es-
-------
-2-
0 Are _the^_«pent _ref rftct^or^^bricks considered a sp_ent material
or ~a fy p r oTu
-------
-3-
° vri?. »11® ^ .Vl?. -.8.e.£.9.!l'iA.rJ£ JK£S£i£A. A8, .k e 1 n £ .a.5£uJl'ilaA£
-------
9441.1986(92)
DEC 5 SB5
Dr. Gerald Spiegeliaea
~tfcviro.jmant.Al Control* Manager
Interwasts Services Co.
West aarfcet Street
Carapoeiitown, Pennsylvania 17010
J«*ar Dr. Spiegeltaani
Tnxs is in response to your letter of September 17, 1986,
regarding the applicability of the hazardous wast* regulations,
specifically 40 CFH 261 and 40 CFK 268, to still aottosis generated
frcsi distillation of spent zylene from the manufacture of sodiua
xylenesulfonate. Z jipologize for the delay in responding to your
letter. During the recent months we have been using all available
resources to develop the land disposal restrictions final rule (51 FR
40572, November 7'* 1986).
A process waste containing solvents where the solvent is a
reactant in the formulation of commercial cheaical products are
not covered by tne spent solvent listings (E?.\ Hazardous Watte Soa.
t'OUl, F002, F003, F004, and F005). According to the information
provided in your letter, xylene is used as a reactant iu the
manufacture of sodiuot xylenesulfonate* therefore, you are correct
in noting that excess xylene frora this process rfould not be
covered under the ?003 solvent listing. Still bottoms generated
from the distillation of the excess xylene would not be a hazardous
waste unless they exhibit one or acre of the characteristics of
a^zardous waste (i.e., corrosivity, iguitability, EP toxicity,
or reactivity). Furthermore, as you correctly stated, spent
xylene and still oottoms from tne recovery of xylene used in
your process does not aset the listing description for CPA hazardous
waste nuiaber U239, since it is not a discarded comr.iercial chemical
product* off~epecification species, or other material identified
under 40 CFft 2*1.33.
The first class of wastes subject to the land disposal re-
strictions effective November d, 1986, include the F001-F005 solvents
and certain dioxiu-containing wastes. Therefore* the xylene
still bottons generated from your process would not be subject
to these rules. If these wastes exhibit one or more of the
cnaracteristics of hazardous waste* they will be subject to the
land disposal restrictions when the Agency promulgates treatment
standard* for characteristic wastes oy the Hay 1990* statutory
deadline.
-------
I hop* this Information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please fe*l free to contact Bill PortuD«, of ay staff at (202)
475-6713, if jou hav« further qu««txons.
Jacqu«lin« W. Sal«», Chief
Regulation D«v«lopn«nt Section
f
i
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1986(94)
Slacken
Clay Str<2Jt
y 42001
Jear :-lr . Blackmon:
This letter responds to your inquiry regarding tho ro.,'ulatcry
status of radioactive and chemical wastes from hospital laboratories
are uijcnurgeci to tne sswcr system.
IIP A .ioi»a not reyulate radioactive wastes, per Be. Theo
wastes are reyulatel by tne Nuclear Regulatory Commission (••ir
However, certain low level :aixed radioactive wastes that are
or incinerated (a. a., scintillation cocktails containing
s che.nicala such as xylene or toluene) are regulated undor
t.ie LPA nazar^louo waste regulations (see Title 40 of tne Co-le of
t^eder^l Regulations, Part 261). You taay contact MRC dir.ectly at
(2J2) 492-70 JO, for uetao-leJ infonnaticn 0:1 the dic;xDsal of r.i.lio-
wauteu. Also, in soitw cases, radioactive wastes fron
are regulated by tne State or local •Jot>*rtment of Vmilt'i.
You may contact these agencies for nore specific information.
Several of taa clienicals you listed ar« reoulated un'lor the
Federal aazardous waste regulations (i.e., the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCPA)). There is, however,
aii exemption from RCRA regulation for any mixt'ore of don-.estic
3ewa-je and other wastes tnat passes through a sewer system to a
puolicly-owned treat.nent works ( POTU) for traatment, although
tac^e wastes nay still be regulated on a State or local level.
PO'iM's are regulated under tne Clean viator Act, which soto the
ge.ier.il criteria for wastes tnat may be discharged to a POT..".
To yain a better understanding of the Federal regulations
covering hazardous wastes, I suggest t'adt you consult Part 2G1 of
Titl«s 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which can he
obtained from the Government Printing Office (at 202-275-3r,4'J) or
perhaps your school library. I have enclosed the lists of chemicals
that ars regulated under the Federal hazardous waste regulations
(i.e., 40 CFK 261.31, 261.32, and 2G1.33).
-------
.vlao .ruy be interastdJ in a recent publication c.i
.cr eonjress on ens Discharge or Hazardous ,*aste to Publicly
O»Viio- fi-e.Mtueui v.'orka," (February, 19oj). It 13 available through
tns Rational Technical Inforrvition Service (JJTIS) for $34.95.
(To order, call U7IS at (703) 4U7-4550 and ^ive the title a:i!
oraar nurabor — P:*S6-1S4017/AS) .
For any specific questions concerning chenical wastes, you
::iay call tne RCK_\/Super fund Hotline (toll-free) at (800) 424-934G.
If you have ilurther questions, contact Hitch Kidwell of nty staff
at (2J2) 332-4305.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
Enclosures
-------
i.,,,.. «.r,/,KUMMtNTAL PROTECT! ACENCT
9441.1986(95)
DEC 2 3 1936
Mr. Francis L. Corden
Technical Consultant
Enviropact of Tampa Bay
Environmental Consulting and Analysis
11181 43 Street North
Clearwater, Florida 33520
Dear Mr. Cordent
This is in response to your November 6, 1986, letter
requesting confirmation that waste petroleum products with a
flash point below 100'F that are burned for energy recovery are
not solid (or hazardous) wastes.
As Mike Petruska has indicated to you, off-specification
or contaminated commercial chemical products that are burned for
energy recovery are not solid wastes (and, thus, not hazardous
wastes) if they are themselves fuels. For coomercial chemical
products listed in (261.33, the rules state explicitly that
they are not wastes if they are themselves fuels and if the
off-specification or contaminated product is burned for energy
recovery. See 40 CFR 2£1.2(c*) (2) (ii). The sane principle
applies to off-specification commercial products that exhibit
one of the hazardous waste characteristics (see the April 11,
1985, Federal Register, p. 14219, col. 1).
You mention that your client will nix the waste petroleum
products with used oil prior to marketing to incinerators for
use as a fuel. You should be aware that, under RCRA regulations,
materials are burned for energy recovery in either boilers or
industrial furnaces* See 40 CFR 260.10 for definitions. Materials
burned in incinerators are considered to be burned for destruction
rather than energy recovery (see the January 4, 1985, Federal
Register, p. 627, col. 3). Incinerators are defined in $260.10
as any enclosed device using controlled flame combustion that
neither meets the definition of a boiler nor is designated as an
industrial furnace. Thus, if your fuel mix is burned in an
incinerator, it would not be burned for energy recovery and would
be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste assuming the fuel
still has a flash point lower than 140*F (the characteristic of
an ignitable hazardous waste). The hazardous waste transpor-
tation and storage standards would apply.
. 00
-------
If, however, by mixing the waste petroleum product! with used
oil, the mixture no longer exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste (e.g., the flash point is higher than 140'F), the fuel mix
would no longer be subject to regulation as hazardous waste.
Nonetheless, the waste petroleum products would be regulated ae
waste prior to such treatment to make them nonhacardoue.
Finally, if, in fact, your client markets the fuel mix to
boilers or industrial furnaces for energy recovery and if the
fuel nix has a flash point below 100'P, the fuel would be regulated
as off-specification used oil fuel under the November 29, 1985,
rule. In this situation, you would be subject to regulation as
a marketer of off-specification used oil fuel and would have to
comply with the notification and recordkeeping requirements of
that rule. Further, the off-specification used oil fuel could
not be burned in nonindustrial boilers (e.g., residential,
commercial, or institutional boilers).
I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have other
questions, please contact Bob Holloway at (202') 382-7917.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1986(96)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
1. Hastes Generated in Process Units
VJhen, if ever, is waste which is generated in a Safety-Kleen parts
washer regulated under RCRA?
In a May 1986 memorandum "Monthly Report-RCEA/ Super fund Industry
Assistance Hotline Report for May 1986", EPA addressed the
regulatory status of parts washers leased from the Safety-Kleen
Corporation. At that time, the Agency viewed these parts
washers as manufacturing process units. Consequently, the
wastes generated in the parts washers would be subject to the
exclusion in §261.4(c) and thus would not be regulated unless
removed from the unit or until they had remained in the unit
more than ?0 days after the unit ceased to be operated.
Since tiiat time, the Agency has studied this issue further
and has determined that Safety-Kleen parts washers cannot be
viewed as manufacturing process units. It is the Agency's
understanding that Safety-Kleen parts washers usually consist
of some sort of cleaning apparatus attached to the top of a
drum of solvent material. Solvent is drawn up into the cleaning
apparatus for use and is discharged back into the drum afterward.
Following a period of use, the solvent in the drjra becomes too
contaminated to clean effectively. Periodically, someone from
Safety-Kleen exchanges a fresh cleaning unit for the spent
unit, which he will then transport to a Safety-Kleen facility
for recycling. In other situations, the cleaning apparatus
is removed at the operator's site and placed atop a fresh drum
of solvent. Frequently, an operator will accumulate several
drums of spent solvent in this manner before the Safety-Kleen
worker arrives to replace the spent solvent drums with fresh
drums.
When the solvent can no longer be used effectively, it is
classified as spent material. A spent material sent for
reclamation is regulated as a solid waste under RCRA, §261.2(c).
Furthermore, if the waste is listed in Subpart D of Part 261 or
exhibits any of the characteristics identified in Subpart C of
Part 261, then the waste is also regulated as hazardous waste
under RCRA. Consequently, when the operator decides the solvent
has become too contaminated for further use, it becomes regulated
as hazardous waste. The operator will thus become a generator
of hazardous waste when the cleaning apparatus is removed frrm
the drum.
Source: Bob Axelrad (202) 475-6551
Mitt Straus (202) 475-8551
Maureen Saiith (202) 382-7703
Research: Kris Andersen
-------
9441.1986(97)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
16. Dilution of F003 Wastes
May wastes designated as FC03 in §261.31 be treated by dilution?
Yes, although §263.3 of the final rule (See 51 FR 40572)
specifically prohibits the 'iilution of a restricted waste as a
substitute for adequate treatment as specified in Subpart 0 of
Part 268. F003 wastes which are Listed solely for ignitability
nay be mixed with solid wastes and subsequently avoid regulation
under 3CRA via the "Mixture Rule." This is acconplished pursuant
to 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) which states that "a mixture of a
solid waste and a hazardous waste that is listed in Subpart D
soley because it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous wasta identified in Subpart C, unless the resultant
mixture no longer exhibits any characteristics of hazardous
waste identified in Subpart C" is a hazardous .«asta. Thus/ if
an P003 waste which is listed solely for the characteristic of
ignitability is mixed with a solid waste such that it no longer
exhibits any characteristic of a hazardous waste, it is no
longer regulated by RCRA and is, therefore, not subject to the
land disposal restrictions.
It should be noted, however, that under § 261.31 a waste may be
listed as F003 because it is toxic as well as ignitable.
Dilution will not render such wastes non-hazardous.
-------
9441.1987
,
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f WASHINGTON. O.C 20460
JAN 61987 OFF1CEO,
SOLID \*ASTE AND EMERGENCY RE
Mr. Thomas Dufficy
Executive Vice President
National Association of
Photographic Manufacturers, Inc
600 Mamaroneck Avenue
Harrison, NY 10528
Dear Mr. Dufficy:
This is in response to your letters of September 15,
October 24, and November 4, 1986, regarding the regulatory status
of properly washed chemical recovery catridges (also referred to
in your letters as steel wool cartridges), flake silver from
electrolytic recovery cells, and silver-containing ion-exchange
resins, under the federal hazardous waste rules. These units
(i.e., chemical recovery cartridges, electrolytic recovery cells,
and ion-exchange resins) are used to recover silver in a number
of operations in the photographic industry.
Based on the data and information provided in your letters
(i.e., analytical test data and discussions regarding the
representativeness of the data), it appears that when 'these
units are properly washed (in accordance with the instructions
provided in your letters), they do not exhibit the characteristic
of EP toxicity for silver. You also state that these recovery
units do not exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corro-
sivity, and reactivity, and I presume that these recovery units
are not EP toxic for any of the other toxic contaminants. Thus,
those recovery units that are properly washed appear not to be
hazardous wastes and, therefore, are not subject to the federal
hazardous waste regulations. However, each generator is still
responsible for determining whether or not the wastes contained
in the recovery units are hazardous. See 40 FR §262.11.
In addition, as we've discussed previously, to the extent
that these recovery units would be defined as a sludge (i.e., a
pollution control residual), they would not be subject to the
federal hazardous waste rules when they were sent for reclamation,
since they would not be considered a solid waste. Thus, if any
of these devices was used to treat wastewater (for example, to
comply with the new BAT/PSES rules), the residues contained
in the units would be considered a sludge; if the sludge is sent
for reclamation, it would not be considered a solid waste. See
40 CFR §261.2(c)(3).
-------
Finally, as you are aware, States may choose to regulate
these recovery units under their State hazardous waste program
differently than under the federal program. Therefore,
representatives in the various States will need to be contacted
to determine the regulatory status of these recovery units under
the State hazardous waste rules.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if I
can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
January 1, 1987 9441.1987(03)
M. J. Carricato, CAPT. CPC, USN
Acting Director
Environmental Policy
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Department of Defense
Washington, DC 20301-8000
Dear Captain Carricato:
We have reviewed the final draft DOD Instruction on the
Applicability of RCRA to demilitarization of munitions.
Agreement between EPA and DOD on this issue is being achieved at
a critical time. Review of RCRA Part B permit applications for
the proposed incinerators to destroy munitions containing
chemical agents would have been delayed if the demilitarization
issue had been left pending.
As you know, due to recent developments at Camp Edwards,
Maine, open detonation of discarded munitions on training grounds
and impact ranges continues to be a subject of discussion between
DOD and EPA. Until issues posed by some of the military's open
detonation activities are analyzed and resolved to our mutual
satisfaction, we recommend deleting paragraphs 6 and 7 from the
final Instruction. Deletion of these two sections does not
appear to jeopardize the value of the rest of this Instruction.
If you consider it advisable to modify the references to open
burning or detonation made elsewhere in the Instruction, we would
be happy to review any revisions DOD proposes. Paul Connor
(475-7066) is available to assist your staff, as necessary, in
this regard.
We have noted a minor inaccuracy regarding RCRA coverage in
the draft Instruction. The exclusion referred to in paragraph 8
is only for off-specification small arms ball ammunition. There
are other ammunition types of similar caliber that are subject to
RCRA.
We also want to offer some comments that would ease
implementation of this Instruction, both by DOD personnel and by
EPA and State RCRA staffs:
There should be a clear identification of munitions that
have already been declared a waste by the various DOD
branches. For example, EPA understands the M55 rockets
are not affected by this Instruction. For administrative
ease, a list of all such munitions already designated as
wastes (not only those containing chemical agents) should
be attached to the final Instruction.
- An indication of how the Instruction applies to "leakers"
should also be included in the final version. The text
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
(or, alternatively, accompanying guidance) should clarify
whether leakers—which are not commonly thought of as
being amenable to further use—are covered by this
instruction to the same extent as all other munitions.
- All DOD field personnel must clearly understand that as
soon as munitions are declared to be hazardous wastes, it
is important to clearly distinguish them from other items
also scheduled for demilitarization. The RCRA
requirements apply to the hazardous wastes even when they
are co-mingled with other munitions. The designated
wastes must, for instance, be accompanied by the Uniform
National Manifest if shipped to a demilitarization site
together with other munitions.
My staff is willing to assist DOD to prepare guidance on
interpretation of the final Instruction, especially concerning
"leakers" and situations where hazardous wastes and other
munitions are co-located or mixed in the same shipment. Please
contact Paul Connor to arrange for prompt review of any DOD
implementation guidance.
I hope our comments are useful in finalizing the DOD Instruction.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
iwpi A w C'
9441.1987 (04)
JN »3W7
Mr. James E. (Jim) Nugent, Chairman
Railroad Commission of Texas
Capitol Station, P.O. Drawer 12967
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Chaimam
Thank you for your letter dated October 21, 1986. As
discussed below, the Agency has made some decisions concerning
issues you raised in your letter. Because these tentative
determinations are preliminary, however, we invite further
discussion on them.
The legislative history of Section 3001(b)(2)(A) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sheds some
light on the identity of oil and gas and geothermal energy
wastes subject to exemptioni*
the term "other wastes associated" is specifically
included to designate waste materials intrinsically
derived from the primary field operations associated
with the exploration, development, or production of
crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy. It
would cover such substances as hydrocarbon-bearing
soil in and around facilities; drill cuttings;
materials (such as hydrocarbon, water, sand and
emulsion) produced from a well in conjunction with
crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy; and
the accumulated material (such as hydrocarbon, water,
sand, and emulsion) from production separators, fluid
treating vessels, storage vessels, and production
i mpoundment a •
The phrase "intrinsically derived from the primary
field operation ..." is intended to differentiate
exploration, development, and production operations
from transportation.(from the point of custody
transfer or of production separation and dehydra-
tion) and manufacturing operations.
-------
Given the above background, EPA intends to employ four criteria
to assist in determining whether a waste is exempt, pending
completion of our Report to Congress next yean
1. Only waste streams intrinsic to the exploration
for, or development and production of, crude oil,
natural gas, or geotherroal energy are subject to
exemption. Waste streams generated at oil, gas,
and geothermal energy facilities that are not
uniquely associated with exploration, development,
or production activities are not exempt (one
example would be spent solvents from equipment
cleanup).
2. Exempt waste must be associated with "extraction"2
processes, which include measures (1) to remove
oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy from the
ground or (2) to remove impurities from such
substances, provided that the purification process
is an integral part of normal field operations.3
3. The proximity of waste streams to primary field
operations is another factor in determining the scope
of the exemption. Process operations that are
distant from the exploration, development, or
production operations may not be subject to
exemption.
4. Wastes associated with transportation are not
exempt. The point of custody transfer, or of
production separation and dehydration, may be
used as evidence in making this determination.
As shown on the enclosed table, EPA has used these criteria
to tentatively designate various wastes as exempt or not exempt.
This table was taken from our October 31, 1986 Technical Report
on wastes from the extraction of oil, gas and geothermal energy
(copy enclosed). The Agency is aware that this list does not
include all waste streams found at oil, gas, or geothermal energy
extraction facilities. Therefore, EPA invites commenters to
specifically describe other pertinent waste streams and to artic-
ulate, in terns of the above criteria, whether they believe
these additional streams are exempted by Section 3001(b)(2)(A).
EPA also invites comment on the criteria themselves and on
the appropriateness of the tentative classification shown on
2 The term extraction is defined to include exploration,
development, and production activities for oil, gas,
and geothermal energy.
3 Thus, wastes associated with such processes as oil refining,
petrochemical-related manufacturing, or electricity
generation from geothermal energy are not exempt.
-------
-3-
the table. However, we believe this interpretation is consis-
tent with the final "Small Quantity Generator" regulation
promulgated on March 24, 1986 (51 PR 10146, copy enclosed;
see especially page 10162 for a discussion of the applicability
of that rule to offshore oil rigs).
Consistent with the Small Quantity Generator regulation,
EPA's Region 6 office in Dallas has distributed "notices of
hazardous waste registration requirements". They are being
distributed only as a result of inquiries or requests in
order to aid parties in fulfilling responsibilities which
they consider to be theirs under the law. Because EPA did
not seek data from these facilities requesting information
on our Small Quantity rule, we are unable to determine whether
their waste streams meet the four criteria discussed above.
I trust this clarifies the Agency's current assessment
of the scope of the exemption. If I can be of any further
assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
/•/ jack W. Me Grat
\/
\'
Enclosures (3) \
Winston Porter
K Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED S. .ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Av. ,CY
9441.1987!06)
JAN 271987
Paul P. "••i'-U^r, [ ircctrr
Mjroau of Solid '-'astc •"?.•
'•'isconsin Oetpartr.ent of Natural
Resources
Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Dear Paul:
Thank you for your letter of December 9, 1986, requesting
an interpretation of 40 CFR §261.3(a)(2)(iii), regarding the
regulatory status of listed wastes which were listed solely
because they exhibit a characteristic and whether they must
go through the delisting procedures of $260.22 in order to
become non-hazardous.
Your interpretation of this provision is largely correct.
The existing regulations do allow wastes which are listed in
Subpart D solely because they exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste identified in Subpart C to be mixed with
solid waste and become unregulated, provided that the resultant
mixture no longer exhibits any characteristic of hazardous
waste. The provisions of $260.22 notwithstanding,
§261.3(a)(2)(iii) is, in essence, a form of self-implementing
delisting.
In the case of still bottoms produced from the distillation
of waste acetone (P003), those still bottoms would remain
hazardous waste unless nixed with another solid waste such
that the resultant mixture no longer exhibited a characteristic.
Such a mixture would not currently be required to go through
the delisting procedures. Despite the apparent contradiction,
however, this provision only applies to mixtures of solid
wastes and hazardous wastes. Thus, these still bottoms would
technically rsjaain hazardous until formally delisted unless
they were mixed with a solid waste, even if the still bottoms
did not exhibit a characteristic on their own.
-------
-2-
tfhile the mixing of a solid watte and a hazardous waste
would technically rreet tho definition of treatment, you should
be aware that generators may perform treatment in their
accumulation tanks or containers without a permit provided
that it is performed strictly in accordance with $262.34.
The enclosed nenorandum provides additional detail on this
policy interpretation.
It is also worth noting that we perceive a nustbcr of
problems with the mixture rule provision and are considering
proposing a chance to the regulations. However/ no such
proposal is likely in the near future doe to other priorities.
I hope that this has been responsive to your request. If
we can be of any additional help on this issue, please do not
hesitate to contact Katt Straus, of my staff, on (202) 475-6551.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: Dave Stringhan, Region V
-------
*
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20440
98 1987 4^1. 1987(08)
January 28,
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY «ESKOSSe
Mr. David M. Friedman
Environmental Chemist
Bureau of Waste Management
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Dear Dave:
This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1986,
regarding the scope of the final rule exempting lime-stabilized
waste liquor sludge (LSWPLS) from the presumption of hazardousness
in 40 CFR 261.3. As we discussed on the telephone, the exemption
applies to LSWPLS generated by plants in the iron and steel
industry (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Co4«e 331
and 332), whether or not the spent pickle liquor hap been mixed
with other non-listed process wastes generated by th« iron
and steel industry .I/ In reaching this conclusion, tfc* Agency
evaluated both the residue generated by the line-stabilization
of spent pickle liquor as well as the lime-stabilazation of spent.
pickle liquor that has been mixed with other process wastes
generated by the iron and steel industry. In both instances,
we determined that the LSWPLS was not hazardous after considering
the original basis for the listing (i.e., corrosivity and
the presence of lead and hexavalent chromium) as w«li as
considering other toxicants that may reasonably be expected
to present in the waste. Thus, the LSWPLS generated by Bethleham
Wire Rope at their facility in Williamsport, Pennsylvania
is covered by the exemption in 40 CFR 261. 3(c) (2) (ii) .
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if
you have any questions.
•*•/ As you are aware, LSWPLS would be considered hazardous if
~" it exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction
procedures (EP) toxicity) .
Sincerely, „
Matthew A. Straus, Branch Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
FEB I 9 1967
9441.1987(09)
Mr. Gregory A. Hemker
vice President, Environmental Engineering
QSource Engineering, Inc.
Suite 300
228 Byers Road
Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
Dear Mr. Hemker:
This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1987,
requesting clarification on the proper hazardous classification of
discarded inks, paints, and adhesives that contain certain solvents.
These waste inks, paints, and adhesives are process wastes that are
not currently listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261, and therefore,
not subject to Subtitle C regulations unless the waste exhibits any
of the four hazardous waste characteristics defined in 40 CFR
261.21-261.24 (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP
toxicity).
In the event that fresh or commercial grade solvents are
present in the product or added to these products as an ingredient in
the formulation, the resulting product (or discarded product) is not
within the scope of the spent solvent listings. This point is stated
in the preamble to the solvent rules as well as the listing
background documents. However, should a spent solvent (one that can
no longer used for its original purpose without reclamation) be added
to the discarded product, then the resulting mixture is a hazardous
waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv).
In your case, you claim the discarded products fail the
ignitability test and, therefore, are listed as DO01 ignitable
hazardous waste. I agree with your interpretation of the hazardous
classification of this waste.
Also, I agree with your interpretation of the hazardous
classification of the wastes in the two scenarios enclosed in your
letter. If you have further questions regarding the proper
classification of solid wastes, please contact Mr. Ed Abrams of my
staff at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1987(10)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 87
i. Snail Quantity Generator Determination
A recycler regenerates listed spent solvent (F005) that he receives
from off-site. The recycler burns the still Bottoms and a portion
of the reclaimed solvent on-site in an industrial furnace. He
sells the remaining reclaimed solvent to two companies: one that will
burn it as fuel and one that will use the solvent for its solvent
properties. How does the recycler count the still bottoms and
reclaimed solvent for the purpose of small quantity generator monthly
quantity determinations?
The recycler must include the still bottoms in his quantity
determinations because they are hazardous waste generated on-
site and burned for energy recovery. As a hazardous waste
fuel, they are subject to 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart D. According
to §261.5(c)/ a generator must count wastes subject to Part 266
subpart D in his monthly quantity determination. The reclaimed
solvent fuels that are burned on-site and marketed off-site are
subject to Part 266 Subpart D and the counting requirements.
The only waste quantity that the recycler does not include in
his quantity determinations is the reclaimed solvent that will
be used for its solvent properties. 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)
exempts reclaimed materials that will be used beneficially from
regulation as wastes as long as they are not burned for energy
recovery or used in a manner constituting disposal. Because
the reclaimed solvent will be used as a solvent and not a fuel
or product applied to the land, it would not be included in the
monthly quantity determinations.
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475-8551
Specialist: Jennifer Brock (202) 382-3112
-2-
-------
9441.1987 (11)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 87
2. F006
F006 is specifically electroplating wastewater treatment, sludge.
If a corrosive electroplating wastewater is drummed op and shipped
off-site without treatment it is classified as D002. This waste
goes to an acid waste treatment facility where it is mixed with
other various types of acid wastes. Is the sludge from this treatment
process going to be classified as F006?
Yes, since some of the waste is electroplating wastewater, the
sludge is partly derived from the wastewater and will meet the
definition of F006.
Sou: :e: Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7706
Specialist: Randy Eicher (202) 382-3112
-------
UNITED ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SNCY
3441. 19 87(13)
M* -I Of
Mr. Michael Piznar
Neptune Water Meter Company
Route 229 South
Tallahaasee, AL 36078-1799
Dear Mr. Piznart
Thank you for your letter of January 19, 1987, confirming
our telephone conversation. As I explained by telephone, EPA'a
hazardous waste regulations have special requirements for wastes
that are recycled. You should review Part 261.2 and 261.6.
Based on the information you provided in our conversation
the treatment process necessary to recycle your foundry sands
back into your foundry would appear to be exempt from the need
for a RCRA treatment permit. However, you should be aware that
you will need to comply with the generator storage requirements
if the wastes are stored in a tank or container for less than
90 days (40 CFR 262.34) or will need a storage permit if the
wastes are stored on site for greater than 90 days. I am en-
closing a copy of Parts 261.2/ 261.6, 262.34 and the regulation
for hazardous waste storage in tanks for your information.
Sincerely,
Janes R. Berlow, Chief
Treatment Technology Section
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
cci Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterisation Branch
-------
March 6, 1987 9441.1987(14)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Status of Automotive Fluids
FROM: Marcia E. Williams
Director, OSW
TO: Michael J. Sanderson
Chief, RCRA Branch
EPA Region VII
This is to provide guidance on the questions raised in your
February 19, 1987 memo. First, no automotive fluids have been
listed as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA; therefore, the
question of whether these fluids are subject to the hazardous
waste regulations depends on whether the fluid in question
exhibits one or more of the RCRA hazardous waste characteristics.
Although we do not have studies in this area, we have been
informed that some brake fluids and automatic transmission fluids
are ignitable under 40 CFR §261.21. Used crankcase oils may also
be ignitable (because small amounts of gasoline are added during
or after use), and may exhibit E.P. toxicity for lead.
However, for those automotive fluids that are used oils and
are recycled, the hazardous waste regulations would not currently
apply, even if the fluid exhibits a characteristic; rather all
used oils that are recycled are subject to 40 CFR Part 266,
Subpart E (See 40 CFR §261.6 (a)(2)(iii).) Currently, Part 266,
Subpart E only regulates the recycling of used oil as fuel. All
other recycling methods are exempt from regulation. Those
automotive fluids that are either not a used oil, or are used oil
that is disposed of, are subject to the hazardous waste
regulations if they exhibit one or more of the characteristics.
Currently, we define "used oil" in §266.40(b) very broadly.
Brake fluid, power steering fluid, and automatic transmission
fluid would all be considered used oils. On the other hand,
antifreeze and windshield washer fluid, because they are not
"oils" as the term is commonly used, would not be used oils.
As a practical matter, our understanding is that brake,
steering, and transmission fluids are typically mixed with
crankcase oils and recycled. Therefore, the hazardous waste
characteristics are not relevant and Part 266, Subpart E applies
if the oils are recycled as fuel. Used anti-freeze is not a used
oil and is not likely to exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics; consequently, it may be disposed of as a solid
waste in Subtitle D facilities. Similarly, windshield washer
fluid is not used oil, and is not likely to exhibit a
characteristic; thus, it may also be disposed of as solid waste.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Please feel free to call Mr. Mike Petruska at 8-382-7737 if
you have any further questions.
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs (EPA Regions I-IV and VII-X)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1957(15;
MAR ! : 1397
Georoe W. fc^r-bo, Ph.D., P.P.E.
Oirector, Pesearch, Education
and Technical resources
Rational Pest Control Association, Inc.
8100 Oak Street
Hunn Loring, VA 22027
Dear Dr. Pambo:
I am writing in response to your letter of February 9, 1987,
reauestina an interpretation of the hazardous waste rules as they
apply to the practice of treating homes and apartment complexes
for termites with the pesticides, Chlordane and Heptachlor. You
also specifically request that we discuss the relationship of the
June 13, 1986 Federal Register notice, proposed tox.icity charac-
teristic, to the practice of termite treatment.
As you are aware, Subtitle C of RCRA controls the management
of hazardous wastes. The soils described in your letter are not
considered hazardous wastes under the Federal hazardous waste
rules since contamination which results from normal pesticide
use is not covered by the hazardous waste regulations. This
interpretation would not change under the proposed toxicity
characteristic.
However, you should be aware that States may have differing
regulations which may affect this interpretation. In particular,
state regulation may be more stringent than the Federal hazardous
waste rules. (See section 3009 of RCRA.) Therefore, you will
still need to discuss your concern with the Arizona Department of
Health Services as it relates to their regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact my office, if you have
any further questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
March 17, 1987 9441.1987(16)
Dr. Wladimir Gulevich, Ph.D., P.E., Director
Bureau of Hazardous Waste Management
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Waste Management
llth Floor, Monroe Building
101 N. 14th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Dr. Gulevich:
This letter is in response to the various conversations we
have had and your letter of January 15, 1987, in reference to the
U.S. Navy salvage fuel boiler plant in Norfolk. I have also
received from you EP tox data which indicate some ash from this
plant exceeds EP concentration levels for lead and cadmium. I
understand the U.S. Navy has proposed that the residues from this
plant be exempted from hazardous waste regulation by way of two
regulatory exclusions.
The exclusion at 40 CFR, Section 261.4(b)(4) applies to
residue primarily from combustion of coal or other fossil fuels.
There is insufficient information to determine whether residue
from the Norfolk facility qualifies for this exclusion. On
January 13, 1981, the Agency offered an interpretation (copy
enclosed) on the question of whether this exclusion extends to
combustion wastes that result from the burning of mixtures of
fossil and other fuels. In that interpretation, the exclusion
was defined to include all wastes generated in the combustion of
coal-waste mixtures where coal makes up more than 50% of the fuel
mixture. This interpretation is still operative.
The "household waste exclusion" of 40 CFR 261.4(b)(l) turns
not on the composition of the waste, but on whether the
particular source of the waste can properly be characterized as a
household. Based on the information you have provided, we see no
basis for a conclusion that the Navy salvage fuel boiler plant is
a household. In addition Section 223 of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 modified RCRA to provide an exemption
for wastes at certain resource recovery facilities handling
municipal solid waste. Based on the information available at
this time, we do not believe there is a basis for excluding these
boiler plant wastes under this provision.
The Agency is vigorously investigating the issue of disposal
of residues from municipal waste combustion. We are aware of the
growing concerns involved, and we are moving as rapidly as is
prudent to acquire the data necessary for regulatory strategy
development. I would be happy to meet with you, per your
request, to discuss this issue. We can arrange a mutually
convenient time following your receipt of this letter.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Thank you for your continued communication and cooperation.
I look forward to seeing you soon. With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Gerry Dorian
Environmental Scientist
cc: Truett DeGeare
Mark Greenwood
Pat Pesacreta
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
,.<«> ST4>
9441.1937(i-
j»—"*
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
MAR 3 I 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Reuse of Spent Pickle Liquor
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS
FROM: Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch, OSW (WH-562B)
TO: William H. Miner, HWEB Chief
EPA Region V
This is in response to your memorandum of January 14, 1987,
in which you request a regulatory interpretation regarding the
"reuse" of spent pickle liquor for purposes of neutralization.
In particular, you ask: (1) whether the treatment (reuse) process
conducted at a specific facility would be considered "use
constituting disposal" and (2) whether the recycling of spent
pickle liquor for purposes of neutralization would be considered
re-use as an effective substitute. The answer to these two
questions .is as follows:
(1) Is the treatment (reuse) process conducted and described
in your memorandum considered to be used in a manner const!
tuting disposal?
No. The "Use Constituting Disposal" regulations applies
to those wastes or waste-derived products 1/ that are
applied to or placed on the land for beneficial use
(i.e., those materials that are recycled by being placed
on the land). Wastes that are stored or treated in units
(i.e., surface impoundments) that are on the land are not
considered within this provision (i.e., they are not
being applied to the land for beneficial use). Rather,
these units and the wastes they contain would be evaluated
based on other aspects of the Subtitle C regulations to
determine their regulatory status.
]_/ A waste-derived product is defined as those products which
contain hazardous waste that are applied to the land that are
themselves hazardous.
-------
-2-
(2) Is the recycling of spent pickle liquor for purposes
of neutralization considered to be reuse?
The answer to this question depends on a number of
factors. As we state in the preamble to the final
rules/ corrosive materials that are neutralized are
normally considered wastes. However, where such corrosive
materials can be shown tot (1) meet relavent specifica-
tions with regard to contamination levels; (2) be as
effective as the virgin material for which they substitute
(i.e.,tKe came amount of waste acid would generally be
needed as the virgin acid for which it replaces); (3)
be used under controlled conditions (i.e., stored in a
manner commensurate with its alleged status as a new
material, which storage in an impoundment rarely or
ever would be; 50 PR 652 n. 44 (January 4, 1985)); and
(4) that in a two party transaction, there be considera-
tion (usually monetary) for use of the material, we
believe such materials may not be wastes. See 50 PR
638, January 4, 1985. Based on the information provided
in your memorandum, I would question whether 'the neutra-
lization process is a reuse process; rather it appears
to constitute waste management. However, whether
or not the use of spent pickle liquor as a neutralizing
agent is excluded from regulation in the particular
situation decribed in your memorandum will need to be
evaluated based on the particular facts. (See attached
letters for successful demonstration with respect to
this provision.) Pickle liquor stored without being
used for neutralization is indisputably a solid waste.
48 PR 14488 n. 32 (April 4, 1983).
With respect to the argument made by the company (who
I assume is Dundee Cement) that the language of the
preamble cannot change the effect of the regulatory
language, we belive that both the rule and the preamble
are consistent. In particular, the rule specifically
excludes from being solid wastes those materials that
are reused as "effective substitutes." The question
therefore, is what is meant as an effective substitute;
the preamble discussion lays out what the Agency considers
to be an effective substitute where neutralization is
occuring. As the Agency's contemporaneous interpretation
-------
-3-
and explanation of Its own regulation—in fact dealing
with the precise point at issue—the preamble is entitled
to, and would receive great deference fron any reviewing
court (see, e.g., Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin,
444 U.S. 555, 566 (1980); General Electric Co., v.
Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 129 (1976)).In addition, the
preamble language is detailed and well-reasoned, draws
on the Agency's technical expertise, and is in accord
with the general statutory scheme, all further factors
which would lead a court to consider the interpretation
with great deference. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323
U.S. 134, 140 (1944); Ford Motor Co., supraTTT44 U.S. at
568-69. Therefore, we do not agree with the company
that the preamble is inapplicable to this situation.
You also ask, to what degree does the preamble influence
the interpretation of the regulations from an enforcement stand-
point and to what extent can it be used to support an adminis-
trative or other enforcement action. As we've indicated previously,
your primary argument in any administrative or enforcement action
must be based on the language of the rule.£/ However, the language
of the preamble or any other document can and should be used where
it supports the language of the rule; in this case, the language
in the preamble can be used as explanation and interpretation of
the term "effective susbtitute."
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further
questions.
Attachments
ccs Solid Waste Branch Chiefs (EPA Regions I-X)
Gary Geunther (Mich. DNR)
Larry Aubuchan (Mich. DNR)
T/In addition to the language in 40 CFR $261.2(e), you can
also refer to 40 CFR $260.10 (definition of treatment and
elementary neutralisation unit); 40 CFR 264.Kg)(6); and
40 CFR 265.1(c)(10).
-------
9441.1987(18)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 87
2. Solvent Mixture Rule
How will the following mixtures be classified under RCHA?
The concentrations of the various components before use are indicated
below.
1) Solvent containing 15% xylene (F003), 15% toluene (F005) and 70% water.
2) Solvent containing 80% xylene (F003), 5% methylene chloride (POOD and
15% water.
3) Solvent containing 80% xylene (P003) and 20% water.
The preamble of the "Solvent Mixture Rule" published in the
Federal Register on December 31, 1985 (50 PR 53315) states that
since the Agency has not evaluated the F003 solvents for their
toxicity, and no determination could be made as to the
ignitability of an P003 mixture, the 10% threshold applies to
them in a modified form. According to the Solvent Mixture
Rule, mixtures containing POO3 solvents are covered under the
listings only under two conditions: 1) the mixture contains
only F003 constituents, or 2) the mixture contains one or more
F003 constituents and 10% or more of the other listed solvents
prior to use.
Therefore, the first mixture when spent would be a listed
hazardous waste under RCSA. For the purposes of notification
and manifesting, the generator would designate this waste as
F005/P003.
The second mixture is not a listed waste because the methylene
chloride (FOOD concentration prior to use is Less than 10% and
it contains constituents other than F003. This mixture, however,
will probably be ignitable and therefore classified as D001.
The last mixture is not a listed waste unless it is considered to be a
commercial or technical grade xylene solution. If it is not
technical or oorraercial grade, the mixture should be tested for
the characteristic of ignitability.
Source: Jacqueline Sales (202) 382-4770
Researchj Robyn Neaville
-------
9441.1957(19;
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 87
3. Solvent Drippings for Decreasing Operations
A ball-bearing manufacturer dips metal parts in a decreasing tank of
pure 1,1,1-tJjj.chloroethane. Once the parts have been dipped, they
are ground, ^he.cooling system (either oil or water is used as the
fluid) picks up the grinding sand, metal flakes, and traces of
solvent left on the part. The fluid is then filtered fc* reuse, and
the sand-metal-solvent mixture is discarded. Are the traces of
solvent left on the parts after degreasing classified as F001? Is
^he sand-metal-solvent mixture regulated as a hazardous v«»te when
discarded?
The snail amount of solvent remaining on the part after it has
been dipped will not be regulated as POOL The solvent is not
spent. If the sand-fnetal-solvent mixture exhibits any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste as defined in Subpart C of 40
CFR Part 261, then the mixture would be regulated as a hazardous
waste.
Source: Steve Silverraan 382-7706
Research: Becky Cuthbertson
-------
9441.1987(20)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MARCH 1987
4. Generation and Recycling
A generator (100-1000 kg/no) uses a solvent cleaning unit similar to
a Safe-T-Kleen parts washer at his plant. When the solvents
(mineral spirits) become too contaminated for further use, an employee
removes the drum of spent solvent to the plant's 180-day accunulation
area. At some point, the drum is placed in a small distillation
unit on-site to reclaim the solvents. After reclamation, the solvent
is reused and the distillation bottoms are placed in a 55 gallon
drum. How is the accumulation of the still bottoms regulated?
The Agency interprets recycling as a form of treatment, although
as §261.6(c)(l) states, "the recycling process itself is exempt
fron regulation." Accordingly, a recycling facility is viewed
much the same as other types of hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal facilities, in that wastes generated by the
facility must be managed in compliance with the fturt 262 generator
standards. As explained in the December 31, 1980 Federal
Register (45 FR 86969), "Owners and operators of hazardous waste
management facilities-may generate hazardous waste (i.e. residues
created by treatment processes). With respect to the hazardous
waste that these persons generate, they, like other generators,
must comply with the applicable provisions of Part 262."
Carrying this logic one step further, a generator who treats his
waste on-^site.may consider the treatment activity another
distinct point of generation. Applying this to the scenario
under discussion, the generator may accumulate his spent mineral
spirit Before reclamation without need of a permit, in accordance
with §26zT34*. Since the spent mineral spirits are accumulated
prior to reclamation, the volume of non-reclaimed solvents is
counted in tJie generator's monthly hazardous waste generation
rate (see 51 FR 10153, §261.5(c)). As was explained earlier,
the solvent reclamation unit is regarded as a separate point of
generation. Consequently, the generator may accumulate the
recycling residues (still bottoms) in accordance with §262.34.
The still bottoms may be accumulated in a quantity not to
exceed 55 gallons in a container at or near the distillation
unit without becoming subject lo regulation, pursuant to the
§262.34(c)(l) satellite accumulation standards. After accumulating
over 55 gallons of the still bottoms at /the' "satellite accumulation
area" the generator will have 3 days to remove any amount over
55 gallons to a generator accumulation area, where the waste
may be stored without a permit (per §264.Kg) (3)) for 180 days
before he must ship the waste off-site. In addition, the
generator need not include the volume of still bottoms produced
in his monthly generation rate determination, so long as the
original spent mineral spirits have already been counted once,
per §261.5(d)(2).
-------
9441.1987(21)
APR 81987
K. Seller
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
7272 Cleanwater Lane, LU-11
Olympia, Washington 98504-6811
Dear Ms. Seller:
I recently received your letter of February 26, 1987, in which
you requested clarification as to whether excavated soils,
contaminated with 2,4,5-T, Simazine, 2,4-D, Dicambia, and Bromacil,
are F027 wastes. The site in question was a county public works yard
where a pesticide product was mixed with water as a carrier, prior to
application on the county roadsides. Contamination occurred from
spillage of both unused and used pesticide solutions.
The F027 listing designates, as acute hazardous waste (H),
formulations containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorphenol or
discarded unused formulations containing compounds derived from these
chlorophenols. Whether the contaminated soil contains a listed
hazardous waste is dependent on: (a) whether the 2,4,5-T got onto
the soil through the use of the chemical or by being discarded, and
(b) whether the 2,4,5-T was in fact a discarded formulation as stated
in Sec.261.31.
Soil, which is contaminated with unused 2,4,5-T, that had been
discarded, would contain a listed hazardous waste, namely F027. This
contaminated soil, which contains a hazardous waste, is therefore
subject to the Subtitle C regulations.
Soils, which are contaminated with 2,4,5-T, as a function of its
use, would not be considered to contain a hazardous waste. These
contaminated soils may, however, be hazardous if they are excavated
to be discarded, and if they meet the hazardous waste
characteristics, i.e.. if the EP leachate concentration exceeds the
levels specified in Sec.261.24(b).
-------
To my knowledge, there are currently no commercial treatment or
disposal facilities permitted to accept listed dioxin wastes. You
also questioned whether any treatment standards have been established
for dioxin wastes. According to 40 CFR 264.343, incinerators burning
hazardous wastes F020-F023, F026, and F027 must achieve a destruction
and removal efficiency of 99.9999% for each principal organic
hazardous constituent specified in its permit. Effective Nov. 8,
1988, these same wastes are restricted from land disposal if an
extract of the waste or the treatment residual of the waste (using
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)) is equal to or
greater than 1 ppb of dioxin.
Please feel free to call Doreen Sterling, of my staff, at
202-475-6775, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Chief
Wast* Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1987(24.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR I 5 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RE
Mr. Ronald D. Conte
Operations Coordinator
Petroswill Chemicals, Inc.
2523 Mogadore Road
Akron, OH 44313
Dear Mr. Conte:
Thank you for your letter of March 27, 1987, concerning
the regulatory statue of virgin and recycled chemicals being
placed in and removed from storage tanks. From the facts you
provided, the only material that appears to be a solid waste at
all and so potentially subject to the hazardous waste regula-
tions, is the recycled xylene. My understanding is that your
normal operation involves blending of reclaimed zylene to
produce a marketable solvent. In this situation* EPA only
regulates storage and transportation of the spent solvent, not
the reclamation or blending process or the reclaimed material.
(See 40 CFR $261.6(c)). However, you indicated that you produced
a batch of material not suitable for solvent ufct, and that you
sent this for fuel use. EPA does regulate a reclaimed solvent
that is used to produce a fuel. (See 40 CFR §26 1,6(a)(2)(ii),
and Part 266, Subpart D.) Therefore, it was correct for you to
manifest the blended solvent/chemical mixture that you were
sending for fuel use.
Because your operation normally produces reclaimed solvent,
the mixture actually became a hazardous waste at the tiae you
determined that it was not suitable for solvent use (and that
it therefore had to be marketed as fuel). As referenced above,
EPA does regulate the storage of hazardous waste fuel as well
as fuel blending tanks. In your case, however, it appears that
the tank was really a product (solvent) blending tank, and
so not subject to regulation. This determination is based on
your assurance that the fuel production was an isolated incident,
and that your original intent in placing reclaimed xylene in
the tank was to produce solvent, not fuel. The fact that you
normally produce solvent and that you actually did market some
of the material from the tank as a solvent (as well as fuel)
-------
-2-
supportB such a conclusion regarding your intent. Let me reiterate
however, thac EPA does normally regulate tanks used to store or
blend hazardous waste fuel, and your tank vas not subject to regula-
tion only due to the special circuitstances described above.
If you have questions concerning the determinations outlined
above, contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Hard* Williams
Director of Solid Vaste
cc: Regional Waste Management
Division Directors
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTF HOf^ ".ENCY
9441.1987(26)
APR 17 1987
Vs. Sue Vedantham
Environmental Fnoincer
Solvent Fervice, inc.
1023 Berryessa road
San Jose, California 95133
Dear Ms. Vedantham:
This letter responds to your March 19, 1?Q7, correspondence
requesting a written statement addressing the regulatory
status of "clean" solvent froir recycled solvent-containing
wastes that are subject to the land disposal restrictions.
According to the provisions in 40 CFP 2fil.?(c)(?)fi),
"materials that are reclaimed fron solid wastes and that are
used beneficially are not solid wastes and hence are not,hazardous
wastes under this provision unless the reclaimed material IP
burned for energy recovery or used in a manner constitutino
disposal." Therefore, the clean solvent from your recovery
process is not a solid waste, and as such, is not a hazardous
waste which is subject to the land disposal restrictions, Powever,
the still bottoms from the recovery of spent solvents are hazardous
wastes listed in 40 CFP ?fil.3l. For example, the recycling of
spent carhon tetrachloride from a metal cleaning operation
results in "clean" carbon tetrachloride solvent that nay he sold
as a product or otherwise reused and still bottoms which regain
listed hazardous wastes and subject to the land disposal re-
strictions.
If you have additional questions, you may call me at
(202)382-4770.
Sincerely,
jacoueline w. Pales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
9 441. 193" C3;
• -
'ED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 30B67
OFFICE OF
•SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESF
Mr. Terry Gray, Chief
Plan Review and Permit Section
Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
State of Indiana
Department of Environmental Management
105 South Merdian Street
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Dear Mr. Gray:
This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1987, in
which you request written confirmation concerning a specific
aspect of the mixture rule exemption that was promulgated on
November 17, 1981. In particular, you ask if solvent that is
lost via volatilization once it is discharged to the plant sewer
is excluded from the mixture rule calculation in §261.3(a)(2)
(iv)(A) and (B).
As I discussed with Ms. Jayne Browning of your staff, the
regulation and the preamble to the November 17, 1981 Federal
Register makes is clear that once a waste (i.e., spent solvent)
is discharged to the wastewater, it must be included in the
calculations to determine whether or not a facility exceeds the
mixture rule exemption levels. See, for example, 40 CFR
§261.3(a)(2)UV)(A) where it states "... provided that the
maximum total weekly usage of these solvents (other than the
amount* that can be demonstrated not to be discharged to
wastewater)...;" see also footnote 24 at 46 PR 56585 where it
statest
-------
-2-
However, if a facility can demonstrate by means of
appropriate records that any portion of solvents used
at the facility are not disposed to wastewater, that
portion is to be excluded from the calculation. That
portion of solvents which is volatilized may not be
excluded from the calculation of solvent usage."
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1987(29)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHfNGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 3 0 IS3V
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Mr. Gordon Davidson
Project Manager for Environmental
Affairs
IT Corporation
600 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
Dear Mr. Davidson:
This is in response to your April 9, 1987, letter in
which you request authorization to transport laboratory
samples and associated laboratory wastes contaminated with 2,
3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin from your Knoxville
laboratory back to the Diamond Shamrock Lister Avenue site.
You state that the samples originated from the clean-up
associated with this site.
It is my understanding, from a telephone conversation
between you and Doreen Sterling of my staff, that you are
unsure if the waste in question is actually covered by the
Dioxin Listings. You are, however, handling your waste as
if it were hazardous. Our response, therefore, assumes that
the waste in question is a "hazardous waste'
.*
According to 40 CFR 261.4(d), a laboratory may transport
a sample, which is collected for the sole purpose of testing
to determine its characteristics or composition, back to the
sample collector. No approval from the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) is required for this action. However,
once the sample is received at the Lister Avenue site, it
must be managed as a hazardous waste.
You also stated in your telephone conversation with
Doreen Sterling that the associated wastes in question include
lab solvents, protective gear, etc. which were used during
analysis. These wastes are not covered by the provisions of
Section 261.4(d). Rather, these materials either are listed
hazardous waste (i.e., spent solvents) or contain a listed
hazardous waste (i.e., protective gear) and must be managed
-------
as if it were an acute hazardous waste. However, if the
materials that contain listed hazardous waste are decontaminated
such that they no longer contain the listed waste, they are
no longer subject to Subtitle C regulations. Any rinsate,
generated during cleaning would, however, be an acute hazardous
waste via application of the mixture rule (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2).
If you have any further questions, please contact Doreen
Sterling of my staff at (202) 475-6775.
Sincerely,
K
r
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.19S"?(30)
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 0 '95:
SUBJECTi Scop* of Temporary exclusion for i.onroe Autc rrcuim-ent,
Cozati, Nebraska
if;:OM» :'arcia Williams
Director, Office of Solid ;7a*te (UJI-562)
Lavid A. Wagoner
Director, Waste ?'anageir.«nt Division
Pec,ion VII
•fhank you for your April 1C, 1937 memorandum concerning th«s
scope of Monroe Auto Equipment1* December 27, 1983 temporary
exclusion. Specifically, you asked if the temporary exclusion
issued December 27, 1982 covered (1) the POO6 sludges disposed of
at the Sandhill* Landfill during 1981 and 1982; and (2) the FOC6
sludges generated at Monros Auto Equipment prior to the temporary
exclusion.
The Agency believes that Monroe's temporary exclusion did
not apply to any of the waste* disposed at their Sandhills disposal
site. First, exclusions are granted tc a facility for specific
wastes* If the waste will be managed on-site, sampling data for
the waste contained in each OR&ita management unit must be provided.
Monroe's initial petition (submitted 9/20/81) WAS limited to the
impounded waste at the Second Street facility. It did not mention
the Sandhill* site, nor was analytical data characterizing th«
sludge at the Sandhills disposal site submitted until August 1985,
nearly threw years after the date of the temporary exclusion.
Ihe Augua* 198S subsUaaion provided incomplete information for
the landJillsd sludge at Sandhill*. Subsequently, Monroe discon-
tinued UM of the two impoundments at the Second Street facility
and begaa ••ing a vacuuat filter press to generate dewatered
sludge fro* their production process. Due to trichloroethylene
contamination found in ground water at the Second Street site,
and trichloroethylene found in the sludge, contained in the inactive
surface impoundments, at the Second Street site* Monroe attempted
to re-treat the impounded wastes by aeration. On October 18* 1905,
-------
a second oetition seakinn to exclude their
t .
_r. (aerated) surface it-poundnent sludnes, the Sandhills
lflncifiil sludge, and tnear actively qenerated process vacuum
filter cake. This further demonstrates that Monroe's first
petition was only for the sludge contained in their two on-site
surface i.r.poundnents at their Second Street facility, anc1 that
their temporary exclusion did not apply to the waste disposed at
the Sandhills landfill site. Therefore, since no temporary
exclusion applied to the fandhills landfill, and it contains
ur.characterized listed waste generated prior to th<» issuance of
the ten-.pcrary exclusion, it is and has been hazardous waste since
because the waste disposed at the Sandhills disposal
was never covered by iionroe's December 27, 1982 temporary exclusion,
Monroe doe* not have the six rronth period (normally qiven to
petitioners having had a temporary exclusion revoX*
-------
RCKA/SUPtRFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 3441.196? ( 31)
APRIL 87
waste Derived frcm Treating Exempt or Excluded Wastes
Residues from treating, storing, or diposing of hazardous waste
are included in the definition of hazardous waste (§261.3(c)(i)).
Can residues resulting from incinerating the following wastes
wnich are exempt or excluded from regulation meet the definition
of hazardous waste?
(a) Ash produced by incinerating hazardous waste generated by
less than 100 kg/mo small quantity generators whose waste
is exempt from full regulation by §261.5(b).
(b) Ash produced frcm incinerating only household waste which is
excluded from the definition of hazardous waste per
§261.4(b)(l).
(c) Ash produced from incinerating EP toxic arsenical treated
wood which.is excluded frcm the definition of hazardous
waste uno%r §261.4(b)(9).
(a) Yes, Although §261.5(b) exempts wastes from small
generatoVs producing <100 kilograms per month frcm
regulation under Parts 262-266 and Parts 270 and 124,
it does not exempt the waste fron being classified as
hazardous, nor does' it imply that the waste is not
hazardous. A discussion in the preamble o_f the August 1,
L985 Federal Register mentioned that any hazardous waste,
regardless of its point of origin, is hazardous waste.
This logic could only apply to < 100 kg/mo generators',
waste, as well as to > 100 kg/mo generators' waste
(50 FR 31299). The incinerator would not be required
to have a RCRA permit in order to receive hazardous
waste from < 100 kg/too generators per §265.l(c)(5)and
§264.1(g)(1), but the incinerator could itself generate
a hazardous waste ash that would be subject to
regulations under Parts 262-266.
(b) No. Section 261.4(b)(l) excluded household waste that
has been recovered (e.g., refuse-derived fuel) frcm
regulation as a hazardous waste. The preamble of the
May 19, 1980 Federal Register stipulated that residues
remaining after treatment (e.g. incineration) of household
waste are not subject to regulation as hazardous waste
(45 FR 33099).
(c) Yes. The exclusion for arsenical treated wood, as
discussed in the preamble of the November 25, 1980
Federal Register, pertains to arsenical-treated wood
that is land disposed by someone who uses the wood for
its intended end use, (45 FR 78531). This exclusion
doe not extend to EP toxic waste generated by the
incineration of the wood. The incineration of the
wood may be subject to regulation if the wood exhibits the
characteristic of EP toxicity.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Kim Gotwals
-------
9441.1987(32)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
APRIL 1987
3. Multiple Generator Location and Consolidation
A conpany owns several small factories in different counties. Each
factory generates less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per
month, and is subject to reduced regulation under §261.5. Options
for disposal of waste from conditionally exempt generators are
provided in §261.5(f)(3). (a) May the conditionally exenpt generators
transport waste to one of the company's facilities for consolidation
and subsequent shipment to a RCRA disposal facility? (b) Does the
facility of the generator who is consolidating the waste qualify as
a "transfer facility"? (c) Does the generator who consolidates the
waste become a full quantity generator if he ships more than 1000 kg
of hazardous waste from his site per month? (or a 100-1000 kg/mo
generator if he ships between 100 and 1000 kg of waste per month?)
(a) Under §261.5(f)(3) in order to remain exenpt from certain
regulations, a conditionally exempt small quantity
generator may ensure delivery of his hazardous waste to a
storage, treatment, or disposal faclity that is one the
following types of facilities:
(i.) permitted under Part 270 of 40 CFR; or
(ii.) in interim status under Parts 265 and 270
of 40 CFR; or
(iii.) authorized to manage hazardous waste by a
state with a hazardous waste management
program approved under Part 271 of 40 CFR; or
(iv.) licensed, registered or permitted by the
state to nanage municipal or industrial
solid waste; or
(v.) benefically uses, reuses or reclaims the waste.
In order for one of the generators to serve as a central collection
point for the other generators, he would have to qualify as one
of the above mentioned facilities. Realistically, the easiest
approach would be for the generator to receive State approval
to manage the consolidated waste shipments.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
APRIL 1987 (Continued)
(b) If the generator does not receive authorization fron his
State/ he may still receive and store the waste for a
period of time if he qualifies as a transfer facility.
Under §263.12, waste may be stored at a transfer facility
for ten days or less without requiring interim status or a
permit. The December 31, 1980 Federal Register
(45 FR 86966) defines the term transfer facility to refer
to transportation terminals (including vehicle parking areas,
loading docks and other similar areas), break-bulk facilities'
or any other facility commonly used by transporters to
temporarily hold shipments of hazardous waste during
transportation. It is possible that this generator facility
may qualify as a transfer facility, as long as the waste
is not stored on-site for more than 10 days.
(c) If the waste is not sent to a facility specified under
§261.5(g)(3)(l)-(v), it is no longer conditionally exempt
waste, and each generator must comply with applicable
regulations, Thus, if the generator cannot receive state
approval nor qualify as a transfer facility, he must obtain
a permit for storage of hazardous waste.
58
-------
tO ST«,
9441.1987(36)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
1 4 !99T
Barbara J. Zellmer
Hazardous Waste Regulatory Unit
Department of Natural Resources
Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Dear Ms. Zellmer:
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RES'
This is in response to your April 22, 1987 letter in which you
request clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulations governing the manageaent of waste containing
dioxins (2 ,3,7 ,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)). In particular
your question relates to a notification received from the University
of Wisconsin regarding research projects involving injection of
dilute solutions of TCDD into birds and bird eggs. The University
has inquired about the proper disposal of these carcasses containing
small quantities of TCDD.
The waste which you described is not listed under 40 CFR
$261.31, nor is its disposal currently regulated under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Rather, these wastes would more
appropriately be characterized as infectious waste, "... laboratory
wastes, such as pathological specimens (e.g
.g., all tisaues, specimens
of blood elements, excreta, and secretions obtained from patients or
laboratory animals) and disposable fomltes (any substance that may
harbor or transmit pathogenic organisms) attendant thereto... "see 4C
CFR §241.101(h). To date, EPA has not promulgated criteria for
identifying waste as infectious under $261 Subpart C.
The Agency has, however, developed a manual to provide guidance
on the managment of infectious waste. A copy ie enclosed for your
reference. You should be aware that typical infectious waste
incinerators are probably not satisfactory devices for disposal of
materials highly contaminated with TCDD. TCDD decomposes above 800°C
Therefor*, if the waste is to be incinerated, the wastes which you
describe should be managed by high temperature incineration.
-------
-2-
I hope this adequately answers your
further questions, please contact Doreen
475-6775.
questions. If
Sterling of ay
you have
staff at
a ny
202-
Sincerely,
flee
Wllliaas
of Solid
Enclosure
-------
May 18, 1987 9441.1987(37)
Mr. Dennis M. Burchett
V.P. Regulatory Affairs
Clean Crop
419 18th Street
P.O. Box 1286
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Mr. Burchett:
This is in response to your inquiry of April 21, 1987. From
information in your letter and from your phone conversation of
May 8, 1987, with Mike Petruska of my staff, we have concluded
that your spent carbon contains the listed hazardous waste
Phorate (P094). Therefore, the contaminated carbon is subject to
the hazardous waste regulations. In particular, your company
must comply with the hazardous waste generator requirements,
including compliance with the manifest. See 40 CFR 261.6(b). In
addition, the facility that regenerates the carbon must also
comply with the appropriate hazardous waste rules. See 40 CFR
261.6(c)
The reasoning behind this determination is as follows:
The packaging of the finished Phorate product releases
Phorate to the air. In effect, Phorate is being
"discarded;"
EPA regulations at 40 CFR §261.33 identify certain
commercial chemical products (among them Phorate) as
hazardous waste when they are discarded;
EPA continues to regulate a listed waste even when it is
contained in another material, i.e., in this case the
spent carbon.
The first point above, concerning the Phorate being
discarded, is critical to your situation. Even though you
capture the Phorate released to the air in carbon scrubbers and
send the spent carbon for regeneration, the Phorate contained in
the carbon is not recovered but rather is destroyed during carbon
regeneration. This leads us to conclude that you are discarding
Phorate. You should note, however, that if you were reclaiming
or reusing the Phorate, your regulatory situation would be
different. In this case, the Phorate would not be solid waste,
and so would not be hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR §261.2.)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike
Petruska of my staff at (202) 382-4765.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Regional Hazardous Waste
Division Directors
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1937(39)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 2 0 JS37
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY KESPONE
Dr. Peter Russell
President
Russell Resources Inc.
25 Oak View Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Dear Dr. Russell:
I am responding to your letter of May 8, 1987, requesting the
regulatory interpretation of used pickle liquor generated at the
USS-POSCO Project in Pittsburg, CA. Specifically, you requested
responses to three questions concerning the regulatory interpretation
of the pickle liquor.
Your first question asks when the pickle liquor becomes a
hazardous waste. The pickle liquor becomes EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K062 as soon as it exits the pickling line baths and is sent to the
regeneration operations; at this point it is considered to be a spent
material (see 40 CFR 261.l(c)(1)i). Thus, the spent pickle liquor is
subject to the appropriate requirements in 40 CFR 261.6(b) and (c).
Your second question asks whether the regulatory interpretation
for question 1 above is affected by the hydrochloric acid
concentration in the waste. The answer to this question is no.
Whether or not the pickle liquor can continue to be used does not
affect the regulatory status of the pickle liquor at the subject
facility; the fact that the pickle liquor is being regenerated (i.e.,
reclaimed) before reuse makes it a spent material. Therefore,
pickle liquor is a spent material (cannot be reused without being
regenerated) when it is taken from the pickling process for
regeneration and it* status would not change based on the
concentration of the acid.
Your last question asks if the regulatory status of the spent
pickle liquor is dependent upon whether it is used again in the same
pickle line after on-site processing in a high temperature
"reactor/separator" to remove iron as ferric oxide. Reuse on site
after regeneration does not affect the regulatory status; however,
reuse without the pickle liquor first being regenerated or use as an
effective substitute for a commercial product would change the
regulatory status because the spent pickle liquor would no longer be
considered a solid waste (see 40 CFR 261.2(e)).
-------
If you have further questions, please call Ed AJbrams at (202)
382-4787.
_ ,
'Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1987(40)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MAY 1987
4. Definition of Solid Waste
A generator generates a 5% solution of sodium hydroxide from his
metal cleaning operation. Another facility can use the generator's
waste as a substitute for a commercial product in their process of
cleaning out tanks, except the waste is too dilute to be completely
effective. If the generator adds 5% sodium hydroxide to his waste
to be made of 10% a solution, would this material be a solid waste?
According to Section 261.2(e)(l)(ii), materials are not solid
waste when they can be shown to be recycled by being used or reused
as effective substitutes for commercial products. The waste is
employed in a particular function or application as an effective
substitute for a commercial product (40 CFR 261.1(c)(5)(ii). Since
it would function as a product in a normal commercial use, it
would not be a solid waste and is not subject to RCRA Subtitle
C regulations When generated, transported or used (unless
accumulated speculatively).
-------
9441.1987(41)
UNITED STATES EN ViRQNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
WASKfNCTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
„ H. SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
JUN -i 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determination on Issues Pertinent to Mixed Waste
Regulation in Colorado
FROM: J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator
TO: James J. Scherer
Regional Administrator
This is in response to Alexandra Smith's March 25, 1987,
memorandum in which a number of issues were raised regarding
the applicability of RCRA to high-level, transuranic and
low-level mixed waste.
The Agency published a Federal Register notice on July
3, 1986 which clarified the applicability of RCRA to radioactive
mixed waste. The notice stated that "radioactive mixed
wastes are wastes that contain hazardous wastes subject to
RCRA and radioactive wastes subject to the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA),M and that the hazardous component of such wastes are
subject to RCRA regulation. The scope of radioactive materials
defined by the AEA includes source, special nuclear, and
by-product materials. Radioactive mixed waste may include
any AEA radionuclide, regardless of further subclassific&tion
of the radioactive waste as highlevel, transuranic or low-level
waste.
Although the Mixed Energy Waste Study (MEWS) was commis-
sioned by Lee Thomas to examine the viability of & DOE proposal
for exempting high-level and transuranic mixed wastes from
RCRA jurisdiction, a final determination on this option has
not been nade. However, the July 3, 1986 Federal Register
notice provides for States to receive authorization to regulate
mixed wastes, regardless whether it is high-level, transuranic,
or low-level. Therefore, even though the Rocky Flats Compliance
Agreement does not specifically include high-level or
transuranic mixed wastes, Colorado's authorization for radio-
active mixed waste gives the State the authority to regulate
those wastes. You should note, however, that based on infor-
mation given to EPA's MEWS task force, no high-level wastes
are generated or managed at Rocky Flats. I have enclosed a
copy of the final MEWS report as requested by Mr. Smith for
further information.
-------
- 2 -
Furthermore, I will keep you and the other Regional Admin-
istrators apprised of any developments that could potentially
affect the administration of the mixed waste program. For
example, DOE finalized its rulemaking on the definition of
"byproduct material" on May 1, 1987 (52 FR 15937). DOE's
final rule which defines byproduct materTal as interpreted
by EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, stipulates
that the nonradioactive "hazardous component" of wastes
which heretofore may have been construed as byproduct material
is now subject to RCRA regulation. The implications of that
notice are quite far reaching since waste streams which may
have been excluded from RCRA jurisdiction under the proposed
rule are now clearly included in the RCRA system. Staff are
currently preparing an interpretative memorandum addressing
•the potential implications of DOE's byproduct rule which
will be available to you in the near future.
If I can be of further assistance in clarifying issues
pertinent to mixed waste regulation, do not hesitate to
contact me.
Enclosure
-------
June 9, 1987 9441.1987(42)
Hubbard
Colonel, General Staff
Deputy Chief of Staff for
Engineering, Housing and
Installation Logistics
Department of the Army
Headquarters, U.S. Army Material Command
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333-001
Dear Colonel Hubbard:
This letter is in response to your letter (dated May 4,
1987), the letter from David Eaton (dated March 3, 1987) and my
discussion with Major Cabellon on May 12, 1987, regarding the
applicability of the use/reuse exclusion (40 CFR 261.2(e)(l)) to
red water (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K047) that is recycled. As I
explained to Major Cabellon, the use/reuse exclusion does not
apply to the red water that is generated at the Radford Army
Ammunition Plant (RAAP) and sold to the Champion Paper Company
located in Canton, North Carolina, since it is not directly used;
rather, as I understand the process, sodium sulfite that is
contained in the red water is first recovered before it is
used/reused. In addition, as it is stated in Mr. Eaton's letter,
the red water is also used for its calorific properties (i.e., as
a fuel). Under the hazardous waste regulations, any spent
material, sludge, or by-product that is listed and reclaimed
and/or used as a fuel is considered a solid and hazardous waste.
See 40 CFR §261.2(c)(2) and (c)(3). Thus, the example described
on page 2-152 to 2-153 of the EPA "Guidance Manual on the RCRA
Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Wastes" appears to be incorrect.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8851 if you
have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Branch Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
cc: Solid Waste Management Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1987(45)
JUK 16
Mr. Fred Kamienny
Vice President
PRN Service, Inc.
1210 Morse
Royal Oak, Michioan 4P067
Dear Mr. Kamienny:
This responds to your letter of April 13, 19P7, reoardino
the reaulatory status of chemotherapy drugs and related suroliee.
In particular, you questioned whether the weight of the "emptv"
vial should be included in determining the amount of druq residues
to be disposed.
As you pointed out, several chemotherapy drugs are listed in
40 CFR 261.33(f) (commonly known as the U-list). A* such, these
wastes are regulated under the F.PA hazardous waste reoulations
(unless subject to the small quantity Generator exclusion).
in the listing are the following discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification species/ container residues/ and Rnill
residues:
1) chlorambucil (1'035)
2) cyclophoephamide (U059)
3) daunomycin (U059)
4) melphalan (U150)
5) mitowycin C (U010)
6) streptozotocin (U206)
7) uracil mustard (U237)
Under EPA regulations governing the management of hazardous
wastes, any container used to hoi* these chemicals (such an vials)
are considered hazardous wastes unless these container* meet the
criteria of an "empty container." Under the enpty container
provision such vials are excluded from regulation if the material
has been removed by pouring/ pumping/ and aspirating/ and no nore
than 1 inch of residue remains in the bottom of the vial or no
more than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container
remains in the container. (See 40 CFP 261.7)
The Agency is aware/ however, that prudent practice dictates
that materials contaminated with these chemicals (such as syrinoes,
VT ?n»f qTpvog, ~in*r\*f ^^mnm} +*•/- ) not be handled aiftor tine»
-------
Agency recommends that the entire volume o* waste be weighe*
that there be no attemnt to remove any residue from the vial
before disposal.
Chemotherapy drugs that are not listed hazardous wastes are
not regulated by r.P\. However, you should contact your State or
local government reoarding the management of these chemicals.
Also, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provides guidance
on handling and management of antineoplastics. Contact T'arvey
Rooers, at NIH for further information. Mr. Rogers may be reached
at (301) 496-7775.
If you should have any further questions reaarding reenilatory
requirements for specfic wastes/ you may call the RCRA Hotline at
(8.00) 424-9346, or contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (20?)
382-4805.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline w. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
9441.1937(46)
UNITED ST-^LstNViRoNMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN<
WASHINGTON O C 20*50
I7J987
O"IC£ OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT; Methanol Recovery System; Clarification of Waste Status
FROM: Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
TO; Clifford Ng, Engineer, Region II, AWM-HWF
This is in response to your memo of February 18, 1987, in which
you request our interpretation of the waste streams associated with a
specific methanol recovery process. First, I apologize for taking so
long in responding to your request. I hope this delay has not caused
you any problems.
With respect to your specific questions, the following is our
interpretation of how this process is regulated under the hazardous
waste rules:
1. Stream A, the methanol-laden air from the drying and granulation
step of the process, does not meet the definition of a solid
waste under RCRA because it is in vapor form and not confined in
a container.
2. The carbon beds that both condense and adsorb the methanol from
the air contains an F003 waste when the condensation of methanol
occurs. Therefore, stream B, the carbon/methanol mixture is to
be handled as a listed hazardous waste.
3. The solvent stripper is used to recover the spent carbon.
Therefore, this process is not subject to regulation. See 40 CFR
261.6(c)(l). However, any residues (stream C) derived from it is
considered an F003 waste. The spent carbon, which is the
recovered product, is not a solid waste.
4. Stream C, the condensed steam/methanol mixture is a hazardous
wast* because it was derived from treating a hazardous waste (see
40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)) and stream C would remain a hazardous
waste, unless it is delisted under the provisions of 40 CFR
Sections 260.20 and 260.22 or is mixed with another solid waste
(see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii).
-------
5. Since stream C is hazardous (unless it is delisted or has been
mixed with a solid waste) , then downstream tank 4 would be
subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Stream F is also
derived from the treatment of a hazardous waste and, therefore,
would be a hazardous waste. As you are aware, if stream F were
sent to a POTW or discharged under an NPDES permit, then it would
not be subject to RCRA regulations.
I hope this clarifies your concerns about the waste streams from
this process. If you require additional information, please feel
free to call Ed Abrams at FTS-382-4787.
-------
June 26, 1987 9441.1987(52)
Mr. Terry Husseman
Chair, Northwest Interstate
Compact Committee
Washington Department of Ecology
PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
Dear Mr. Husseman:
Thank you for your letter of May 28 in which you requested
guidance on treatment and disposal methods for low-level waste
that contains uncontaminated lead used as shielding, surface
contaminated lead and activated lead.
First, I would like to address activated or radioactive
lead. As you know, lead is not a naturally occurring
radionuclide. Lead may become radioactive or activated as a
result of neutron bombardment while being used as shielding in
nuclear power plants, for example. Such activated lead, if
short-lived, may be stored to allow radioactive decay prior to
disposal. The resultant non-activated or elemental lead may be
disposed of as hazardous waste in a hazardous waste disposal
facility. If storage for decay is impractical, the activated
lead must be managed as mixed waste. You should note, however,
that in States authorized to administer the Federal mixed waste
program or in States with Federally administered hazardous waste
programs, any storage of mixed waste in excess of ninety days for
generators and ten days for transfer facilities would require a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit. Similarly,
designated storage facilities must obtain a RCRA permit.
Lead which is contaminated on the surface may be
decontaminated by a number of commercially available processes.
However, because lead is malleable and easily gouged or pitted,
radioactive contamination is often not limited to the surface and
may be imbedded in the lead itself. Where decontamination is
incomplete or contraindicated because of occupational health
considerations, the lead must be managed as a mixed waste. Also,
EPA's Office of Radiation Programs is developing a standard which
will delineate levels of radiation which are below regulatory
concern (BRC). Once BRC levels have been established, it may be
possible to dispose of lead which exhibits BRC levels of
radioactive contamination as a hazardous waste.
Lead containers or container liners which are used as
shielding in low-level waste disposal operations pose a unique
problem. Containers or container liners are not regulated by the
Agency (See 40 CFR 261.7) nor would they be a waste because they
are fulfilling intended uses. ((CF 40 CFR 261.2 (c) (1) (ii)). ,-In
this instance, containers or liners may be analogous to
commercial chemical products (e.g., pesticides) where as a
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
product, their normal use is placement on the land. Therefore,
lead whose primary use is shielding in low-level waste disposal
operations is not subject to Federal hazardous waste regulations
when placed on the land as part of its normal commercial use.
Encapsulation represents a viable mechanism for mitigating
the hazardous waste characteristic lead may exhibit upon EP
toxicity testing only in specific circumstances. The EP toxicity
test procedure requires grinding the waste into pieces not
greater than one square centimeter in size prior to extraction.
Therefore, encapsulation would result in a non-hazardous waste
only in those instances where it could be demonstrated that the
encapsulation process results in a product that would not degrade
after disposal, (i.e., is resistant to degradation or fracturing
when placed in the land disposal environment). In such
instances, you could petition the Agency to waive the EP toxicity
test requirement. Additionally, the Agency is revising existing
EP toxicity test procedures. Work is underway to develop
procedures for evaluating a waste's long term physical stability.
These procedures may then be used to demonstrate that the
encapsulated material will not degrade and allow testing of an
intact lead brick or the like, for example.
The Agency has not evaluated specific technologies for
encapsulation of lead or other wastes, nor has the Agency
performed specific laboratory analyses of materials to determine
their resistance to the EP toxicity test. However, a polymer or
some other material which maintains its integrity under
environmental stress would seem to be suitable.
In view of the urgency of the lead issue, it may be prudent
to explore the feasibility of obtaining both a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission license and an EPA permit to provide for the disposal
of mixed waste.
If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Alan Corson
Floyd Galpin
Ken Shuster
bcc: Jim Michael
Betty Shackleford
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1987 (53)
JUH 29i98T
Mr. Curtis J. BaX-r
Safety Environmental Specialist
Moore Business Forma &
Systems Division
3100 North Husband
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075-2199
Dear Mr. Baker:
In your letter of May 27, 19fl7, you requested Agency
guidance on whether the provisions in 40 CFP. 261. 4(c) pertain to
wastes subject to Part 268 (i.e., the Land Disposal Restrictions).
According to the provisions in 40 CFR 261. 4(c), hazardous
wastes that are generated in a manufacturing process unit or an
associated non-vaste-treatment-manufacturing unit, are not subject
to regulation under Part 262 through 265, 270, 271 and 124 or
the notification requirements of nection 3010 of PCRA until it
exits the unit in which it was generated. In the November 7,
1986, solvents and dioxins final rule, the Agency revised 40 CFR
Part 261. 4(c) to include a reference to Part 268. Therefore,
wastes generated within a manufacturing process unit likewise
are not subject to Part 268 until they exit the manufacturing
process.
The Agency has stated in its June 11, 1987, Notice of Data
Availability (52 FR 22356) that for purposes of determining
compliance with land disposal restrictions, the initial generator
of the waste (i.e., before the waste is treated) determines
whether the waste as subject to the 2-year national capacity
extension. Therefor*, a hazardous waste which meets the reouirements
in 40 CFR 261. 4(c) are subject to the 2-year national variance
if it meets one or more of the following criteria (in $ 268.30):
1 ) lh« generator of the solvent waste is a small quantity
generator of 100-1000 kilograms of hazardous waste
per month r or
2) The solvent is from a response action under the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CEPCLA) or any corrective action
taken under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(PCRA) _i • . • l or
-------
3) TTie solvent waste IB a solvent-water rairture, solvent-
containing sludae, or solvent-contaminated soil (non-
CEP.CLA or RCPA corrective action) containino less than
1 percent total "001-F005 solvent constituents liste*
in Table CCWE of $ 268.41.
I hope this information adeouately addresses your concerns,
If you have additional questions, you may call me at (202) 382-
4770.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
cc: Region VI
-------
9441.1987(54]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JUL I3I9&7
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY «6Sf>O
Mr. Wayne E. McCoy
Pfizer, Inc.
Minerals, Pigments and Metals Division
640 North 13th Street
Easton, PA 08042-1497
Dear Mr. McCoy:
This letter responds to a request from Pfizer to provide an
interpretation on the regulatory status of the lime-ammonia
stabilized iron oxide sludge that is generated at Pfizer's
Valparaiso, Indiana facility, in particular, it was asked Whether
this sludge is exempted from the hazardous waste regulations under
40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii) (i.e., exemption for lime-stabilized waste
pickle liquor sludge). Based on my understanding of the process,
spent pickle liquor (K062) is the only waste that is received at
the Valparaiso facility; in the course of recycling the spent
pickle liquor*-/* solids are generated which are treated with
ammonia ar ' iTme to produce a stabilized sludge. Under this- set
of conditions, the iron oxide sludge that Pfizer generates at its
Valparaiso plant is covered under the lime-stabilized waste
pickle liquor sludge exemption. Thus, I agree with the State of
Indiana in their interpretation of the hazardous waste rules.
However, you should be aware that this waste may still be hazardous
if it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics, and
Pfizer is still responsible for making this determination.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if you
have any further questions.
I/ The spent pickle liquor is first neutralized with scrap iron.
~~ Waste from the liquor consists of tramp dirt and foreign mate-
rials from the scrap iron and the steel mill liquor. The liq-
uor is clarified prior to using for iron oxide manufacturing
by settling out the solids. The solids are then treated to
generate the line-ammonia stabilized iron oxide sludge.
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1987(57)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL3I 867
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF
: 2^-Z. SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY R£SPOr-
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Facilities Previously
Granted Temporary Exclusions'/ I . /
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director^ k/A/"'7 /**
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Regional Division Director?, Hazardous Waste
Management Divisions
Between 1980 and 1982 the Environmental Protection Agency
issued 150 temporary and informal exclusions for delisting
petitions. The Hazardous and. Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) established a November 3, 1986 statutory deadline for
taking final action on these petitions. If a final decision was
not promulgated by the November deadline, the exclusions were
automatically revoked effective November 9, 1986. This memorandum
summarizes, by Region, the status of all previous temporary
exclusions in light of the November 8, 1986 statutory deadline*
Only three (Lederle Laboratories, NY; Faultless Hardware, KY;
and Rock Island Refining, IN) of the 150 temporary exclusions
were not issued final decisions by the HSWA statutory deadline
of November 8, 1?86. Those three facilities automatically lost
their exclusions $s of November 9, 1986 and should be handling
their petitioned wastes as hazardous until a final delisting
decision is promulgated. It should also be noted that the
effective date of the final denial decisions for ail temporarily
excluded wastes has now passed and, therefore, all facilities
that had temporary exclusions for their wastes and that were denied
final exclusion, should be handling the petitioned wastes as
hazardous unless the unit closed prior to the effective date of
the final decision.
The attached status list indicates whether petitions with
temporary or informal exclusions were issued final grant or denial
decisions or whether the petition was withdrawn, moot, or is still
being processed. The list also provides the effective date for
each final decision. These dates vary depending on: the type of
decision made, the basis for the decision (i.e., failure to submit
necessary information or results of the technical evaluation),
and the date that the final decision was published in the Federal
Register. The Federal Register citations for proposed and final
decisions are also given.
-------
-2-
The Agency notes that all final decisions that have been
promulgated pertain only to the waste(s) cited in the promulgation
notice. Any other waste management activities not included in the
delisting decision are still subject to RCRA Subtitle C or authorized
State requirements.
As a general rule, the petitioned wastes generated before
the granting of a temporary exclusion were considered hazardous
and, therefore, subjected the units handling the wastes to
Subtitle C control. The granting of a temporary exclusion for
the waste only temporarily removed the waste unit from Subtitle
C regulation. It should also be noted that the petitioned
wastes (that had been granted a temporary exclusion, but then
denied final exclusion), that were generated during the time the
temporary exclusion was in effect, are now considered hazardous
wastes. However, if these wastes remain in the disposal unit
identified in the petition, the wastes are not subject to Subtitle
C management requirements unless they are disturbed in such a way
so as to trigger Subtitle C regulation (e.g., removed, excavated,
or mixed with other wastes). The following discussions clarify
the regulatory status of wastes that were previously granted
temporary exclusions.
Final Exclusion Granted
o The facility may continue to handle the petitioned
waste as non-hazardous within the constraints of the
granting notice and any other applicable requirements.
Final Exclusion Denied Based on the Results of the Technical
Evaluation (i.e.,the petitioner failed to show the waste to be
non-hazardous!
If the waste is disposed off-site:
o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary
exclusion is six months after publication of the Agency's
final decision in the Federal Register.
o Starting on the effective date, new waste that is generated,
as described in the petition and that would have previously
been included under the temporary exclusion, is subject to
all applicable RCRA Subtitle C or authorized State program
requirements (e.g., the facility must insure that the waste
is shipped to a RCRA hazardous waste management facility)•
o While a temporary exclusion was in effect, the petitioner
was not liable for compliance with hazardous waste regula-
tions. Petitioned wastes generated while the temporary
exclusion was in effect could have been disposed of off-site
as non-hazardous. All wastes in the off-site unit must
-------
-3-
be handled in accordance with Subtitle C requirements if,
at a later date, they are managed in such a way as to
trigger Subtitle C regulation (e.g., removed from the
unit or considered to be "stored" rather than "disposed").
If the waste is managed on-site:
o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary
exclusion is six months after publication of the Agency's
final decision in the Federal Register.
o Starting on the effective date, new waste that is generated,
as described in the petition and that would have been included
under the temporary exclusion, is subject to all applicable
RCRA Subtitle C or authorized State program requirements.
o Between 1980 and the granting of a temporary exclusion/
there was some period of time that the waste was considered
to be hazardous. Therefore, all units covered by temporary
exclusions have or should have interim status.
o If an on-site land disposal unit that received wastes
covered by a temporary exclusion, continues to receive
hazardous waste after the effective date of the final
decision, Attachment 1 provides guidance on compliance
requirements for those units.
o If an on-site land disposal unit that received wastes
covered under a temporary exclusion stops receiving all
wastes prior to the effective date of the final decision,
(and receives no other hazardous wastes), Part 265 closure
must be initiated within 90 days of the revocation of the
temporary exclusion.
o If an on-site land disposal unit that received wastes
covered under a temporary exclusion stops receiving hazardous
waste prior to the effective date of the final decision
but continues to receive solid waste, Part 265 closure must
be initiated within 90 days, and completed within 180 days,
of the revocation of the temporary exclusion. However, the
Agency intends to propose, in the near future, a rule which
may change these requirements.
o If prior to the effective date of the final decision,
waste covered under a temporary exclusion is disposed in
an on-site solid wasteW unit, the solid waste unit is not
subject to hazardous waste regulations other than would
typically apply to a solid waste management unit. All
"Solid waste" is defined in 40 CFR 261.2{a)(l).
-------
-4-
wastes in that unit are considered hazardous and must be
handled in accordance with Subtitle C requirements jif they
are managed in such a way as to trigger Subtitle C regulation
at a later date (e. g. , they are removed and are shipped
off-site or receive further on-site treatment).
o If a unit containing only a waste covered under a temporary
exclusion closed prior to the effective date of the final
decision, the unit is not subject to hazardous waste
regulation unless later disturbed (e.g., removed, excavated).
Final Exclusion Denied Based on. the Failure to Provide Information
Needed to Evaluate the petition
o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary
exclusion was November 9, 1986. As of this date, the
waste must be managed in accordance with applicable RCRA
Subtitle C or authorized State program requirements.
o Attachment 1 provides guidance regarding LOIS compliance
requirements for petitioners with on-site land disposal
units that contain wastes once covered by a temporary
exclusion.
o Starting on the effective date, new wastes that are
generated, as described in the petition and that would
have previously been included under the temporary exclusion,
that are disposed off-site must be shipped to & RCRA hazardous
waste management facility.
The status list also shows petitions that have been withdrawn
or are considered moot.
o Petitioners that have withdrawn (i.e., the facility has
submitted a letter to the Agency requesting that its
petition be withdrawn) have lost their temporary exclusions
and should have handled their waste(s) as hazardous as of
the date the petition was withdrawn.
o Petitions that are considered moot may be moot for a variety
of reasons, including: disposal of a specific volume of
waste under a previously granted "one-time" exclusion;
cessation of production activities that generated the
waste being petitioned for delisting; or reclass ification
of a particular listing. The status list identifies the
reasons a petition is considered "moot" and the date that
the petition was determined to be moot by the Agency.
-------
-5-
I hope that the attached status list and regulatory
compliance guidance is useful in coordinating the ongoing
efforts of both the Regional and State programs. Should! you
have any questions regarding the attached material or require
more information on the Federal delisting program activities,
please feel free to contact Suzanne Rudzinski of the Office of
Solid Waste at FTS 382-4206. If guidance is needed in determining
appropriate compliance actions, please contact Steve Heare of
the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement at FTS 382-2207.
Attachments
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X Jeff Denit (OSW)
Enforcement Section Chiefs, Regions I-X Bruce Weddle (PSPD)
Permit Section Chiefs, Regions I-X Susan Bromm (PSPD)
Jack McGraw (OSWER) Steve Hirsch (OGC)
Gene Lucero (OWPE) Ed Reich (SSCD)
Suzanne Rudzinski (PSPD) Myles Morse (PSPD)
Steve Heare (OWPE) Delisting Staff (PSPD)
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Guidance On Compliance Requirements For Facilities That Lost
Their Temporary Exclusion But Continue To Manage The Waste On-sitt
-------
Guidance on Compliance Requirements For Facilities That Lost Thei:
Temporary Exclusion But Continue To Manage The Waste On-site
I. Requirements for facilities that had interim status, and had
other units that handled hazardous waste during the time "tha"t
the temporarily excluded waste was handled:
If the facility filed a Part A permit application, and did
not modify it to exclude the unit handling the temporarily
excluded waste, and the facility has not filed a Part B
permit application, and no decision on its permit has been
made, no further action is required by the facility.
If the facility revised its Part A permit application to
exclude the unit handling temporarily excluded waste (which
should mean that that unit handled no other hazardous waste
then the facility must make the necessary change during int<
status to include this unit, under Section 270.72 or its st<
analog•
If the facility has filed a Part B permit application, but •
decision on its permit has yet been made, no further action
required. The facility may need to revise its Part B permi
application, however, if the units containing the petitione<
waste were not included as part of their permit application
It must also request a change in interim status as descibed
above.
If the facility received its permit, it must file for a maj
permit modification for the unit handling the temporarily
excluded waste under Section 270.41 or its state analog.
Under the existing regulations, the facility may not handle
that waste until the permit is modified. However/ the
Agency intends to propose, in the near future, a rule that
will simplify the procedures for obtaining approval to
handle new hazardous wastes*
If the petitioned waste is disposed of in an on-site surfac
impoundment/ and that impoundment continues to receive the
petitioned waste four (4) years after the date of promulgat
of the final denial decision/ the petitioner must comply
with Section 3005(j)(6) of RCRA which requires that the
impoundment be retrofitted to meet minimum technological
requirements of Section 3004(o)(1)(A) of RCRA. Accordingly
the deadline for complying with the minimum technological
requirements for surface impoundments is four (4) years
after the date of promulgation of the final denial decision
-------
-2-
II. Requirements for facilities that may have lost interim status
because of failure to certify compliance:
If other units handling hazardous waste at the facility
required certification on November 8, 1985, but did not
certify, those units lost interim status. However, if a
unit handled only temporarily excluded wastes, that unit
did not lose interim status. (See 50 FR 38946, September
25, 1985.) We recommend that you inspect these units to
verify that they are in compliance with all applicable
regulations.
III. Requirements for facilities that handled only temporarily
excluded wastes;
- If the facility had interim status and has filed a Part A
permit application, and did not modify its Part A to exclude
the unit handling the temporarily excluded waste, no further
action is required by the facility.
If the facility withdrew its Part A permit application,
the facility still has interim status, however, the facility
must reinstate its Part A under Section 270.10(a) and (e)
or their state analogs.
If the facility has filed a Part B permit application,
but no decision on its permit has yet been made, no
further action is required by the facility. The facility
may need to revise its Part B permit application, however,
if the units containing the petitioned waste were not
part of their permit application (i.e., if the permit
application addresses only new units that are yet to be
constructed). We do not believe that any facilities
which handled only temporarily excluded wastes have
received a permit.
- If the facility handled only temporarily excluded waste,
it was not required to do anything to retain interim status
under Section 3005(e)(2) of RCRA. (See 50 PR 38946, Sep-
tember 25, 1985.) The facility is not subject to Section
3005(e)(3) of RCRA.
-------
9441.1987(58)
UNITEF ^TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 204«0
JUL 3 I 1987
w SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Regarding Briquetting
of Flue Oust
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (Nip-
TO: Judith Kertcher, Acting Chief
Solid Waste Branch, Region V (5HS-13)
This is in response to your June 25, 1987, memorandum
in which you asked for a regulatory interpretation regarding
flue dust (K061) that is nixed with sodium silicate binder
and pressed into briquettes for use in steel production by
the original waste generators. The regulatory provision that
covers this situation is 40 CFR §261.2(e)(i)(i), which provides
that a material is not a solid waste whet*, it is u**d or reused
as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a product,
without first b«ix>.g r«el*.iro?.o (See 50 CFR 638-63S?
January 4, 1985o) ),» th* Dehli industrial Products, Inc.
case, you have indicated that the briquette*® sad* fxom the
flue
-------
- 2 -
2. The fact that batch tolling agreements are in place
also does not affect the regulatory status of the
recycled material.!/ Such agreements would
probably help a generator satisfy the burden of
proof (§261.2(f)) to document that the generator's
material is not solid waste.
3. The addition of sodium silicate binder to the flue
dust does not change the regulatory status of the
recycled material. EPA has said that briquetting of
dry wastes to facilitate resmelting (and this would
include the addition of a binding material) is not
reclamation. (See 50 PR 639; January 4, 1985.)
4. The process in question is probably not a closed
loop system. The issue here is not whether the
waste is recycled on or off site, because nothing
in §261.2(e)(1)(iii) limits the closed-loop exemption
to on-site recycling. Rather, information available
to EPA indicates that facilities such as Dehli' (i.e.,
electric arc furnaces) typically use scrap steel as
feedstock. As such, the operation does not meet the
condition in §261.2(e>(1)(iii) that the recycled material
be returned as a substitute for raw material feedstock,
and that the process must use raw materials as princi-
pal feedstocks. In this case (scrap steel) the flue
dust substitutes for a secondary material, not a
raw material.
On April 4, 1983, EPA proposed a conditional exemption for
hazardous wait* recycled under batch tolling agreements.
(See 48 FR 14494-14495.) EPA rejected this exemption
in the final rule. (See 50 FR 643; January 4, 1985.)
-------
9441.1987(59)
ALJG 7 '987
SCulO WASTE
Mr. William S. Harer
CHEM-CLEAR
992 Old Eagle School Road
Suite 915
Wayne, PA 19087
Dear Mr. Harer:
This is response to your letter of May 12, 1987, in which
you requested an interpretation regarding the regulatory status
of a waste generated by one of your clients. Specifically, the
waste in question is generated by caustic rinsing metal parts
that have been cleaned with a solvent containing over 10%, by
volume, trichloroethyl«n«.
The Agency does not consider small amounts of solvent
carried over on the metal parts from solvent degrwasing to meet
the listing description of a spent solvent. Therwfore, if any
solvent is carried over into the caustic rinse w»t«*;, th«
mixture rule would not be applicable. Thus, the caustic rinse
water would only be a hazardous waste if it exhibits one of the
hazardous waste characteristics [ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity]« Since your
caustic rinse water does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, ac was demonstrated by your ell wit's analytical
results, the caustic rinse water would not appe&x to be a
hazardous waste under the Federal hazardous waste regulations.
However, you should be aware that the State's h&2&rdous waste
regulations may be more stringent than the federal hazardous
waste rules. Therefore/ you should contact a representative
from the State to determine the waste's regulatory status under
the State's hazardous waste program.
If you require additional information, please contact Ed
Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
vijtL c
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1937(31}
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN(
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG I 2 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Roy Lee Tate
804 Sugarloaf Lane
Anniston, Alabama 36201
Dear Mr. Tate:
This is in response to your letter of July 17, in which you
requested an interpretation of whether and how the RCRA hazardous
waste regulations apply to a zinc oxide dust being recycled. The
dust is considered a sludge under 40 CFR 5261.2. The status of
the sludge is as follows:
1. If any material recovered from the sludge is sent for
fertilizer use, the sludge is subject to 40 CFR S261.6(b)
and (c), the requirements for recyclable materials.
(When a sludge is used as fertilizer, it is a solid
waste. See §261.2(3).)£/
2. The leach residues that are sent for met&ls recovery,
once completely reclaimed, are not solid waste. (See
5261.2(e). )
In the case where a given quantity of sludge is reclaimed
both for metals recovery and for fertilizer use, the sludge would
be subject to §261.6(b) and (c) prior to reclamation because some
of the sludge was used in a manner constituting disposal.
Finally, you should note that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia reached a decision on July 31, 1987,
that calls into question EPA's authority to regulate certain waste
recycling activities. EPA is studying the opinion to determine
its scope. Because the Court has not yet issued its mandate, the
regulations currently in the Code of Federal Regulations defining
what is "solid waste," and establishing regulations for recycled
hazardous waste, remain in effect.
T/In contrast, if the reclaimed zinc oxide is sent to produce
zinc sulfate {and not for fertilizer), then the sludge is not
solid waste and is not subject to the hazardous waste regula-
tions. See S261.2(c)(3).
-------
-2-
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-6676.
Sincerely/
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441. 19B7 (6 4'i
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT|, .-, A-l-t
WASHINGTON DC 20J60
AUG I 3 IS8T
Mr. Lawrence H. Harmon
10804 Longmeadow Drive
Damascus, Maryland 20872
Dear Mr. Harmon:
This letter is in response to your July 24, 1987 inquiry
regarding the regulation and management of used crankcase
oil. The EPA does not regulate disposal of used oil by
"do-it-yourselfers". In fact, in the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), Congress exempted all household
wastes from the hazardous waste regulations. We do, however,
have minimal regulations in place, and are considering others,
that will regulate the waste oil industry. We believe these
regulations will encourage recycling options. We are keenly
aware of the problems of disposal by the do-it-yourself
community, and are developing a program to address these
problems. An important component of this program will be
public education. Some States already have regulatory and .
informational programs in place.
In the meantime, do-it-yourselfers do have alternatives to
throwing their waste oil in the trash. Many service stations
do accept waste oil from the public (sometimes charging a
small fee), while others do not. We believe this situation is
the result of market forces, and not the result of EPA
regulation of the industry. The Agency strongly encourages
service stations to provide collection facilities, and for
do-it-yourselfers to use those facilities (enclosure).
In response to your specific regulatory questions, we are
also enclosing copies of our current used oil regulations.
These regulations provide for controls on used oil fuel and
hazardous vasts fuel (including contaminated waste oil) burned
for energy recovery. There are different regulatory
requirements for different categories of used oil. For
example, "clean1* used oil meeting specifications would be
relatively free from regulation, while off-specification used
oil and hazardous waste fuels (including used oil that has
been mixed with a hazardous waste) would be subject to
increasingly greater degrees of regulation. No federal
permits are presently required for used oil collection,
transportation, recycling, or disposal activities.
-------
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact
David Tomten of my staff at (202) 382-3298.
Sincerely,
Marci'a HCiWilliams
Director, Office of Solid Waste
*j
Enclosures
-------
3441.19871
0 SV PS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUB IT OT
Mr. E.H. Phillippe
Manager, Environmental and Regulatory Affair*
Virginia Chemicals, Inc.
C01"water Street
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Dear Mr. Phillippei
The Permits and State Programs Division (P6PD) has completed
a review of your petitions requesting exclusions under 40 CFR
§260.20 and §260.22 of the still bottoms from the xe&every of
methanol (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F003) generated sit Virginia
Chemicals' Leeds, South Carolina (10668) and Bucks, Alabama
U0669) facilities.
We understand that these still bottoms are ultimately
sold as a co-product to users in the pulp and pap«r industry..
According to your letter of Hay 8, 1987, it is cle&r that
the delisting criteria are not applicable to your co-product at
the time of sale as a result of mixture with a solid waste.
Based on 40 CPR §261.3(a)(2)(iii), a mixture of a solid
waste (e.g., off-specification sodium hydroeulfite) with a hegardous
waste listed solely because it exhibits a characteristic specified
in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C (e.g., your petitioned POOS wastes)
is not a hazardous waste if it no longer exhibits any hazardous
waste characteristic identified in Subpart C. The dalisting
criteria of 40 CFR §260.22(c)(2) do not apply to mixtures of
wastes where 40 CFR §261.3(a)(2)(iii) applies. In such a case,
it is the responsibility of the generator to demonstrate to
themselves and to responsible state (or other) authorities that
the resultant mixture does not exhibit the hazardous waste
characteristics.
Although the co-product as sold is subject to 40 CFR
§261.3(a)(2)(iii), the still bottoms generated from the
recovery of methanol are still considered hazardous at the
source of generation. These still bottoms, therefore, are
subject to all applicable hazardous waste management regulations,
unless delisted.
-------
We understand that you still wish to pursue & delitting of
the still bottoms. Additional information, however, is necessary
before we can complete our review of your petitions. • We have
evaluated the analytical data of your petitions using the vertical
and horizontal spread (VHS) model (see 5C FR 48886-489G7, November
27, 1985). 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
maximum annual waste generation rate and the maximum leachate
concentrations as inputs to determine the amount of dilution
that may occur in an underlying aquifer. The results of the
jnooel (i.e. , the calculated compliance point concentrations) are
compared with the Agency's level of regulatory concern for each
constituent.
The maximum allowable EP levels that could be exhibited by
the wastes without failing the VHS model evaluation would be
C.315 ppn for arsenic, chromium, lead, and silver; 0.063 ppm for
cadmium and selenium; and 0.0126 ppm for mercury. Any extract
levels above these concentrations would generate levels (at the
compliance point) greater than the National Interim Primary
Drinking hater Standards of 0.05 ppm for arsenic, chromium, lead,
and silver; of 0.01 ppm for cadnium and selenium; and of 0.002
pprri for mercury. These constituents were not reported as detected
in any of the still bottom samples, however, the analytical
detection limits exceeded the maximum allowable levels and were
higher than detection linits typically achieved for similar
waste matrices. Therefore, before we can complete our evaluation,
new test results (using detection linits which do not exceed the
maximum allowable concentrations) must be provided on a minimum
of four representative samples from each facility.
The new samples should be grab samples collected on a weekly
basis. Based on the analyses conducted as a result of the spot
check sampling visit at your Leeds, South Carolina, facility on
March 9, 1967, the sample from the distillation column contained
less than 0.5% filterable solids. The spot check analysis for
the EP metals and nickel, therefore, did not include EP toxicity
testing and instead included direct or total constituent analysis,
as directed by 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II. We recornnend, there-
fore, that you collect two samples on each sampling occasion for
analysis of the EP metals and nickel levels, one of which is not
preserved for the EP tozicity testing, and one of which is
preserved for the total constituent, analysis. If your analyses
of the unpreserved samples also indicate that the samples contain
less than 0.5% filterable solids, then total constituent analyses
should be conducted on the preserved samples. When results are
submitted for these analyses, please indicate whether or not each
sample contained less than 0.5% filterable solids (i.e., whether
or not the samples were subjected to extraction or direct analysis)
If the samples contained less than 0.5% filterable solids, then
the total constituent data generated by the analyses will be
evaluated using the VHS model.
-------
•> • A C » «C
-------
ia »tiii necessary*
1) For each facili /, -> exr . icit statement explaining why
all sasples colltct«;4. anrt analy*e«l are thouqht to be
representative of any process or vast* varibilitv. In
the •valuation of a petition, we need to 4«tenein« »h«»th»r
data reflect th« temporal and apatial variation of watt*
constituent* and fully characterise the petitioned va«te.
2) For each facility, a description of how the still cottons
»a»ples were collected for analysis performed in 1980.
(This information is also required for any new saaples
collected in response to this letter.)
In order for us to coeplete the evaluation of your petitions, you
oust fully respond to this additional information request within
six wonths of tne date of receipt of today's correspondence. If
ve do not receive a response within six months, a proposed denial
decision on the basis of lack of information will be published in
the Fg
-------
9441.1987(66)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 87
6. Solid Waste Classification
An electronics manufacturer uses a wave soldering operation to imprint
circuit boards. A "hot tin pot" containing a large mass of molten tin-
lead solder is used as the source for the imprinting procedure. Solder
frcm the pot is fed into the wave operation via a gulley or channel,
and residual or excess solder is fed directly back into the pot for
reuse. The solder becomes contaminated over time with copper and gold
from the circuit boards and is no longer usable. The contents of the
pot are then solidified in a large block and sent for gold recovery and
solder reclamation. Would the block of solder be classified as a
spent material, scrap metal, by-product or off specificaticxi
commercial chemical product?
The contents of the "hot tin pot" would be classified as a spent
material. Spent materials, per 50 FR 618, are materi?ls that have
been used and are no longer fit for use without being regenerated,
reclaimed or otherwise reprocessed. The material would not meet
the scrap metal classification because it is not a metal product
discarded after consumer use or metal turning or fine. It would
also be excluded from the off specification conmercial chemical
product category due to its prior use.
Source: Steve Silverman (202) 382-7706
Research: Andy O'Hare
-6-
-------
9441.1987(68)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
August 19, 1987
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. G. Thomas Manthey
Executive Vice President
SW Incorporation
P.O. Box B
Saukville, WI 53080
Dear Mr. Manthey:
This is in response to your letter of July 22, 1987, regarding
classification of mixtures of listed and characteristic hazardous
wastes. First, you asked how to classify two waste streams in the
"optional" block of the manifest. There are no EPA or other fed-
eral regulations mandating what wastes are to be placed in the
optional boxes of the manifest. These boxes were purposely left
blank so that each State could decide what should be included
there. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) does require
the EPA waste codes to be placed in the "U.S. DOT Shipping Descrip-
tion" box, along with the waste's proper shipping name, hazard
class, and ID number. (See 49 CFR Parts 171 and 172, and the
discussion at 52 j[R 4824; February 17, 1987.) Each waste in a
waste mixture must be described, i.e. , in your examples, you have:
(1) F003 and D001; and
(2) U239 and D001.
Your second question concerned whether you are conducting
treatment. From the information you provided, I do not think you
are conducting treatment. Merely placing different wastes into
the same tank truck is not treatment. Under RCRA Section 1004(34),
"treatment" 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 render such waste nonhazardous,
safer for transport, amenable for recovery ..."
-------
-2-
In your example, the different wastes that are blended together
each appears to be a fuel in its own right. The blending does
not appear to accomplish any of the purposes set out in the
Statute, and therefore does not appear to be treatment.
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1967(71)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
Manufacturing Process Units
A manufacturing process unit that holds methylene
chloride is located within a building that is slated for
demolition. If the owner/operator (o/o) of the unit
closes the building and ceases to operate the unit, how
long does the o/o have before the methylene chloride
must be shipped off-site?
F.rst, the owner/operator of the unit should
determine if the methylene chloride would be
regulated as a hazardous waste. If the methylene
chloride is a spent material it would be regulated
as a solid waste if disposed of, used in a manner
constituting disposal, burned for energy recover1? ,
reclaimed, or accumulated specula t i vely (Section
26l.2(c)(l), (2), (3), and (4)). If the spent
methylene chloride solution contained, before use,
ten percent (10%) or more methylene chloride, it
would meet either the FOOl or F002 listings in
Section 261.31 and subsequently would also be
regulated as a hazardous waste, assuming the
raethylene chloride regulated was utilized for its
solvent properties. If the methylene chloride is a
c o m m e r : i. a 1 chemical product and not a spent
material, it would be regulated as a solid waste if
used in a manner constituting disposal, disposed
of, or burned for energy recovery (Section
26l.2(c)(l) and (2)). If the product is reclaimed
or accumulated specu1 ativel y it would not be
regulated as a solid waste (Section 26l.2(c)(3) and
(4)). If the solvent is disposed of, used in a
manner constituting disposal, or burned for energy
recovery it is a solid waste and, due to the fact
that it would meet the U080 listing in Section
261.33(f) it would also be regulated as a hazardous
waste.
-------
9441.1987(73)
v r vi o % 1, N] ~) 'J v
SMBJECT: 'eaulaiorv Status of Spent Acids Used as a
Flocculant in Irrigation water
•M
FPOM: Robert Scarberry, Acting Chief'
waste Characterization Branch
TO: Bill Taylor, Chief
Enforcement Section (6H-CE)
Region VI
This is in response to your memo of August 14, 1987, re-
questing guidance on the regulatory status of spent acids used
as a flocculant in irrigation water. Spent acids used in this
manner are essentially a type of water conditioner, and as such,
are not solid waste. (See 50 PR 619 and 628, January 4, 1985;
and 48 PR 14485, April 4, 1983.)
If you have additional questions in this area, please
contact Michael Petruska of my staff at FTS 475-6676.
-------
9441.1967(74)
S8P2 1987
John J. McDonnell, P.E.
District Engineer
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.
P.O. Box 1309
Calumet City, IL 60409
Dear Mr. McDonnell:
This letter responds to a request from Waste Management of
Illinois to provide an interpretation on the regulatory status of
lime-stabilized sludge generated during the treatment of waste pickle
liquor from the iron and steel industry. In particular, it was asked
whether this sludge is exempted from the hazardous waste regulations
under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii) (i.e., exemption for lime-stabilized
waste pickle liquor sludge). Based on my understanding of the
process, spent pickle liquor (K062) is received from the iron and
steel industry at the CID-Calumet City facility and is stored and
treated separately from other wastes. The treatsient consists of
neutralizing the spent pickle liquor with lime and landfillinc- the
stabilized sludge generated. As you are aware, the treatment (as
described above) of K062 waste requires a RCRA permit.
Under these conditions, the stabilized sludge generated by the
treatment of spent pickle liquor at the CID-Caluaet City facility is
covered under the lime-stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge
exemption. However, you should be aware that this waste may still be
hazardous if it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics,
and Waste Management of Illinois is still responsible for making this
determination.
Pleas* feel free to give Ed Abrams of my staff a call at (202)
382-4787 if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
5'ATES ENVIRONMENTAL C.= OTECT:CN AGENC 94 41'198 7 (7 5 >
GTON 3 f :
SEP 4 1967
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Regarding Status of Coal Tar
Decanter Sludge Waste Pile at Toledo Coke Corp., Toledo, OH
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director (WH-562)
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Chief (5HS-13)
Solid Waste Branch
This memo is in response to your request for assistance in
interpreting 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii), as it applies to the storage of
coal tar decanter sludge in a waste pile prior to recycling at the
Toledo Coke plant in Toledo, Ohio. Toledo Coke is claiming that the
waste pile, which once existed on site, qualifies for exemption ur»6er
40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii). Region V does not concur with the clajfr for
exemption.
40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii) exempts the products coke and coal tar
made from recycled decanter tank tar sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste
K087) from Subtitle c regulation. This exemption does not pertain to
the decanter tank tar sludge stored for recycle. Furthermore, the
exemption under 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(iii) "Return^ to the original
process from which they are generated, without fi>rst being reclaimed
", also does not pertain to this waste pile because the.
manufacture of coke is producing a fuel. This fuel is used as a
reducing agent during the production of iron. Therefore, in
accordance with 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2)(ii) the waste pile (EPA Hazardous
Waste K087) at Toledo Coke's plant is subject to the federal
hazardous wast* regulations.
If you require additional information, please feel free to
contact Ed Abrams of my staff at (202) 382-4787.
-------
9441.1987(76
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
10:
Applicability of Bevill Amendment to the
American Natural Gas Coal Gasification Facility
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Christina Kaneen
Assistant General Counsel for RCRA
Robert L. Duprey, Director
Region VIII, Waste Management Division
We have reviewed your memorandum of May 1, 1987, your undated
memorandum received June 17, 1987, and the Planning Research
Consultants (PRO report, regarding the applicability of the RCRA
mining waste and the combustion ash waste ("utility wasteB) exclu-
sions (which are both part of the "Bevill Amendment") to the
American Natural Gas (ANG) coal gasification facility. We have
also reviewed ANG's Kay 13, 1987, letter on this subject and our
staff met with Larry wapensky of your staff.
Regarding the applicability of the combustion ash waste
exclusion (Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i)) to the ANG operation, ANG's
operations include controlled oxygen-starved combustion of coal.
Coal ash produced in the gasifiers from this combustion is eauiva-
lent to coal ash (from the same coal type) produced in utility
operations. In Gary Dietrich's letter to Paul Emler, dated
January 13, 1981, he stated that combustion wastes were excluded
from Subtitle C regulation by the Bevill Amendment providing
fossil fuel constituted at least 50 percent of Uhe fuel mix.
Ass'uming that coal
the combustion ash
the ANG operation.
constitutes at least 50% of ANG's fuel mix,
waste exclusion would apply to the ash from
Regarding the applicability of the mining waste exclusion
to ANG's operations, we agree with you that the exclusion for
"solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, And processing
-------
- 2 -
of ores or minerals" (the "mining waste exclusion") in RCRA Section
3001(b)(3)(A)(ii), applies to the coal gasification process. This
is consistent with the position taken in the January 21, 1981,
memorandua from Alfred Lindsey to Terry Thoem in which Mr. Lindsey
stated that the aining waste exclusion clearly extends to retorting
of shale and "to direct gasification and liquefaction of coal or
the wastes produced by those operations."
Analyzing ANG's wastes under the mining waste exclusion, we
agree with your conclusion that wastes from the following units
are generated from the primary benef iciation or processing of a
mineral (i.e., coal), and are, therefore, excluded from regulation
under RCRA Subtitle C by the mining waste exclusion:
The Gasification Units
The Raw Gas Cooling and Shift
Conversion Units
The Rectisol Unit
The Methanation Unit
However, we disagree with your analysis of the regulatory
status of wastes resulting from operations that are not in the
direct line of producing synthetic natural gas. We believe that
the ANG operations that treat the gas liquor, the waste gases,
and the cooling tower blowdown are also exempt from Subtitle C.
We note that EPA has previously recognized that
frgpi regulation if they derive from treatment of wastes
generated from mining waste* For instance, EFA suspended the
listings of several such wastes when Congress enacted the
mining waste exclusion. See 46 PR 4614 (January 16, 1981) and
46 FS 27473 (May 20, 1981), See also the attached letter from
James Scarbrough, EPA Region IV, to John Stubbs.
We do not believe the wastes from these units become subject
to RCRA Subtitle C if the treatment yields a useful by-product.
Certain units at ANG's plant produce, from the liquid waste
streams, materials which are to varying extents reused in the
plant or sold. These include sulfur, tar oils, phenol and
ammonia. In his" May 16, 1985, memorandum to Harry Seraydarian,
John Skinner stated that leachate generated from slag and clinker
wastes was except under the mining waste exclusion because the
leachate was derived from an exempt waste. He stated further
that "the situation would be different if the slag or clinker
were used as a raw material for some extractive process and a
listed or hazardous waste resulted. Under this scenario, the
hazardous waste would fall outside the mining waste exclusion."
we feel that this position is contrary to waste reduction goals.
It is not environmentally beneficial to create a situation in
which treating a waste for recovery of useful materials is subject
to Subtitle C regulations whereas disposal of the untreated wastes
-------
b« exerpt fro* RCRA. w« believe that wastes from the
following units are exempt from Subtitle C because these opera-
tions constitute treatment of minim; wastes:
The Stretford Unit
The Gas Liquor Separation Unit
The Phenosolvan Unit
The Phosam w Unit
Similarly, we celieve the cooling tower blowdown and relat«;G operation, the ANG
cooling tower olowdown is a pollution control residue which is
oerived from waste produced in the coal gasification process (snd
is thus "uniquely associated" with the coal gasification r.rccess).
\s such, it is excluded from regulation.
This is consistent with our position on ether lar^e volume
wastes. For example, cooling tower blowdown fro* fossil-fuel
fired electric utility cooling towers is currently exempt and is
under study in a forthcoming Report to Congress. Thus, the A'.ir-
units listed below treat an excluded waste, i.e., ccolinr tower
olowdown, so the wastes from these units are also excluded fron
regulation*
Th« Cooling Tower Unit
The Multiole Effect Evaporator Unit
The Liquid Waste Incineration Dnit
The Gaaifis-r Asn Handling System
from this analysis, we conclude that two of the ten wastes
you list on page 2 of your Kay 1, 1987, memorandum attachment as
•potentially regulated" are not excluded froi» potential reaulation
under RCRA Subtitle C:
-------
1. wastes fro» cleaning operations, vehicle eaintenance
operations, container atoraae areas and laboratory
areas* and wastes froTi the ollv water separation
•y at eft.
2. Spent aethanol catalyst fron the methanol plant.
Regarding the flue gas and ash wastes froa the steam
generation system, insufficient data are available fron the
report co determine the status of these wastes.
Finally, you requested our view on tfte reinjection of the
Multiple effect Evaporator liouid waste concentrate into the
?asif"i9rs. Since the vast majority of the inout to the q«sifi<»r
is an ore or mineral (i.e. coal), the waste from this unit would
renain excluded fros regulation even if the MSB waste nas were
net *xee»pt frc*» Subtitle C. This is consistent with our position
in previous correspondence regarding the status of ore crocessini
witn :aixed feedstocks (e.q, neaorandua from Garcia Williams to
Davic rfagoner, dated June 1C, 19o6; memorandum frow John Leh«an
to ?nil Bobel, dated April 4, 1984| and letter from John Lehr-an
to D.M. Friedman, dated Auoust 22, 1983 (all attached)).
In conclusion, we recognize the ANG facility is essentially
a aevill operation producing Bevill wastes which are currently
excluded frost RCRA Subtitle C regulations. The two exceptions
listed aoove are still potentially subject to Subtitle C
regulation.
*e do want to stress that the exemption froi Subtitle C
may be temporary. The exemption of any wastes fron processino
an ora or mineral can oe lifted cy ^PA aft=r orovidinq a Deport
to Conocess that addresses the factors identified under Section
oOJ2(f) of ?CRA. Purtner, we have serious reservations as to
whether the operations at the ANG facility would remain exe-pt,
were cbe facility to be reconf ^ure-i to conduct sianificant
organic chemical synthesis with the synthetic natural ^as or
aas liuor aa a feedstock.
•vhile we nope the aoove discussion clarifies our r»vi«v of
tne leqal status of the various units at the facility, we recoo
nize chat except wastes can be of environnental concern. th?r?
are other authorities under RCPA for ootairino information and
for taking corrective actions as appropriate. *e encourage vou
to use theee authorities to investigate and address health or
environmental impacts.
It you have any questions, please contact: Ben
(PTS/475-7242) of OSW "or Meg Silver (PTS/382-770*) of OGC.
Attachments
cc: Regional Administrator* Regions I-X
J. Winston Porter
JacK McGraw
Ben Haynes
Mea Silver
-------
9441.1987(77a)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
SEPTEMBER 1987
3. Waste Identification
A company generates aerosol paint and solvent cans from
painting and cleaning operations. The cans are empty as
per common industry practices used to empty such devices
to less than 3% by weight of the total capacity of the
container (40 CFR 261.7(b)(1 & . The cans may
still contain propellant, making the cans reactive if
put in contact with a strong initiating force (i.e.,
intense pressure or heat). Since for all practicable
purposes the cans are free of contents that might have
been hazardous wastes, would this be regulation of the
aerosol cans themselves? RIL #43 specifically excluded
the regulation of the cans, and solely addressed only
the potentially hazardous contents. Therefore, would
aerosol cans free of hazardous waste, but still
potentially reactive because of contained propellant be
regulated as hazardous waste?
Irrespective of the lack of contained waste, the
aerosol cans would be a RCRA hazardous waste
because they demonstrate the hazardous
characteristic of reactivity (40 CFR 261.23(a)(6) ).
-------
9441.1937(78:
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE
* WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
3 teo'
w W I W
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. J. Patrick Nicholson, Director
National Kiln Dust Management Association
P.O. Box 68106
Toledo, Ohio 43636
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1987, concerning
cement kiln dust. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
not conducted the study on cement kiln dust as described in the
1980 amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). We are aware, however, ot" the U.S. Bureau of Mines
Finding that dust poses a relatively low hazard.
In response to your question regarding the environmental
problems attributed to the burning of hazardous waste in cement
kilns, I would like to describe the following studies we have
conducted. In a June 3, 1^67, report, "Hazardous Waste
Combustion in Industrial Processes: Cement and Lime Kilns," LTA
studied the burning of hazardous waste iufel (HWF) in cement
kilns. Results show that as the metal content of HWF and the
amount of HWF increase, the motal levels in Jciln dur,t increase.
The principal metal that exhibits this increase is load.
However, the highly oxidizing environment of cement kilns
convert most metals to the oxide form, including lead to lead
oxide (PbO). The very low solubility of PbO, coupled with the
high concentrations of calcium compounds, result in a minimal
leaching of lead from the kiln dust. Tests have shown that kiln
dust generated during the use of HWF contains elevated lead
levels, but the lead is not extracted to levels above the
maximum permissible concentrations specified by the Extraction
Procedure Ox...city test. (See 40 CFR 261.24.)
EPA has also studied the impact on air quality by lead
emissions when HWF is used in cement kilns. From the
above-referenced report, EPA concluded the following:
"Lead emissions and the lead content of process dust
increase when hazardous waste, contaminated with
significant quantities of lead, are burned. However,
baseline emissions (no waste being burned) of lead are
very low to begin with and, although emissions do
increase with waste burning, more than 99 percent of
the lead emissions entering the process is captured by
the process materials, and the resulting emission rates
are not significant."
-------
Moreover, on May 6, 1987, EPA proposed a regulation to
control emissions of toxic metals, organic compounds, and
hydrogen chloride from cement kilns and other industrial
furnaces and boilers that burn hazardous waste. The final rule
is scheduled to be promulgated in Fall, 1988.
With respect to issuing guidance on cement kiln dust, we do
not plan on issuing specific guidance because we still consider
this substance as non-hazardous and, therefore, out of the
purview of EPA hazardous waste regulations. However, we will
refer your letter to the Bureau of Mines for possible
assistance.
Thank you for your interest in cement kiln dust. If I can
be of any further assistance, please let me know.
/Sincerely
Winston Porter
'Assistant Administrator
\J
-------
9441.193'
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 87
3. Waste Identification
A conpany generates aerosol paint and solvent cans from
painting and cleaning operations. The cans are empty as
per common industry practices used to empty such devices
to less than 3% by weight of Che total capacity of the
container (40 CFR 261. 7 ( b ) < I < i) & (in)). The cans nay
still contain propellant, making the cans reactive if
put in contact with a strong initiating force (i.e.,
intense pressure or heat). Since for all practicable
purposes the cans are free of contents that might have
been hazardous wastes, would this be regulation of the
aerosol cans themselves? RIL *43 specifically excluded
the regulation of the cans, and solely addressed only
the potentially hazardous contents. Therefore, would
aerosol cans free of hazardous waste, but still
potentially reactive because of contained propellant be
regulated as hazardous waste?
Irrespective of the lack of contained waste, the
aerosol cans would be a RCRA hazardous waste
because they demonstrate the hazardous
characteristic'of reactivity (40 CFR 261.23(a>i6>>.
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475-6676
Research: Andy O'Hare
-------
9441.1987(83)
- 3 1987
Mr. Michael Mclaughlin
Vice President
SCS Engineers
11260 Roger Bacon Drive
Reston, VA 22090-5282
Dear Mr. Mclaughlin:
This is in response to your letter of September i, 1987, to
Matt Straus, concerning regulation of supernatant liquid resulting
from treatment of spent pickle liquor (EPA waste K062).
In the situation you have described, the impoundment would be
a regulated unit under RCRA if it stores any supernatant liquid
from the lime-stabilization of waste pickle liquor. The super-
natant forms during clarification of the lime-staMiized mixture.
The preamble to the June 5, 1984 Federal Register (49 FR 23284)
states that M. . , sludge from the treatment of spent pickle liquor
(K062) is generated by a well known technique involving lime
neutralization, flocculation, clarification, and, :
-------
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike
Petruska of my staff at (202) 382-7729.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9441.1987(84)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
OCTOBER 1987
5. Applicability of the Section 261. 4(a )(2 ) Exclusions
Hazardous industrial wastewaters that are regulated by the
Clean Water Act under a NPDES permit are excluded from
regulation under RCRA. Periodically, wastewater is diverted
from the outfall to a surface impoundment. The diverted
wastewater is used in firefighting training exercises. What
is the status of the surface impoundment?
Because the wastewater is not being "discharged" per the
definition in the Clean Water Act, the wastewater does
not fall within the RCRA exclusion. Section 122.2
defines "discharge of pollutant" as the combination or
addition of a pollutant to "waters of the United
States." Waters of the United States are defined as,
"... all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide... all interstate waters...lakes, rivers,
streams... ." The definition specifically excludes
ponds or lagoons used for treatment and manmade bodies
of water. While the diversion to the surface
impoundment takes place after the water exits the pipe,
the discharge must be mixed with "waters" in order to
remain within the NPDES permit and thus excluded from
RCRA. Discharge to the surface impoundment would
constitute illegal operation of a hazardous -waste
storage unit.
-------
9441.1987(96)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC
WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
SOLiO WASTE ANO 6V6aGESCv O£S1>C-
DEC I 0 1987
Eric J. Dougherty
8409 H. Morven Road
Parkville, MD 21234
Dear Mr. Dougherty:
This is in response to your November 13, 1987 letter to
Robert Scarberry concerning land disposal of solvents. The answers
to your questions are as follows.
First, you are correct that industrial wastewater discharges
subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) are excluded from thfc hazard-
ous waste regulations, and it does not matter how the wastewater
was generated. You should note, however, that only the discharge
is excluded. If hazardous wastewaters are collected, stored,
treated, or disposed of prior to discharge, this prior management
is subject to the hazardous waste regulations (including the land
disposal restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268).
Second, EPA does not have groundwater discharge guidelines
per se. Facilities that have RCRA interim status or that sfeek a
RCRA hazardous waste facility permit are subject to a number of
requirements designed to protect groundwater in 40 CFR Parts 264,
265, 266 and 268, as well as the corrective action provisions of
RCRA Sections 3004(u) and 3008(h). Facilities that generate
hazardous waste but which are exempt from interim status and
permitting requirements under the accumulation provisions of 40 CFR
Section 262.34 (this is likely the case for the automotive mainten-
ance facilities you asked about) are subject to container and tank
management standards designed to prevent releases to groundwater.
When releases do occur, EPA or the appropriate State agency can
take enforcement action under RCRA Sections 3008(a) and 7003 to
require the facility owner or operator to stop the discharge and to
clean-up contaminated soil and groundwater.
-------
If you Jiave furtner questions in this area, please
Micnaei PetrusXa at 9202) 475-8551.
Sincerely ,
Marc i a E. Williams
Director ,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
yw^^ 94-11.1987(98)
, \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE
t WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
O">CE OF
I EC 24 " -~ SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPCNS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Regarding Status of Coal
Tar Decanter Sludge Waste Pile at Toledo coke
Corp., Toledo, Ohio * ,i
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director (WH-562) iW*4"
Office of Solid Waste V
TO: William H. Miner, Acting Chief (5HS-13)
Solid Waste Branch
This memo is in response to your request for an interpre-
tation of the status of Toledo Coke's coal tar decanter sludge
waste pile based upon the April 13, 1987 Fedejraj,,_Register notice
which clarified 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii), and the"July 31, 1987
court decision (American Mining congress v. EPA). Our
understanding of the situation at Toledo Coke (formerly Koppers
Corp.) is that at one time, they stored Hazardous Waste No.
K087, decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations, in a
waste pile. The material in question would be a solid waste per
40 CFR 26l.2(c)(2), and would meet the listing for K087 found in
section 261.32. Thus, it is a hazardous waste. The exemption
for hazardous wastes which are recycled, found in section
261.6(a)(3)(vii), extends to coke and coal products derived from
K087, when burne,d for energy recovery. It does not extend to
storage of the K087 prior to recycling. See 50 £R 49171. The
April 13, 1987 Federal Register merely clarifies that section
261.6(a)(3)(vii) applies to coke and coal tar produced from K087
and not from other hazardous waste. The clarification there-
fore, does not have any impact on the situation at Toledo Coke.
With respect to the American Mining Congress Court case, as
you are probably aware, we have been preparing a Federal
Register notice which will provide the Agency's interpretation
of the court's opinion; this notice will describe those portions
of the rules that are unaffected by the opinion and will propose
to amend those portions of the rules that we believe are requir-
ed by the court's opinion. Based on this notice, the AMC deci-
sion also does not appear to have any impact on this situation.
-------
(We expect this notice to be issued in the near future.)
However, until this notice is signed by the Administrator, you
cannot tell representatives from Toledo CoJce of this position.
Therefore, you should just inform them that the Agency is
preparing a notice that will provide the Agency's interpretation
of the court's opinion and that it will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
I hope this clarifies the additional questions raised. If
you have any questions, please feel free to contact
Michael Petruska (202) 475-8551.
-------
9441.1987(99)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
DECEMBER 1987
1. Waste Classification
A hotel generates 100 to 1000 kg of perchloroethylene
per month dry cleaning the clothes of its customers.
The waste is stored in a tank on-site which is emptied
periodically when full. Would the hotel be regulated
as a small quantity generator? Or, because of the
definition of household waste, which includes wastes
"derived from households (e.g., single and multiple
residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger
stations, etc.*, would it not be a hazardous waste due
to the exemption in $261.4
-------
9441.1987(102)
July 30 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: State Program Advisory #2 -
RCRA Authorization to Regulate Mixed Wastes
FROM: Bruce Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
Office of Solid Waste
TO: RCRA Branch Chiefs
Regions I- X
The purpose of State Program Advisory (SPA) #2 is fourfold.
One, it delineates timeframes by which States must obtain mixed
waste authorization. Two, it provides a synopsis of the informa-
tion needed to demonstrate equivalence with the Federal program
in order to obtain mixed waste authorization. Three, it presents
information about the availability of interim status for handlers
of mixed waste. And four, the SPA presents the Agency's position
on inconsistencies as defined by Section 1006 of RCRA.
BACKGROUND
On July 3, 1986, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register (see Attachment 1) announcing that in order to obtain
and maintain authorization to administer and enforce a RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste program, States must apply for
authorization to regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste
as hazardous waste. Mixes waste is defined as waste that
satisfies the definition of radioactive waste subject to the
Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and contains hazardous waste that either
(1) is listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part
261 or (2) causes the waste to exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. The
hazardous component of mixed waste is regulated by RCRA.
Conversely, the radioactive component of mixed waste is regulated
by either the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the
Department of Energy (DOE).
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
In addition, DOE issued an interpretative rule on May 1.
1987 to clarify the definition of "byproduct material" as it
applied to actual DDE-owned wastes. The final notice stipulated
"that only the actual radionuclides in DOE waste streams will be
considered byproduct material." Thus, a hazardous waste will
always be subject to RCRA regulation even if it is contained in a
mixture that includes radionuclides subject to the AEA.
Clarification of the implications of the byproduct rule was
previously transmitted to the Regions (see Attachment 2).
MIXED WASTE AUTHORIZATION DEADLINES
States which received final authorization prior to publica-
tion of the July 3, 1986 PR notice must revise their programs by
July 1, 1988 (or July 1, 1989 if a State statutory amendment is
required) to regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste.
This schedule is established in the "Cluster Rule" (51 FR 33712).
Extensions to these dates may be approved by the Regional
Administrator (see 40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)).
States initially applying for final authorization after July
3, 1987 must include mixed waste authority in their application
for final authorization (see 40 CFR 271.3(f)). In addition, no
State can receive HSWA authorization for corrective action
(§3004(u)) unless the State can demonstrate that its definition
of solid waste does not exclude the hazardous components of mixed
waste. This is because the State must be able to apply its
corrective action authorities at mixed waste units.
PROGRAM REVISION REQUIREMENTS
Applying for mixed waste authorization is a simple,
straight-forward process. The application package should include
an Attorney General's Statement, the applicable statutes and
rules, and a Program Description.
1. Attorney General Statement
The Attorney General will need to certify in the
statement that the State has the necessary authority to
regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste as
hazardous waste. Copies of the cited statute(s) and
rules should be included in the State's application. See
Item I.G., "Identification and Listing" in the Model AG
Statement in Chapter 3.3 of the State Consolidated RCRA
Authorization Manual (SCRAM) for additional guidance.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
2. Program Description
The Program Description should address how the RCRA
portion of the mixed waste program will be implemented
and enforced, and describe available resources and
costs (see 40 CFR §271.6). The State must also
demonstrate that staff has necessary health physics
and other radiological training and has appropriate
security clearances, if needed, or that the State
agency has access to such people.
If an agency other than the authorized State agency is
implementing the RCRA portion of the mixed waste
program, then the application should include a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between that agency
and the authorized hazardous waste agency describing
the roles and responsibilities of each (see 40 CFR
§271.6(b)).
Lastly, the Program Description should include a brief
description of the types and an estimate of the number
of mixed waste activities to be regulated by the State
(see 40 CFR §271.6(g) and (h)). Chapter 3.2 Program
Description, in the SCRAM provides additional
guidance.
INTERIM STATUS
In authorized states, mixed waste handlers are not subject
to RCRA regulation until the State's program is revised and
approved by EPA to include this authority. In the interim,
however, any applicable State law applies. Treatment, storage
and disposal facilities "in existence" on the date of the State's
authorization to regulate mixed waste may gualify for interim
status under Section 3005(e)(1)(A)(ii) (providing interim status
for newly regulated facilities) , if they submit a Part A permit
application within 6 months of that date. In addition, any such
facilities which are land disposal facilities will be subject to
loss of interim status, under Section 3005(e)(3), unless these
facilities submit their Part B permit application and two
required certifications (i.e., groundwater monitoring and
financial assurance) within twelve months of the effective date
of the State's authorization (i.e., within twelve months of the
date facilities are first subject to regulation under RCRA).
Note: Federal facilities that handle mixed waste are not
required to demonstrate financial assurance.
With respect to facilities treating, storing or disposing of
mixed waste in unauthorized States, Headquarters is currently
developing a Federal Register notice that will clarify interim
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-4-
status qualification requirements under Section 3005(e) as they
apply to affected facilities that have not notified in accordance
with Section 3010(a) or submitted Part A and/or B permit
applications. We anticipate issuing the FR notice early this
Fall.
INCONSISTENCIES
Section 1006 of RCRA precludes any solid or hazardous waste
regulation by EPA or a State that is "inconsistent" with the
requirements of the AEA. If an inconsistency is identified, the
inconsistent RCRA requirement would be inapplicable. For
example, an inconsistency might occur where compliance with a
specific RCRA requirement would violate national security
interests. In such instances, the AEA would take precedence and
the RCRA requirement would be waived.
The EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducted a
comparison of existing regulations for hazardous waste management
and low-level radioactive waste management under 40 CFR Parts
260-266, 268 and 270 and 10 CFR Part 61, respectively, to
ascertain the extent of potential inconsistencies. None were
identified as a result of that effort. The comparison did
indicate that there were differences in regulatory stringency,
however. Thus, in issuing permits or otherwise implementing its
mixed waste program, States must make every effort to avoid
inconsistencies.
If you have any questions please contact Jim Michael, Chief,
Implementation Section, State Programs Branch (WH-563B) at
FTS/(202) 382-2231 or Betty Shackleford, Mixed Waste Project
Manager, State Programs Branch at FTS/(202) 475-9656.
Attachments
cc: Elaine Stanley, OWPE
Federal Facilities Coordinators
Regions I - X
Chris Crundler, Federal Facilities Task Force
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1988(03)
Mr. Gary D. Strassell
Environmental Manager
The Sheppard Color Company
4539 Oves Drive
P.O. BOX 465627
Cincinatti , Ohii6:""54:5^4€ Si esv.-.0l
Dear Mr. Strassell:
This is in response to your November 20, 1987, letter to
Michael PetrusJca of my staff concerning the regulatory classifi-
cation of your chromium wastes. The remainder of this letter
explains the exclusions in 40 CFR Section 261.4(b)(6) for certain
chromium wastes, and answers the questions you raised.
The exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste uii
40 CFR 261.4(b)(6) presently applies only to those wastes specifi-
cally listed in Section 26l.4(b) (6) (ii) . Those wastes identified
in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of Section 261.4(b)(6)(ii) are
excluded because members of the leather tanning and titamwi
dioxide production industries submitted evidence to EPA tliaf.
successfully demonstrated that their wastes were not hazardous.
The October 30, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 7203* ) describes this
exclusion in greater detail (see Enclosure).
The criteria for excluding a waste under Section 261.4(b)(6)
requires that the chromium in the waste must be trivalent or nearly
exclusively trivalent, that the industrial process producing the
waste use trivalent chromium exclusively or nearly exclusively, and
that the waste be typically and frequently managed in a non-oxidiz-
ing environment. See Section 261. 4(b) (6) (1) . Presently, the only
wastes that are included in the Section 261.4(b)(6> exclusion are
those listed in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of paragraph (ii).
The only pigment manufacturing waste exclusion is in subparagraph
(H). This exclusion applies to wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of T102 pigment using chromium-bearing ores by the
chloride process. The chromium in this waste originates from the
entirely trivalent chromium in the rutile or ilmenite ores used as
-------
a raw material in the process (45 EB 72036). If your customer
generates a waste meeting the description in (H) , then that waste
would be excluded under Section 261.4(b)(6) provided the waste does
not fail the £P toxicity characteristic for any constituent other
then chromium or does not fail any other hazardous waste character-
istic.
Any individual or group of generators whose wast«|F «ieet the
criteria under Section 261.4(b)(6)(i), but are not ^pacifically
designated under paragraph (ii)(A)-(H) may submit a rulemaJcing
petition to EPA in accordance with Section 260.20(a) to demonstrate
that their waste is not hazardous. If EPA agrees with the peti-
tion, it will amend Section 261.4(b)(6) to exclude those wastes
from regulation as well. (As already indicated, wastes meeting the
existing descriptions in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of section
261.4(b)(6) is only non-hazardous if it exhibits no other hazardous
characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261.) If you choose to submit
a rulemaJcing petition, you will have to submit data showing that
the waste or wastes in question is exclusively (or nearly exclusi-
vely) trivalent chromium, that the industrial process producing the
waste use trivalent chromium exclusively or nearly exclusively, and
that the waste is typically managed in a non-oxidizing environment.
If you have additional questions in this area, please continue
to communicate with MiXe Petrusfca at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
-------
9441.1988(04)
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTS^AGENCY
JAN U1988
Mr. Paul D. Sylvestri
Versar Inc.
6850 Versar Center
P.O. Box 1549
Springfield, VA 22151
Dear Mr. Sylvestri:
This letter is a response to your letter of October 8, 1987
to Robert Scarberry. In it you request clarification of the
regulatory status of the waste generated by an incinerator trial
burn of sand spiked with reagent grade trichlorobenzene and
hexachloroethane. Specifically, you were concerned about the
hazardous waste status of the incinerator residue, since
hexachloroethane is a commercial chemical product that becomes a
hazardous waste when it is disposed (U131).
In determining whether the incinerator residue is a
hazardous waste, the threshold question is whether th» sand,
which was spiked with a commercial chemical product that is
listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (as U131), as part of the trial burn,
was a solid waste within the meaning of 40 CFR 261,. 2 at the time
it was spiked with the chemicals. When the sand v&& mixed with
the chemicals, the sand becomes a solid waste and the chemical
becomes a hazardous waste (U131) because the intent is to
incinerate the mixture. 40 CFR 261.2 clearly indicates these
materials are solid wastes, unless excluded by 40 CFR 261.4(a)
or by a variance under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, or 260c31.
Accordingly, the mixture of U131 with sand is a hazardous waste
by virtue of the "mixture rule", which provides that the mixture
of a listed hazardous waste with a solid waste constitutes a
hazardous waste.. (See 40 CFR 261.3 (a) (2) (iv)).
As a result, the residue from the trial burn also would be a
hazardous waste (via the "derived-from" rule, 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i))
because ther-residue is derived from a listed waste.
If you require additional information, please call Edwin F.
Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
m^A«Ar. Office of Solid Waste
-I 1 1 H
-------
.,,.., ,, A.CJ trtTiKuriMcniAL PROTECTION AGENCY „ „,, ,Q30— -,
9441.19 o 3 rj 2)
2 2 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Wastes Containing
F001-F005 Constituents
FROM: Jeffery D. Denit
Actiftg Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Phillip L. Bobel
Chief, Waste Programs Branch
EPA Region IX (RT2)
This is in response to your memo of December 30, 1987, on waste
classification, as per Mr. Sandoval's request. I think the
confusion Mr. Sandoval is experiencing is due to imprecise use of
terms. A person should not classify a waste that contains an
F001-F005 hazardous constituent as an "F" waste for land ban
purposes, or on the manifest. However, if a person generates one
or more of the specifically listed "F" spent solvents e.g. . spent
trichloroethylene (FOOD and then mixes the spent solvent with
another waste, the mixture does in fact contain FOOX and therefore
is subject to the land disposal restrictions.
When an F001 waste is mixed with another hazardous waste, the
proper description of the mixture would include all applicable
waste codes. For example, F001 mixed with an ignitable waste
(D001) should be described as F001, D001, and the mixture would be
subject to the treatment standard in 40 CFR Section 268.41. There
is no £fi minimus amount below which a listed waste need not be
identified, (Of course, if the F001/D001 mixture does no_t exhibit
ignitability, the classification for the mixture would not have to
include the "D001" descriptor. Further, you should note that when
a waste listed only because it exhibits a characteristic, e.g. .
F003, is mixed with a solid waste and the resultant mixture does
not exhibit a characteristic, the mixture is not hazardous waste.
See 40 CFR Section 261.3(a) (ill) . )
-------
9441.1988(06)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAR Q
IQOD
t^. \^O
MEMORAIJDUT-! SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Proposed Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT)
for K061
,'!
FROM: Jeffery D. De'nit ^| Ac ting Director
Office of Solid W.iste
TO: Robert •' EGr eaves , Chief
Waste Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Reg \ on III
This memorandum is in response to the concerns you raised
with respect to the determination of BOAT for K061 for the Lo.nd
Disposal Restrictions Rule (LDRR) and its possible implications
for Region ill. There seems to be several points that have been
appareitly misunderstood by your siaff.
EPA is not approving thf. Waelz Kiln as BOAT. The proposed
Land ;isposal Restrictions for K06J are performance standards
that represent a level of performance achievable by High
Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR) . We have identified several
classes of HTMR systems; they include: rotary kilns (which
includes the Waelz Kiln as well as other types currently being
marketed), flame reactors, electric furnaces, plasma arc
furnaces, slag reactors, and rotary hearth kiln/electric furnace
combinations. Many of these systems produce metallic zinc,
metallic lead, both for direct sale, metallic iron to be
recycled back to the electric arc furnace, and slags requiring
land disposal. The restrictions are concentrations of
constituents in the waste tha-;: must be achieved prior to land
disposal of K061 in a Subtitle C facility. EPA is not requiring
any specific class of HTMR, nor are we recommending any specific
class.
The data used for the development of the proposed Land
Disposal Restrictions for K051 were generated by the EPA
sampling of the Waelz Kiln process because it was convenient and
appeared to provide effective treatment. Your discussions with
Bill Myers, our contractor's sar.oling crew chief, failed to
reveal the full extent of our analysis in determining BDAT for
K061. Mr. Myers was not involved in the BDAT analysis for
K061. As the sampling crew chisf or that trip, his
-------
responsibilities and knowledge were limited to taking
representative samples of the materials generated by the Waelz
Kiln process. The flow diagram of the process considered by
EPA, which was not developed by Mr. Myers, is a complete diagram
of the K061 treatment system. The calcining process was
considered in our analysis of the treatment system prior to the
sampling visit, but was rejected because the crude zinc oxide
product that is collected in the baghouse is sold as a product.
We are aware that the crude zinc oxide product is frequently
refined further to remove the lead and cadmium to produce a
saleable American grade zinc. However, it also is sold for
direct use in product formulation by such industries as
fertilizer manufacturing. Therefore, the calcining process was
not included as part of the K061 treatment system, since at the
point the crude zinc oxide i? collected in the baghouse it
becomes a product, and ceases to be considered derived from KC61
based on the "product rule" (40 CFR 261.3 (c)(2)(i)).
Furthermore, the calcining process historically has been
applied to other crude zinc oxides, including those produced by
the primary smelting of zinc bearing ores in the Waelz Kiln. If
K061 were not used as a feedstock, zinc bearing ores or other
scrap material would be necessary. Although calcining residuals
from refining of ores are exempted currently by the Bevill
Amendments, the calcining residuals from K061 wastes, under
certain circumstances, would be regulated as D006 (EP Toxic for
Cadmium) and/or D008 (EP Toxic for Lead). Treatment standards
for the "D" wastes are expected to be final by May 8, 1990,
three months before the effective date of the Land Disposal
Restrictions for K061.
In response to your concerns regarding the interpretation of
the waste as an "indigenous" waste, we have not interpreted K061
to be indigenous to that type of furnace. Instead, we have
determined treatment standards that the residual material must
meet prior to land disposal. We will be soliciting additional
comment on that subject in the proposal of the LDRR.
The current use of the K061 treatment residual from the
Waelz Kiln as roadbed and anti-skid material, however, is
considered to be "use in a manner constituting land disposal"
and is not exempt from regulation based on 40 CFR 261.2
(c)(l)(A). We have discussed this issue with the Region III
RCRA Enforcement Office. However, we do not think this issue is
germane to whether BOAT based on recovery is effective, since
placement of the residuals in a subtitle C landfill will
eliminate any compliance problems.
It is my hope that this additional information will
eliminate any concern about the BDAT we intend to propose for
K061. If your staff has any additional questions regarding this
matter, please contact Mr. John Keenan of my staff, at FTS
755-0356.
-------
9441.1988(07]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
MAR I 0 '^°3 SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSc
Michel Bouchard, ing.
Industry Information
Centre de Recherche Industrie!le du Quebec
333, rue Franquet
Case postale 9038
Sainte-Foy (Quebec) CANADA G1V 4C7
Dear Mr. Bouchard:
This is in response to your letter to Jon Greenberg dated
January 4, 1988 and your telephone conversations with Ron
Josephson on January 22 and 29, 1988. In particular, we aie
providing a regulatory interpretation concerning the management
of stainless steel production residues as they would be
controlled under the U.S. Federal hazardous waste regulations.
The regulations we are citing below can be found in the U. S.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 260 and 261
(abbreviated as 40 CFR 260 or 40 CFR 261).
Dusts or sludges from the emission control systems of
electric arc furnaces used in the primary production of stfcoi,
where the furnace is not used solely for casting, are considered
listed hazardous wastes with the EPA code K061 under 40 CFP
261.32. Should this waste be processed through the chromium and
nickel extraction process that you describe in your letter, the
remaining residues are still considered hazardous wastes
because they are derived from a hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR
261.3(c)(2)(i).) Other wastes from electric arc furnaces that
do not exhibit hazardous characteristics (see 40 CFR 261 Subpart
C) are not considered hazardous as long as they are not mixed
with dust or sludge from the emission control system.
If the generator feels that the residue from the chromium
and nickel extraction is nfit hazardous (i.e. does not exhibit
the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity described in
40 CFR 261.20-261.24), then he may apply for an exemption, or
"delisting petition." (See 40 CFR 260.20-260.22.) Should such
a petition be granted, the residue from these facilities would
no longer be considered hazardous.
-------
- 2 -
If you have any further questions, please contact Ed Abrams
on my staff at (202)382-4787.
Sincerely,
'Di rector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1933(33;
UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTS AGENCY
MAR 22 1988
Mr. Hyman Bzura, President
Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc.
P.O. Box 194
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
Dear Mr. Bzura:
This letter is in response to your February 3, 1988, request
for a determination of the regulatory status of the copper
chloride and copper ammonium 'chloride which you purchase as by-
products from circuit board manufacturers. Under EPA's
hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR Section 261.2(e)(i)
promulgated on January 4, 1985), secondary materials used
directly as an ingredient or feedstock are not so .lid waste.
This is distinguished from reclamation, where distinct
components of the secondary material are recovered as end
products; certain types of secondary materials are solid waste
when reclaimed. Id. (See 40 CFR Section 261.2(c).)
From the information you provided in your February 3 letter,
it appears that the copper-bearing secondary materials you use
in the production of copper sulfate and copper hydroxide are
being used directly, and so would not be solid waste. The
Office of Solid Waste cannot provide you a definitive response,
however, because solid waste determinations involve considera-
tion of a number of facility-specific factors. For example,
besides the question of whether the secondary materials are used
directly, i.e. . without prior processing, important questions
are whether the activity in question is bonafide recycling and
whether the Materials you purchase are speculatively
accumulated- See the discussion in the January 4, 1985
preamble, ^••asarily, these questions are best addressed by
EPA's Regi^H offices or by authorized states. (Please note
that under'^B CTR Section 261.2(f) you are required to provide
all documentation necessary to support any claim for a recycling
exclusion or exemption.) Also, under RCRA Section 3009, States
are free to adopt regulations more stringent than EPA's.
Consequently, a facility owner or operator's primary contact on
RCRA matters should be the State agency with RCRA
responsibilities.
-------
- 2 -
Accordingly, we have forwarded your letter to New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection. The contact person in
New Jersey for questions of this kind is Ms. Shirlee Schiffman,
Chief, Bureau of Classification and Technical Assistance.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you
may contact Michael Petruska at (202) 475-9888.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
!.'!!.' H MM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MM m !!! MM 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cc: Shirlee Schiffman, New Jersey DEP
Barry Tornick, Region II
Emily Roth
>ni562B/ERoth/tle/rmS242/3/8/88/382-4777/ERoth-8701
bc/3/11/88
bc/3/16/88
bc/3/18/88
! t 11! ! ! I ! 1 1 tit II! I 111 I I 1 1 III II! 1 1 lit Ml I I ! ! ! ! I 1 ! ! ! ! !.! I ! ! ! ! ! ! I ! I ! !
-------
UNITED fTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9441.1988(09)
APR 6 1988
R. Todd Grant
President
Tomar Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 233
Wexford, PA 15090
Dear Mr. Grant:
This is in response to your letter of March 14, 1988, to
Michael Petruska, concerning the recycling of nickel, copper,
and chromium-containing electroplating sludges. This is a
complex area of regulation, and you may have misunderstood some
of v/hat Mr. Petruska explained in your March 2 meeting. My
understanding of your operation is that you plan to recycle
electroplating sludges by recovering certain metal values from
dried material produced from sludge dryers. The two key
questions in determining RCRA applicability are: (1) whether
the sludge is listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, and (2)
whether the material is processed before use, i,e., "reclaimed".
Although the material will be fed to a metal smelting
furnace, please note that such smelters are considered
reclamation devices, and therefore the exclusions for direct use
or reuse at 40 CFR Section 261.2{e).(l) (i) and (e)(l)(ii) do not
apply. (See 50 FR 633; January 4, 1985.) Listed sludges that
are reclaimed are solid waste, while sludges that are hazardous
only because they exhibit a characteristic are not solid waste
when reclaimed. Since electroplating sludges are specifically
listed wastes, these wastes when reclaimed (i.e. , processed in a
metal smelting furnace) are subject to the hazardous waste
rules. In particular, the generator and transporter rules apply
when the material is shipped (40 CFR Parts 262 and 263) and the
reclamation facility is subject to 40 CFR section 261.6(c).
Also, EPA has proposed rules for industrial furnaces in 40 CFR
Part 266, Subpart D. (See 52 FR 16982; May 6, 1987.)
-------
- 2 -
The dried material you plan to market to smelters would be
considered a partially-reclaimed material, because further
processing is required before the metal can actually be used.
If you believe the material is commodity-like after drying, you
may petition the Agency for a variance. (See 40 CFR Sections
260.30(c), and 260.31(c).) Under these provisions, the EPA
Regional Administrator (or, in an authorized State, the Director
of the State's RCRA program) with jurisdiction over the facility
producing the material may grant a variance from classification
of the material as solid waste.—/ The factors that are
relevant in granting the variance are in Section 260.31(c), and
are discussed at 50 FR 655 (January 4, 1985).
In summary, the process you describe would be subject to the
RCRA hazardous waste regulations if listed sludges are
reclaimed. If you seek a variance for the partially-reclaimed
material, you should contact the appropriate EPA Region or State
agency. Finally, I suggest you modify your certificate because
the material would be, as EPA defines the term, "reclaimed".
If you have further questions in this area, please continue
to deal with Mr. Petruska at (202) 475-9888.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
I/ The variance is only necessary for listed sludges. As noted
above, characteristic-only sludges are not solid waste when
reclaimed.
I i i i i i i i i i j i i j j i i | j j I j i ; i i j i i j i j i i i i j j i i i i j i i i j j i i i i j I j j i i j i i j j i j i i i i
WH562B/MPetruska/tle/rmS242/3/21/88/475-9888/MPetruska-8701
I J I I I I I I j ! I I I I I I I j J J I I I I J I J I I I I I J I I I J J I J I I J I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I J I I J I J | I
-------
9441.1933(1;;
ri UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR "> I P3S OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Anthony R. Sinibaldi
Senior Vice President
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc.
Governor Lea Road
P.O. Box 319
Delaware City, Delaware 19706
Dear Mr. Sinibaldi:
This is in response to your December 21, 1987, letter to
Marcia Williams, the subsequent meeting here at EPA on
January 13, 1988, and your March 16, 1988 letter to Michael
Petruska concerning the regulatory status of your distillation
or fractionation column bottoms from the production of
chlorobenzene. This letter is also to correct certain errors
that were made in an October 16, 1987, letter from Marcia
Williams to Phil Retallick, Director of Delaware's Division of
Air and Waste Management, on the same subject.
K085 Listing Description
First, let me reiterate that we view the bottom stream from
chlorobenzene production as a secondary material, i.e.. a
by-product, not a co-product. The bottoms, although they may
have some economic value, must be processed before use. See the
discussion in the Federal Register of January 4, 1985, in which
EPA stated that:
"...by-products are materials, generally of a residual
character, that are not produced intentionally or
separately, and that are unfit for end use without
substantial processing. Examples are still bottoms..." (50
EB 625.)
The determination that the bottoms are a by-product,
however, does not automatically mean that they are the EPA
listed waste K085. To meet the listing description, the bottoms
must first be a solid waste, defined by 40 CFR Section 261.2.
-------
- 2 -
As explained below, the determination of a material being a
solid waste depends on the disposition, or intended disposition,
of the material. Any material that is abandoned by being
disposed of, burned, or incinerated (or accumulated, stored, or
treated in lieu of being abandoned) is a solid waste. (See
Section 261.2(b).) Additionally, secondary materials are also
solid wastes if they are recycled, or accumulated or treated
before recycling, as specified in section 261.2(c). Further,
materials may be designated as "inherently waste-like" by EPA
under Section 261.2(d).
The remainder of this letter provides EPA's determinations
regarding the processes you have described to us. Please note,
however, that these determinations are only accurate to the
extent we have all relevant facts. If the State needs further
information or documentation on these processes, you are
required to provide the information under 40 CFR Section
261.2(f), even for processes that we say here are exempt from
regulation.
Thermal Oxidation Process
The first question to be answered is whether the gas-fired
thermal oxidizer, which we understand uses controlled flame
combustion, is an incinerator, a boiler, or an industrial
furnace. (See the discussions at 50 FR 625-627, January 4,
1985, for the Agency's basic approach to classifying combustion
devices.)
The classification of your oxidizer unit into one of these
three categories is central to determining its regulatory
status. If your unit is an incinerator, Table 1 in 40 CFR
Section 261.2(c) is not relevant, and the unit is not eligible
for any exclusions in Section 261.2(e)(l). This is because any
burning in an incinerator is waste destruction, subject to 40
CFR Parts 264 and 265,.Subpart O, even if material or energy
recovery also occurs. (See the discussion at 48 FR 14484, April
1983. "If material or energy recovery occurs, it is ancilliary
to the purpose of the unit - to destroy wastes by means of
thermal treatment - and so does not alter the regulatory status
of the device or activity." An example involving recovery of
hydrochloric acid is then presented. Id.)
-------
- 3 -
Our determinations regarding your thermal oxidation unit are
as follows:
o The unit does not meet the definition of a boiler cited
in Section 260.10 (e.g.. it does not export thermal
energy);
o Based on the information that has been provided to EPA,
we believe the unit is not an industrial furnace. To
be an industrial furnace, the unit must be specifically
listed in Section 260.10 [cement kilns; lime kilns;
aggregate kilns; phosphate kilns; coke ovens; blast
furnaces; smelting, melting, and refining furnaces;
TiO2 chloride process oxidation reactors; methane
reforming furnaces; and combustion devices used in the
recovery of sulfur values from spent H2S04];
o Therefore, since the gas-fired thermal oxidixer is
neither a boiler nor an industrial furnace, the unit is
classified as an incinerator. Thus, it would be
subject to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart 0.
EPA considers adding units to the Section 260.10 definition
of industrial furnace on a case-by-case basis. Persons may
petition the Agency under Section 260.20 to add units to the
definition. Dow Chemical, Inc., submitted such a petition in
July 1986 for their halogen acid furnaces (HAFs), and EPA
proposed to grant the petition on May 6, 1987. (See 52 £B
17018-17019.) Under the May 6 proposal, an HAF would be
considered an industrial furnace provided that the unit is used
for:
" ...production of acid from halogenated secondary materials
generated at chemical production facilities where the
furnace is located on-site and the acid product has a
halogen acid content of at least 6%." (See proposed Section
260.10, id., at 17033.)
Your thermal oxidation unit appears to meet these conditions.
Therefore, at such time as EPA finalizes this proposal, the
classification of your unit would change from an incinerator to
industrial furnace. The result of this change would be that the
unit would be subject to the Part 266, Subpart D, standards for
boilers and industrial furnaces, in lieu of the Part 264 and
-------
- 4 -
265, Subpart O, incinerator standards. (See id., at 17019.) In
either case, the chlorinated by-product introduced to the unit
is the EPA listed waste K085.
Hydrodechlorination Process-
Based on the information you provided, your hydrodechlo-
rination process does not appear to involve controlled flame
combustion; therefore, the above discussion concerning boilers,
furnaces, and incinerators is not relevant. Since you are using
the chlorinated by-product as an ingredient in production of
lower chlorinated feedstocks and muriatic acid, and since no
burning, reclamation, or use constituting disposal is involved,
the by-product appears to meet the terms of the exclusion in 40
CFR Section 261.2(e)(1)(i), and therefore it is not a solid
waste (i.e., it is not K085.) Please note, however, that if the
by-product is accumulated speculatively as defined in Section
261.1(c)(8), it would then become solid waste (see Section
261.2(e)(2)(iii)) and would be K085. Further, your unit may be
affected by changes EPA is considering to the definition of
industrial furnace, discussed in the last section of this
letter.
Use in Titanium Dioxide Production
Your December 21, 1987, and March 16, 1988, letters state
that Standard Chlorine plans to sell a blend of the two higher
chlorinated benzene process streams to another company for use
in titanium dioxide manufacture. The process streams will be
introduced to an oxidation reactor where titanium tetrachloride
is converted to titanium dioxide, and will, your letters state,
substitute for toluene in the production process.
The oxidation reactor would appear to meet the definition of
an industrial furnace in 40 CFR Section 260.10, i.e. , see
paragraph (8) in the definition. From the information you
provided, the chlorinated benzene stream will provide not only
chlorinated material but also energy value. The regulatory
status of material sent for this use currently depends on its
energy value. If the chlorinated benzene stream has significant
energy value, e.g., equal to or greater than materials used
commercially as fuel—generally around 5000 Btu per pound—and
the energy is used in the production process, then the material
-------
- 5 -
is considered to be burned at least partially for energy
recovery. Thus, the material is considered to be the listed
waste K085 and the standards of 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart D, for
hazardous waste burned for energy recovery would apply to the
furnace and the material sent to the furnace. The oxidation
reactor would also be subject to the standards for industrial
furnaces proposed on May 6, 1987. (See 52 £E 16982.) If the
chlorinated material is burned without significant energy
recovery, however, then the material may not be a solid waste
because it is used as an ingredient to make a product. (See 40
CFR Section 261.2(e)(2)(i) and (e)(2)(ii).)
Changes Beina Considered for Certain Units
As the above discussion indicates, EPA's current rules
defining solid waste and the applicability of standards depend
on, first, the classification of the unit, and then whether the
material is burned (partially) for energy recovery. EPA is
considering modifications to this approach in the near future
that could affect your processes. First, we are concerned about
secondary materials that could be hazardous waste if burned for
energy recovery or destruction but that are excluded from
regulation when burned as an ingredient in a production
process. To deal with the potential health risk from burning
such materials as an ingredient, we are considering proposing to
designate materials introduced to HAFs, and perhaps other
furnaces (possibly including oxidation reactors used in titanium
dioxide production) as "inherently waste-like materials" under
40 CFR Section 261.2'd). This would mean that, if your proposed
thermal oxidation unit meets EPA's definition of an industrial
furnace, the standards proposed on May 6, 1987 would apply to
the unit whether or not any energy is recovered from the K085
chlorinated stream. The material sent for titanium dioxide
production could also be brought under regulation as K085 if we
promulgate such a designation.
Second, EPA is considering proposing to amend the definition
of industrial furnace to remove the condition that furnaces must
use "controlled flame devices" to accomplish recovery of
materials or energy. The impact of this change could be that
your non-flame hydrodechlorination unit could be designated as
an industrial furnace, and then would be subject to the
standards proposed on May 6, 1987.
-------
- 6 -
If you have general questions about this letter, please
contact Michael Petruska at (202) 475-9888. If you have
questions about the classification scheme for combustion
devices, please contact Robert Holloway at (202) 382-7917.
Finally, as stated above, your primary contact on RCRA matters
should continue to be Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control (DNREC). We will be providing copies
of this letter to Delaware DNREC as well as EPA Region III.
Sincerely,
wrance, Director
of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1988(13!
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 88
1. Notification Requirements for Recyclable Materials
A gold plating operation generates a spent cyanide solution. The solution is sent to a
reclaimer so that the gold content can be recovered. The recyclable material, because of
its free cyanide content, is a California listed waste. Does the generator have to send a
notification to the reclaimer per Section 268.7?
The requirements for recyclable materials from which precious metals are reclaimed in
Section 261.6(a)(2)(IV) subject the generator to regulation under Subpart F of Part 266.
However, Section 261.6(a)(2) does not specifically free the generator of Part 268
regulations. Only those recyclable materials specifically listed in Section 261.6(a)(3) are
not subject to Part 268 regulations.
Since this waste is a California listed waste, the generator must provide proper notifi-
cation to the reclaimer.
Contact Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4805
Research: Cheryl McNabb
-------
9441.1988(14)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
APRIL 1988
5. Hazardous Waste I.D.
Ground-water, contaminated by F001-F005 listed hazardous wastes, is removed from an
aquifer during corrective action measures performed at an interim status hazardous
waste disposal facility. After on-site steam stripping, the treated ground-water is
transported, via trucks, to a local Publidy Owned Treatent Work (POTW) for discharge.
Prior to steam stripping, would the contaminated ground-water be classified as F001-
F005 listed hazardous wastes? If so, what treatment concentration levels must be
achieved in order for the ground-water not to be classified as F001-F005 listed wastes;
thereby eliminating the requirements of having a manifest accompany each ground-
water shipment to the POTW?
The ground-water itself, is not listed F001-F005 hazardous waste, but is subject to RCRA
Subtitle C regulations because it contains F001-F005 listed hazardous wastes. If the
ground-water is treated such that it no longer contains a hazardous waste, the ground-
water would no longer be under RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction (see EPA Memorandum
from Marcia Williams of the Office of Solid Waste to Patrick Tobin of Region IV Waste
Management Division, dated November 13,1986).
If the F001-F005 wastes contained in the ground-water are delisted, the ground-water
would no longer be subject to Subtitle C and may be transported without a manifest to
the POTW.
-------
9441.1988(17)
8
Mr. Mahmood Kapadia
Manager Ceramic Engineering
The Haeger Potteries, Inc.
Seven Maiden Lane
Dundee, Illinois 60118-9989
Dear Mr. Kapadia:
This correspondence is in response to your request for
information on the proper classification of waste colored glazes
collected as part of your pottery manufacturing operation.
Specifically, you referred to a mixture of different glaze
colors that are collected and treated by a "rotary vacuum"
filter. The resultant solid waste produced, which exhibits the
characteristic of EP Toxicity for lead (and possibly for cadmium
and chromium), is then disposed of at a high cost. I apologize
for the long delay in responding to your correspondence. The
Agency is under a very tight schedule to meet the statutory
deadlines applicable to the land disposal restrictions program.
As you stated in your letter (and have further described
during telephone conversations with my staff), it is your desire
to place the colored glaze solids into broken or good pottery,
fire it in your tunnel kiln, and sell this fired piece at your
retail sales outlet. In accordance with the definition of solid
waste (40 CFR 261.2), if the colored glaze solids are used in
the manner described, they would not constitute a solid waste,
and thus would not meet the definition of a hazardous waste.
The solid materials would not be a solid waste since the
material would be recycled by being "used or reused as
ingredients in an industrial process to make a product". 40 CFR
261.2(e)(1)(i). The colored glaze solids in this case would not
be considered reclaimed, since you would be using the entire
material, and not reclaiming certain constituents from the
material.
-------
The information provided above reflects hazardous waste
management system regulations covered by Federal rules. Note,
however, that compliance with applicable Federal regulations
does not relieve an individual from compliance with applicable
State environmental requirements. I hope this information
adequately addresses your concerns. If you have any further
questions, please feel free to contact Wanda LeBleu-Biswas, of
the Waste Characterization Branch, at (202) 382-7392.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
9441.1983(19)
o"4'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAT 26 B8B
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Gary L. Ford
Assistant Director of Law
Stauffer Chemical Company
P.O. Box 0852
Westport, CT 06881-0852
Dear Mr. Ford:
This letter is in response to your April 5, 1988, letter
requesting clarification of the RCRA Subtitle C regulations.
These are Federal regulations. The States where your facilities
are located may have more stringent regulations which would
apply. Consequently, a facility owner or operator's primary
contact on RCRA matters should be the State Agency with RCRA
responsibilities.
As you note in your letter, spent sulfuric acid which is
accumulated speculatively does not qualify for the exclusion
in Section 261.4(a)(7). If the person accumulating the material
can show that it can feasibly be recycled, and that at least 75%
(by weight or volume) is recycled or transferred for recycling in
a calendar year, the material is not accumulated speculatively.
Once removed for recycling, materials are no longer considered to
be accumulated speculatively. The definition of speculative
accumulation is found in Section 261.1(c)(8).
Translating the regulations to cover your situation, spent
sulfuric acid which is accumulated speculatively is a solid waste
per Section 261.2(c)(4). If the acid is a listed hazardous
waste, or if it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, it
must be handled as a hazardous waste. If it is removed from
accumulation for recycling, it ceases to be accumulated
speculatively, and the exclusion in Section 26l,4(a)(7) may
become available. If it is actually recycled by being used to
product virgin sulfuric acid, the Section 261.4(a)(7) exclusion
may be Mercised in States which recognize the exclusion.
However, if it is removed from accumulation for recycling, but
the recycling is not the production of virgin sulfuric acid, the
Section 261.4(a)(7) exclusion is not exercised, and the
regulations in Section 261.2 govern the material's status.
-------
- 2 -
It should also be noted that materials accumulated in
land-based storage units may leach into the ground, and thus
would be considered to be disposed. Storage of spent sulfuric
acid in a surface impoundment, for instance, may result in some
portion of the spent acid being disposed. Although the material
stored in the surface impoundment might qualify for the exclusion
in Section 261.4(a)(7), the portion which leaches into the
ground, if not recovered, has been disposed. If the acid is a
listed or characteristic hazardous waste, the disposal/storage
unit is a hazardous waste management unit.
Please feel free to contact Mike Petruska at (202) 475-9888
if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
9441.1988(20)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 88
1. Hazardous Waste Identification - Kill Listing
During the production of TNT (trinitrotoulene), DNT (dinitrotoulene) is
generated as an intermediate chemical via nitration of toulene. Does the Kill
listing (i.e., product washwater from the production of dinitrotoulene via the
nitration of toulene) cover the product washwaters generated from this
intermediate step or does the listing only cover those product washwaters
generated from final product DNT?
Product washwaters produced from the intermediate DNT chemical are
included in the Kill listing. The October 23, 1985 Federal Registtn (f»Q FR
42937) states that the Kill listing includes "any wastes which meet the waste
description and are generated by the processes described in the background
document, regardless of the end product or industry in which it takes place."
In fact, 50 FR 42937 specifically states "product washwaters from the
production of DNT by nitration of toluene, as an intermediate to TNT
production, also are covered by this listing."
Source: Bob Scarberry (202) 382-4769
Research: Sue Brugler
-------
UNITED-.ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. .NCY 9441.1983(23)
JUN 6 1988
Ms. Margaret R. Tribble
Legal Department
American Cyanamid Company
One Cyanamid Plaza
Wayne, NJ 07470
Dear Ms. Tribble:
This letter is in response to your March 30, and May 3, 1988
request for clarification regarding the regulatory status of
used sulfuric acid. Specifically, you requested a clarification
of the applicability of the RCRA Subtitle C regulations to
certain recycling practices. Examples given in your letter are
secondary uses as a fertilizer, a metal oxide removal agent, a
scrap iron digester, an ingredient in the production of aluminum
sulfate, and using the acid to acidulate phosphate rock. Below
is an explanation of the regulations found in 40 CFR 261.2 and
261.4, which determine the regulatory status of a secondary
material. Please keep in mind that the discussion below is only
a general review of the existing regulations and preamble
discussions. Each generator must make his own determination as
to whether he has a solid and hazardous waste and must have
adequate documentation to support any exemption claims. (See 40
CFR Sections 262.11 and 261.2(f).)
In each of the recycling situations presented in your
letter, it is necessary to determine what the material is (spent
material, by-product, co-product) and how it is being recycled
to determine its regulatory status. The special case of spent
sulfuric acid which is recycled to make virgin sulfuric acid was
explained in the January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 642).
The exemption found in ^261.4(a)(7) refers to the special case
where spent sulfuric acid is not a solid waste unless
accumulated speculatively. The Agency never intended for the
regulated community to infer that because there is such an
exemption, all other spent sulfuric acid is always a solid
waste. Indeed, a careful reading of the regulations would lead
the reader from •U261.2(a) to -"261.4(3) and then to •D261.2(b) [if
-"261.4(3) (7) does not apply to the reader's situation].
-------
Section 261.2(a) states that materials which are abandoned
or which are inherently waste-like are always solid wastes.
Secondary materials which are recycled must be classified
according to the type of secondary material and the manner of
recycling. It is impossible to make an all-inclusive statement
concerning the regulatory status of used sulfuric acid; in
addition, insufficient information was provided in your letters
to provide a more detailed response. In some cases, used acid
is a spent material; in other cases, such as the sulfonation,
alkylation, and dehydration reactions described in your letter,
used acid is a by-product or a co-product. The regulatory
status of used acid win depend on whether the acid is a spent
material, a by-product, or a co-product, and the manner in which
the used acid is recycled. In general, hazardous secondary
materials used as ingredients in production of new products, or
as substitutes for commerical products, are not solid wastes.
(See 40 CFR Section 261.2(e)(1).) Please note however, that
under certain conditions, materials used in this manner are
still solid and hazardous waste, e.g., when the product being
produced is a fuel or a fertilizer. (See 40 CFR Section
261.2(e)(2).)
Each generator of used or spent acid should evaluate the
material in light of the Federal regulations as well as any
applicable State laws or regulations. If a generator needs
assistance in making a determination, or wishes an official
confirmation of his own determination, he should contact the
appropriate EPA regional office, or in authorized States, the
appropriate State regulatory agency.
Please feel free to contact Michael Petruska at
(202)475-9888 if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director, characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9441.1988(25]
J* 9
Mr. Fred Tidwell
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Safety Office, D-160
P.O. Box 25007
Denver, Colorado 80226
Dear Mr. Tidwell:
This letter is in response to Mr. William C. Klostermeyer's
request of May 20, 1988, to replace methylene chloride in EPA
Method 3510 with "...substitute chemicals, procedures, and
methods to perform the requested laboratory work".
At the present time, the Agency does not have any other
solvent system available for the extraction of semivolatile
organic compounds with the powerful solvating properties of
methylene chloride. Methylene chloride is sufficiently polar to
extract polar organics from a wide variety of matrices as well
as having the capability to extract relatively non-polar
compounds from these matrices.
Research into alternative solvent systems to replace
methylene chloride as a general solvent for semivolatile
organics is being conducted by our research laboratory in
Cincinnati. To date, no equivalent alternative solvent system
has been developed to satisfactorily replace methylene chloride
in removing hazardous substances from difficult matrices and
converting them to an analyzable form.
For specific compounds, however, it is possible to
substitute other extraction solvents for the methylene
chloride. An example would be the use of toluene as an
extraction solvent for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. We
would be happy to discuss, with you, potential solvents for
specific situations.
-------
The Agency will continue to strive to find a replacement
solvent system for methylene chloride as the general extraction
medium for semivolatile organic compounds. In the meantime, one
must continue to use this solvent following all proper safety
precautions in order to generate valid data. We will keep you
informed as to progress in this area of alternative extraction
media and method validation.
If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to
contact Barry Lesnik of my staff at FTS 382-4761.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WH-562B)
-------
9441.1988(2'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN I 5
SOUO WASTE AND EME»GENCV RESPONSE
Mr. M. Yaori, Product Manager
Ferrous Raw Materials
Sumitomo Corporation of America
2750 U.S. steel Building
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Dear Mr. Yaori:
This is in response to your March 15, 1988 letter to
Matthew Hale concerning the recycling of electric arc furnace
dust, the EPA listed waste K061. EPA cannot provide a definitive
response as to your recycling system at this time. As referenced
in your letter, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in AMC v. EPA
that EPA had exceeded its jurisdiction by regulating, or claiming
to regulate, certain in-process recycling streams. EPA proposed
regulatory changes on January 8,. 1988 to comply with the court
opinion. (See 52 £fi 519.) The comment period on the proposal
closed March 23. We have entered your letter as a comment on the
proposal. The remainder of this letter describes how EPA's
rules, and the January 8 proposal, apply to your situation.
Please note, however, that the following is based only on the
limited information provided in your letter. If you actually
implement your plans, you should deal with the appropriate EPA
Region (or authorized State) to determine your facility's
regulatory status. Please also be aware that this letter only
addresses potential RCRA regulation of the K061 recycling; air
emissions from the cyclone and bag filter may be subject to state
or Federal air pollution regulations.
Our understanding of the K061 recycling process outlined in
your letter is that K061 would be collected from electric arc
furnace emissions in a bag filter. The collected dust would be
conveyed to a hopper, mixed with coal or coke, pelletized, mixed
with a modifier, and dried in a rotary dryer. After drying, it
would be stored, then processed in a load cell reactor with
oxygen blown into the bottom. The exhaust from the reactor would
be filtered in a bag filter, where the zinc rich metal oxide
would be recovered. In the load cell reactor, the process wastes
from the electric arc furnace would be combined with the
-------
- 2 -
coal/coJce/modifier/K061 mixture; the resulting slag from the load
cell reactor would be further processed, and finally would be
granulated.
If the above described process is normally associated with
primary production of steel, it is possible that the electric arc
furnace dust would not be a solid waste. To successfully claim
the material is not a solid waste under 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(iii),
the material must be returned to the original primary production
process without prior reclamation; it must not be accumulated
speculatively, and it must not be used to produce something which
is applied to the land or burned for energy recovery, see the
conditions specified in Section 261.2(e)(2) and Section 261.2(f).
Under the current regulatory system, K061 that is reclaimed
is a solid waste [Section 261.2(c)(3)], and, because it is listed
in Section 261.32, it is also a hazardous waste [Section
261.3(a)(2)(ii)]. Until the point where the coal/coke/modifier/
K061 mixture enters the load cell reactor, the storage of K061
would be regulated under RCRA [Sections 262.34 or-264.1]. The
reclamation processing steps are not regulated, per Section
26l.6(c)(l) [see 50 £B 643]. However, if the facility is located
in a State which is authorized to implement RCRA, more stringent
State regulations may apply.
At the point where the coal/coJce/modifier/K061 mixture is
introduced to the load cell reactor, it might cease to be a solid
waste under the current EPA rules. The information provided in
your letter does not allow a definitive interpretation. However,
the principle is explained in the preamble to the January 4, 1985
Federal Register (50 FR 630) and in the preamble to the November
29, 1985 Federal Register (50 EB 49167). Briefly, if the load
cell reactor qualifies as an Industrial furnace, the K061 mixture
may cease to be a solid waste at the point where the material is
introduced into the load cell reactor, depending on its similari-
ty to materials ordinarily burned in the unit. It should be
noted that th« Agency has proposed to amend this interpretation
to exclude from RCRA jurisdiction secondary materials generated
and subsequently recycled in a process using the same type of
industrial furnace (52 IB 16990 and 17034, May 6, 1987).
-------
- 3-
If the K061 mixture does not qualify for exclusion from RCRA
jurisdiction under the above-mentioned interpretation, then the
status of the materials recovered from the load cell reactor is
dependent on several factors. The recovered zinc rich metal
oxide, if processed completely enough to be considered a
product, may no longer be a solid waste. See 40 CFR261. 3(c) (2) ;
however, note that if the zinc rich metal oxide is burned for
energy recovery or is used in a manner constituting disposal, it
would remain a listed hazardous waste until delisted (Section
261. 3 (c) and (d) ) . The slag mixture likewise may cease to be a
solid waste (and also a hazardous waste) once it has been
processed to be considered a product. Some information
contained in your letter implies that the slag may be used as
base or sub-base course or sand material. If a material is
applied to the land, or is used to produce a product which is
applied to the land, it is a solid waste by Section
261.2(c)(l). As a solid waste derived from the treatment of a
listed hazardous waste, it remains a listed hazardous waste
until delisted (Section 261. 3(c) and (d)). If our understanding
that process wastes from the electric arc furnace are mixed with
the K061 mixture in the load cell furnace is correct, all of the
slag removed from the load cell reactor, if a solid waste, is a
listed hazardous waste by Section 261.3(a) (2) ( iv) . Please note
that under 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart c, hazardous wastes recycled
by placement on the land are subject to extensive regulations,
the recyclable material has undergone a chemical reaction
in the course of producing the waste-derived product so as to
become inseparable by physical means.
Finally, the January 8, 1988 proposal to modify the
regulations in Section 261.2(c)(3) may apply to your recycling
situation. The docket materials in support of that rulemaking
contain an Item t6 which summarizes the factors the Agency used
for deciding whether to list certain wastestreams in Section
261.32. K061 was listed because it is typically disposed, or
reclaimed in an unrelated process, and is frequently stored in
open piles? The proposed rule would allow case-by-case
demonstrations by the generator that the material does not meet
the conditions for listing, depending on several factors. It is
not possible to male* a general statement regarding the status of
the electric arc furnace dust being recycled with your system.
The preamble to the proposed rule discusses the possibility that
the material is not discarded (53 EB 526 and 527, January 8,
1988). From the information in your letter, it does not appear
-------
- 4 -
that the load cell reactor is closely related to the primary
production of steel.
Again, if you plan to implement your plan you may wish to
discuss the process as proposed with EPA Region or state
personnel with regulatory authority in the proposed location for
the plant. If you have further questions regarding this letter,
please contact Michael Petrusfca at (202) 475-9888.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
UNIT6D STATES EMVIHONMiHTAL PROTECTION AGIMCY 9441.1988(28)
JUN 2 4 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: US PCI Drum Shredder
FROM: Jim Michael, Chief
Disposal and Remediation Section (WH-563)
TO: Lawrence A. Wapensky, Chief
Utah/North Dakota Section
This is in response to your May 12, 1988 memorandum
addressing questions regarding a drum shredder at the USPCI,
Clive, Utah, site. I would liJce to address your questions in
the same order as discussed in your memorandum.
Is the flryu shredding operation, as described In the
supplied information, regulated under RCRA?
Yes, the drum shrodding unit is proee««ino containers filled
with hazardous wastes in a manner that constitutes treatment of
hazardous waste. Since the drum shredder was not designed to
contain an accumulation of hazardous waste, it does not meet the
regulatory definition of a tank (40 CFR 260.10); this activity
will require a RCRA permit as a miscellaneous unit under 40 CFR
264.600 (Subpart X).
Since the operation of the drum shredder poses risks of
hazardous waste releases that are similiar to releases from
tanks (Subpart J) r certain requirements for tanks may be
appropriate for inclusion in the Subpart X permit. He also
recommend that other requirements be imposed to mitigate
potential safety and environmental hazards from this unit.
Specific controls are suggested, where possible, to control the
potential for the following problems:
* Explosions and fires within the unit from the accumulation
of ignitable or reactive gases;
* Generation of hazardous air emissions from the mixing of
incompatible hazardous vasts during the shredding
operation;
-------
-2-
* Releases to the air, including contaminated dust or
hazardous gases;
* Releases of liquid hazardous waste from an increase in
pressure on the hazardous waste being shredded. Hazardous
waste liquids absorbed by a material might pass the paint
filter test for free liquids under atmospheric pressure,
but release the liquid under pressurized conditions inside
the unit. This result (liquid/absorbent material
separation) is neither intentional nor desirable and,
therefore, should be minimized. Measures should be
planned and implemented to collect potential releases from
the unit; and,
* Releases from precipitation events since the unit is not
entirely covered with a roof and hazardous waste will
remain in the mechanism after each use. The unit is not
designed to trap and control this type of release.
Therefore, we suggest channelling releases resulting from
precipitation to a sump or other containment device. The
water should be analyzed before discharge or disposed of
as a hazardous waste.
If it is regulated, does it come under the permitting
authority of the State-delegated program, or under Subpart X?
As a Subpart X unit, the Region will be the permitting
authority. This authority is provided by 40 CFR 264.1(f)(2).
However, since the unit is a miscellaneous unit similar to a
tank, the Region may want to check with the State for more
stringent requirements under Subpart J that may be appropriate.
If the facility constructed or operated this unit without
having it on its Part A applicationf should EPA or the State
proceed with enforcement action?
Given the above determination (i.e., the shredder is a
Subpart X treatment unit), the Region was correct to instruct
the facility to cease operation of the unit. Operation of a
hazardous vast* unit without a permit or approval as a change in
interim status under 40 CFR 270.72 is not authorized. The
Region should call in the Part B application on this unit. The
unit can legally begin operation when the forthcoming permit for
the other units at the facility is modified to include the
shredder.
Since this is a Subpart X unit, Region VIII will maintain
enforcement authority after the RCRA permit modification is
issued. We recommend that the Region and State discuss their
enforcement priorities in order to make a final determination on
any enforcement action against the facility.
-------
-3-
If you have any questions regarding this information or would
like to discuss the issues further, please contact Nestor Aviles
at FTS 382-2218.
cc: Bruce R. Weddle, OSW
Elizabeth Cotsworth, OSW
Sonya Stelmack, OSW
Chester Oszman, OSW
Kent Anderson, OSW
Frank McAlister, OSW
Fred Chanania, OGC
Nestor J. Aviles, OSW
Terry Brown, Region VIII
-------
9441.1933(30
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 88
3. Household Hazardous Waste
As a part of a consent decree, a firm which caused a plume of ground-water
contaminated with RCRA listed waste, is required to install carbon filters in
all affected homes with water wells. When the firm returns to change these
filters, they wish to collect and ship them for regeneration. Will these filters
be covered by the household hazardous waste exclusion in Section 261.4(b)0)?
Yes, Section 261.4(b)(l) defines "household waste" as any material derived
from households. Since the carbon filter was installed in a home, it is
household waste when removed. There is no significant difference
between filters installed by the firm and ones installed by a homeowner on
his own initiative. The household hazardous waste exclusion would
apply to the filters when they are sent for regeneration.
Source: Carrie Wehling (202) 382-7706
Research: Randall Eicher
-------
9441.1988(31)
MEMORANDUM #24:
DATE: July 1988
SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities
FROM: David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WH-562B)
TO: Addresses
This memo will address the following topics:
o Method 3500- Clarification on Surrogate Standard
o Extraction System for PCBs in Soil
o Good Laboratory Practices Work Group
o Results on the recent Laboratory Proficiency Evaluation
Samples
o Test Method for Total Halogens in Used Oil
o Contract Laboratory Program - Participation as a
Surrogate for Laboratory Certification
o Methods Section Staff Responsibilities
o Call for Reviewers
Method 3500-Clarification on Surrogate Standard
We made an error in Method 3500 and a clarification is
needed of the direction given on preparing the terphenyl-d!4
surrogate standard described on page 2 of Memorandum No. 23. The
methanol specified as the dilution solvent is not appropriate.
The revised directions are as follows:
A. Weight out 10 mg terphenly-d!4 into a small beaker
(20-50ml) using an analytical balance.
B. Add 5 to 10 ml of pure carbon disulfide until the
terphenly-d!4 completely dissolves.
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
C. Transfer this carbon disulfide solution to a 100 ml
volumetric flask.
D. Quantitatively transfer the residual carbon disulfide
solution from the beaker to the volumetric flask by
washing several times with methanol.
E. Dilute to the line with methanol. Mix well.
Extraction System for PCBs in Soil
We have reviewed the data package submitted by Joseph
Stewart of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in support of his
request for use of SOXTEC extraction system, in place of the
conventional Soxhlet extraction system (Method 3540), for
preparation of PCB samples for Method 8080 at ORNL. The PCB data
generated from split samples, run concurrently, using the
conventional Soxhlet and the SOXTEC extraction techniques for
sample preparation, shows that these preparative techniques are
equivalent, within allowable standard deviation limits. These
data also demonstrate that Method 8080, utilizing either
extraction technique, is appropriate for the analysis of PCB's in
soil and clay matrices at the low ppm level. The SOXTEC system
actually proved to be the superior technique when time
constraints were considered, taking only 2 hours for sample
preparation vs. 17 hours for Soxhlet.
From the submitted information, OSW believes that the SOXTEC
extraction procedure is suitable for determining the PCBs in soil
matrices. We recommend that where use of SW-846 methods is not
mandated by the RCRA regulations, permit writers approve use of
the SOXTEC extraction system for RCRA PCB soil analyses. OSWER
is in the process of using the ORNL data to develop a general
extraction procedure using the SOXTEC apparatus and after the
method has received formal review it will be added to SW-846.
GLP Workgroup Meetings
The RCRA Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) taskgroup, (part of
the QA Workgroup), has begun the process of developing GLPs for
the program. These practices are designed to apply to all
laboratories developing data in support of the RCRA program. The
second draft has been distributed to both the taskgroup and the
full Workgroup for their review prior to the July llth general
workgroup meeting.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
Test Methods for Total Halogens in Used Oil
The Federal Register Notice of November 29, 1985 (page
49189) recommended that ASTM D808-81 be used for total halogens
(as chlorine) in used oil until a method is developed for
inclusion in SW-846. On March 10, 1986 (page 8207) information
in a Federal Register Notice confirmed that the ASTM method,
cited previously, is inappropriate for measuring total halogens
at levels of regulatory concern. The Agency is working to
address this problem and a package of proposed test methods for
total halogens in used oil will be submitted for workgroup review
next month.
Until these new methods have been reviewed and formally
adopted, the Agency cannot give general approval for their use.
Pending such approval, however, the Agency will accept, on a
case-by-case basis, data using any technique, as long as adequate
QA/QC data has been gathered to validate the results.
We believe, based on the data that has been collected so
far, that several techniques will be suitable for determining
total halogens in used oil at levels of regulatory concern.
These include microcoulometry (using Dohrman instrument); Paar
bomb combustion with any of the following finishes: mercuric
nitrate titration, titrimetric silver nitrate, or ion
chromatography; x-ray fluorescence for samples not containing
water; and Dexsil's Clor-D-Tect 1000 test kit for pass/fail
determinations only.
For additional information, contact Barry Lesnik at
382-7459.
Use of Contract Laboratory Program Participation as a Surrogate
for Laboratory Certification
The Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) provides standardized
and specialized analytical services to support OSWER activities.
Firm, fixed-price contracts are awarded competitively to the
lowest responsible bidders through the Government's Invitation
for BID (IFB) process. Laboratories selected as contractors are
monitored for adherence to quality control and administrative
procedures and, as long as they receive a satisfactory rating,
continue to receive analytical work according to EPA needs and
the size of their contract. Laboratories not performing
satisfactorily, while they still remain in the program, are cut
off from further work.
Concerns have been raised by non-CLP laboratories that a
number of EPA Regions and States are requiring that facilities
conducting corrective action testing employ laboratories that are
participating in OERR's CLP program in the erroneous belief
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
that CLP participation constitutes EPA certification. OSW frowns
on this practice since CLP participation does not constitute
certification and, more importantly, that for financial or other
reasons, many of the nation's best testing laboratories have
elected not to be CLP contractors.
Methods Section Staff Responsibilities
Many times questions come up dealing with specific methods
or testing problems and people do not know who to call for
assistance. While calls can always be directed to our general
number (202/382-4671), I suggest contacting the subject matter
specialists directly for fastest service. You will find the
specialists responsible for the major testing and quality
assurance subject areas listed below.
Subject
SW-846
Quality Assurance
Inorganic Analysis
Organic Analysis
Mobility Prediction
(leachability
volatility)
Sampling
Reactivity
- Toxic Gas Generation
- Explosivity
Ignitability
Corrosivity
Bioassay Methods
Name
Charles Sellers
Florence Richardson
Charles Sellers
Barry Lesnik
Gail Hansen
Florence Richardson
Gail Hansen
Florence Richardson
Florence Richardson
Charles Sellers
Gail Hansen
Phone
382-3282
382-4778
382-3282
382-7459
475-6722
382-4778
475-6722
382-4778
382-4778
382-3282
475-6722
I want to emphasize that not only do we want to help answer
your questions, but also to hear your ideas for new methods and
testing ideas, problems that we need to work on, and any other
suggestions or comments you may have to help us improve the
program.
Call for Reviewers
ASTM and EPA's Office of Solid Waste have a need for
qualified individuals to review papers presented at the OSWER
Annual Solid Waste Testing and Quality Assurance Symposium and
the D34 Symposia prior to publication in ASTM STPs. In order to
assist us in this effort, we have established a data base of
potential reviewers. If you would be willing to contribute a
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
few hours annually to this review process, please complete the
attached form and return it to me at the address below.
David Friedman
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste (SW-331)
Washington, DC 20460
A short list of general topics is given. Please indicate those
topics for which you have special expertise or interest.
Additional information concerning your specific areas of
expertise is also requested.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1983(32)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Mr. Marshall R. Turner
Vice President, Manufacturing
Racon Refrigerants
6040 South Ridge Road
P.O. Box 198
Wichita, KS 67201
Dear Mr. Turner:
This letter is in response to your February 1, 1988 petition
to change 40 CFR Part 261 to encourage chlorofluorocarbon
recycling. It is based on information contained in your
petition and in telephone conversations with Michael Petruska of
the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) and with our contractor, Becky
Cuthbertson of Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. This response is
based on the Federal RCRA regulations; individual states
implementing RCRA may have more stringent requirements, or
regulations which are broader in scope. The tentative
conclusion we have reached is that under Federal rules, the
refrigerants you are concerned about are probably not hazardous
waste. Therefore, your rulemaking petition may be moot. Our
conclusion is explained in detail below.
The Agency understands that the refrigerants manufactured hy
your company may become contaminated during customers' use. Tno
contamination may occur because atmospheric moisture condenses,
because lubricating oil from the compressor is released into the
refrigerant, or because the compressor's high temperature may
cause small amounts of hydrochloric acid to form. We understand
that when servicing the refrigeration system, the service person
may either vent the used refrigerant to the atmosphere, or
collect the used refrigerant in cylinders to transfer it for
reclamation.
Refrigerant that has been used and has become contaminated
through use fits the definition of a spent material {40 CFR
Section 261. l(c) (D) if it must be reclaimed prior to its
reuse. Spent materials that are reclaimed are solid wastes per
Section 261.2(c). Your environmental engineer, Denise Pope,
indicated that the used refrigerant is collected from customers
in cylinders and transferred to your facility for reclamation,
and is not tested to determine whether it can be reused directly
-------
- 2 -
i.e., without processing. Thus, it would fall under the
definition of a spent material going for reclamation, which is a
solid waste.
The used refrigerant would not be considered a listed spent
solvent. The spent solvent listings in Section 261.31 apply to
certain materials that have been used for their solvent
properties and have become spent. See the December 31, 1985
Federal Register notice (50 FR 53315) which clarifies the scope
of the spent solvent listings.
The used refrigerant would not meet the listing description
in Section 261.33(e) for trichlorofluoromethane (U121) or
dichlorodifluoromethane (U075) because it has been used. The
listings in Section 261.33(e) and (f) apply to the commercially
pure grades of the listed chemicals, technical grades, and
formulations in which the listed chemical is the sole active
ingredient, but not to used chemicals.
If the solid waste is not identified as a listed hazardous
waste, the generator's responsibility is to test the waste or
apply knowledge to determine if the waste exhibits a
characteristic. See Sections 261.5(f)(l), 261.5(g)(l) and
262.11(c). "Generator" includes the person whose act or process
produces hazardous waste, or whose act first causes the waste to
become subject to regulation. In most cases, the generators
would be the owner of the refrigeration equipment, as well as
the service person who may be involved in determining whether
the refrigerant is still useful, or who may be collecting the
material for reclamation, i.e., there would be a co-generator
situation.
Based on the information available at this time,, it seems
unlikely that the used refrigerant would exhibit any of the four
characteristics of hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or EP toxicity - see Sections 261.20 - 261.24).
Corrosivity may be a characteristic of concern, if hydrochloric
acid is present due to breakdown of the chlorofluorocarbons at
high compressor temperatures. However, the characteristic in
Section 261.22 refers to aqueous wastes with a pH less than or
equal to 2, or liquid wastes that corrode steel at a rate
greater than one-quarter inch per year. The Paint Filter
-------
Liquids test (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Method
9095) is the method that is recommended for generators to
isolate the liquid portion of their waste. See 50 FR 18372,
April 30, 1985. If the hydrochloric acid is present in the
liquid phase, and the waste does exhibit the corrosivity
characteristic, it is a hazardous waste.
The generator's responsibility includes determining whether
a waste is hazardous using the steps outlined in Section
262.11. If the waste is not listed, the generator has the
option of testing or applying knowledge to determine whether the
waste exhibits a characteristic. Enclosed is a portion of the
background document for the hazardous waste generator
regulations. The enclosed portion details the generator's
option to apply knowledge "in light of the materials or
processes used." Pages 1-2.11 and 1-2.12 explain that "If
operations at different facilities are sufficiently similar as
to provide the requisite basis, then nothing in the regulation
prevents the use of such information. Persons are cautioned,
however, that data from one facility are not necessarily
transferrable to another; that subtle differences in the
facilities or raw materials may significantly alter the
character of the resulting waste."
If your company is interested in testing the used
refrigerant that you would normally be reclaiming to see if it
exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, the data obtained
may be quite useful in that equipment owners or service
personnel could use the data to make their hazardous waste
determinations. If testing shows that these refrigerants never
exhibit any of the characteristics, they may be reclaimed
without complying with the EPA. hazardous waste rules.
Finally, states authorized to implement RCRA are required to
have programs that are consistent with the Federal RCRA
program. These states' requirements may be more stringent or
more extensive than the Federal regulations (Section
270.1(i)(1)) , as long as they are consistent according to the
criteria in Section 271.4. States may have requirements more
stringent than EPA's.
-------
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael Petruska at (202) 475-9888.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of solid Waste
-------
9441.1988(33)
Ms. Paige Murphy-Young
Assistant Attorney General
1275 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Ms. Murphy-Young:
This is in response to your letter of March 22, 1988, to Mary
Cunningham of my staff, requesting clarification as to how the
§ 261.2(c) (2) ( ii) exemption for commercial chemical products
burned for energy recovery might apply to waste-derived fuel
products of a solvent regeneration facility operated by Bud's Oil
Service (BOS). We have also reviewed two other letters on this
subject sent to my staff—the February 19, 1908, letter from
Charles A. Peterson of BOS to Mike Petruska, and the June 21,
1988, letter from David Kimball, an attorney representing BOS, to
Bob Holloway. We have conferred with our Regional Office in San
Francisco, and they asked that we respond to you directly. We
are responding to both Mr. Peterson's and Mr. Kimball's letters
by copy of this letter.
BOS Solvent Reclamation
We understand that BOS regenerates spent solvents to produce
commercial gun wash solvent. We understand that BOS also markets
the regenerated solvent as a fuel. BOS asserts that the
commercial gun wash product is exempt under §261.3(c)(2)(i), and
that the waste-derived fuel is exempt under §261.2 (c) (2) (ii) .
These issues are addressed below.
Is the Reclaimed Solvent Excluded Under 3261.3
The reclaimed solvent would be excluded under §261.3(c)(2)(i)
if the solvent is reclaimed from solid wastes and is used
beneficially and the reclaimed solvent is not reclaimed further,
burned for energy recovery, or used in a manner constituting
disposal. Thus, the solvent that is reclaimed by BOS and used as
a commercial gun wash solvent is not a solid waste.
-------
- 2 -
Are Products Produced by the Reclamation Process Exempt When Used
as Fuel?
Reclaimed materials burned for energy recovery are solid
waste, and, if hazardous by listing or characteristic, are
hazardous waste. See § 261. 3 (c) (2) (i) . See also 50 FR 634
(January 4, 1985). Thus, the exclusion at §261.2(c)(2)(ii) would
not apply to the solvents BOS reclaims for fuel use. Further, the
waste-derived fuel product that is produced by BOS is subject to
regulation under Subpart D, Part 266. Subpart D subjects
hazardous waste fuels to RCRA storage and transportation standards
and places administrative controls on marketers and burners.
Although the exclusion provided by §261.2(c)(2)(ii) would not
apply to the waste-derived fuel, the exclusion could apply to
solvent product that was off-specification and, in lieu of its
intended purpose, burned for energy recovery. To be exempt under
this provision, the off-spec solvent would also have to be a fuel
itself. The use of acetone-derived solvents, for example, would
be precluded by the fuel requirement.
We note that the statement that is quoted on page 2 of the
June 21 letter from Mr. Kimball to Mr. Holloway taken from the
"Guidance Manual on the RCRA Regulation of Recycled Hazardous
Wastes" is incorrect. That statement is an incorrect summary of
preamble discussion provided at 50 FR 634 (January 4, 1985)
regarding the regulatory status of reclaimed products. The
preamble states that the exclusion for commercial products
reclaimed from hazardous waste does not apply when the output of
the reclamation process is burned for energy recovery or placed on
the land. As discussed above, §261.2(c)(2)(ii) does not provide
an exclusion for the waste-derived fuel.
Finally, we think it is important to emphasize the underlying
policy of the Agency's rules. If a person could simply purify a
waste (by settling, regeneration or blending) and then burn it
without being subject to RCRA, then the Agency's rules and
Congressional command to control burning of hazardous waste-
derived fuels would have little meaning. It was for this reason
that EPA explicitly stated that the exclusion in §261.3(c)(2) does
not apply to materials ultimately burned for energy recovery.
-------
I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have further
questions, please do not hesitate to call Mary Cunningham of my
staff at (202) 382-7935.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Charles A. Peterson, Bud's Oil Service
David P. Kimball, Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, P.C,
Frances Schultz, Region IX
Steve Silverman, OGC
Bob Holloway, OSW
Mary Cunningham, OSW
Mike Petruska, OSW
Matt Straus, OSW
bcc: Joe Carra, OSW
Dev Barnes, OSW
Jim Berlow, OSW
-------
ATCS EMVIROMV.'ENTAL PtOTECTlON »ENCY 9441.1938:36)
JUL 29 B88
Mr. Sol L. Colon
Environmental Quality Official
Western Fher Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. Box 7468
Ponce, P.R. 00732
Dear Mr. Colon:
I am writing in response to your letter dated June 13, 1988, in
which you requested our interpretation of the hazardousness of a
waste generated and treated at your facility in Ponce, P.R. Also,
you requested confirmation that your treatment process does not
require a RCRA permit.
Specifically, you treat a liquid waste containing about 18%
acid and 1% organic material by evaporating some of the water
(which is condensed and sent to the facility's wastewater treatment
plant) and transferring the concentrated acid solution to a
concrete mixer where it is mixed with kiln dust to form a dry solid
for disposal.
On July 8, 1988, Ed Abrams, a member of my staff, telephoned
you to determine the composition of the 1% organic component of
your waste and the type of kiln dust. Your response identified the
organic materials as organic acids such as oxolic and tartaric
acids, and not organic solvents. Also, you identified the kiln
dust as cement kiln dust, a solid waste which is not a hazardous
waste (see 40 CFR 261.4(b)(8)).
Assuming that your liquid waste being treated is only
characteristically hazardous because of corrosivity, the dry waste
generated from the treatment would not be considered hazardous if
it does not exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste
(see 40 CFR 261.20-24), but your operation would be considered
treatment of a hazardous waste. However, since it is being done at
the site of waste generation in tanks, a RCRA permit would be
required only if you stored your waste for periods exceeding 90
days prior to treatment. If treatment was being done off site, a
RCRA storage permit would be required in any case.
-------
If you require additional information, please contact either
Mr. Angel Chang in EPA Region II, or Mr. Ed Abrams of my staff at
(202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director,
Characterization and Assessment
Division
cc: Mr. Angel Chang, (2AWM-SW Rm 1000)
EPA Region II
26 Federal -Plaza
New York, NY 10278
-------
9441.1988(39)
Ti UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ * WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGcNCv RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulation and Permitting of Laboratories
IV I 4t 0
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, DirectorAA f^ frr^
Office of Solid Waste (OS-JOt)J
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
On July 19, 1988, EPA promulgated an exemption for samples used
in treatability studies (53 EE 27290). To help increase awareness
of the new exemption, and to clarify the regulatory and permitting
requirements for laboratories in general, we have prepared the
attached decision tree and a summary of the treatability sample
rule. This is intended to help lab managers and enforcement
personnel understand the regulations. Questions in this area may
be addressed to Stephen Cochran at FTS-475-9715.
Attachments
-------
DETAILED FACT SHEET
SMALL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDIES SAMPLE EXEMPTION
Status: Final Rule, effective July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27290)
OSW Contact: Paul Mushovic
1. Effect of the Rule
The final rule conditionally exempts small quantities of
hazardous waste being utilized in small-scale treatability
studies from the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Such testing
requires no prior EPA approval. Quantity limitations for
treatability studies are set per waste stream per treatment
process. Limitations are also being set for quantities shipped,
and for treatment rates and storage limitations per facility.
New paragraphs (e) and (f) to 40 CFR 261.4 accomplish the
following. First, persons who generate samples are exempted from
the generator and transporter requirements when samples are
shipped by the generator, or any other person who collects the
sample (the "sample collector"), to a laboratory or testing
facility for the purpose of conducting a treatability analysis,
or when shipped from the facility back to the sample collector,
provided that certain packaging and labeling requirements are
met. Second, any laboratory or testing facility that conducts
treatability studies may store these waste samples and residues
generated from the treatability study within the quantity and
time limits specified and not be subject to the requirements of
40 CFR, Parts 264, 265, and 270. Third, the actual testing of
the samples does not require a permit, provided the laboratory or
testing facility complies with the notification requirements in
the rule and meets the quantity and time limitations specified in
the rule.
Definition and Examples. A treatability study (newly-defined)
subjects a relatively small amount of hazardous waste to a
treatment process. Its purpose is to determine:
- whether the waste is amenable to a treatment process;
what pretreatment (if any) is required;
- the optimal process conditions;
- the efficiency of the treatment process; or,
the characteristics and volume of residuals from a
particular treatment process.
A treatability study is not to be used for commercial
treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. Examples of the types
of treatability studies included in the exemption are:
- physical/chemical/biological treatment;
- thermal treatment (incineration, pyrolysis, oxidation,
combustion);
solidification;
sludge dewatering;
volume reduction;
toxicity reduction; and,
- recycling feasibility.
-------
The rule also allows the following types of waste testing
studies:
- liner compatibility studies;
- corrosion studies;
- toxicological and health effects studies; and,
- other material compatibility studies (e.g., relating to
leachate collection systems, geotextile materials, other land
disposal unit requirements, pumps and personal protective
eauioment).
2. Purpose and Rationale of the Rule
A. Need for Simplified Procedures. The hazardous waste
regulations, when applied to waste samples used in small-scale
treatability studies, are more comprehensive than is necessary to
adequately protect human health and the environment. The Agency
needs to promote research and the development of innovative
technologies to manage hazardous wastes.
B. Factors Limiting Risk. The Agency believes that the
following factors combine to ensure that the risks to human
health and the environment are de minimis:
- the various quantity and time restrictions contained in the
rule;
- the high cost of collecting and shipping the sample and
conducting legitimate treatability studies;
- certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements that will
enable the Agency to conduct inspections and bring enforcement
actions against persons who abuse this exemption; and,
- Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Postal Service
(USPS), or other regulations governing the transportation of
hazardous materials.
The Agency also believes that sufficient professional and
financial incentives are in place to provide for the safe
shipment of samples to and from, and proper handling of samples
at, laboratories and testing facilities conducting treatability
studies.
3. Limitations Contained in the Rule
Specific limitations in the final rule ensure de minimis risk
to human health and the environment.
-------
-3-
A. Waste Quantity Exempted per waste stream. There are
limits on the amount of waste that can be subject to a
treatability study evaluation per generated waste stream. The
rule exempts (per waste stream per treatment process):
- 1000 kg of non-acute hazardous waste; or,
- 1 kg of acute hazardous waste; or,
- 250~kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated by acute
hazardous waste.
The rule also allows the Regional Administrator to grant
requests for waste stream quantity limits in excess of those
specified above, up to an additional 500 kg of non-acute
hazardous waste, 1 kg of acute hazardous waste, and 250 kg of
soils, water, and debris contaminated with acute hazardous waste
when it can be demonstrated that an additional quantity of
hazardous waste is needed to complete a treatability study when:
- there has been an equipment or mechanical failure;
- there is a need to verify previous results;
- there is a need to study and analyze alternative techniques
within a previously evaluated treatment process; or,
- there is a need to determine final specifications for
treatment.
B. Transportation Shipment Limits. The Agency has set a
single shipment limitation as follows:
- 1000 kg of non-acute hazardous waste; or,
- 1 kg of acute hazardous waste; or,
- 250 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated with acute
hazardous waste.
These shipment limitations, covering the exemption from the
RCRA hazardous waste transporter regulations and manifesting
requirements, will apply when the materials are being shipped to
a laboratory or testing facility or returned to the generator or
sample collector.
C. Facility Treatment Rate Limit. The Agency has adopted a
treatment rate limit of 250 kg per day of as received waste for
the entire laboratory or testing facility. "As received" refers
to the waste shipped by the generator or sample collector as it
arrives at the laboratory or testing facility.
p. Facility Storage Quantity Limits. The Agency has also
adopted an overall storage limitation of 1000 kg of "as received"
waste per testing facility. This limitation can include up to
500 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated with acute
hazardous waste or 1 kg of acute hazardous waste. The Agency is
making it clear in this rule that the storage exemption only
applies to laboratories or testing facilities conducting
-------
-4-
treatability studies. The rule does not allow for intermediate
storage.
E. Facility Storage Time Limits. Any untreated sample and
any residue generated during the treatability study must be
returned to the generator within 90 days of study completion or
within 1 year from the date of shipment by the generator to the
laboratory or testing facility, whichever is earlier. Otherwise,
these materials must be managed, by the laboratory or testing
facility conducting the treatability study, as a RCRA hazardous
waste (unless the waste is no longer hazardous).
MTUs conducting treatability studies may qualify for this
exemption. The requirements of the exemption apply to each
location where an MTU will conduct treatability studies.
When more than one MTU is operating at one location they will be
treated as one MTU facility for purposes of applying the
limitations.
4. Procedures for Compliance with the Rule
Facilities conducting small-scale treatability studies would
not be required to obtain the permit; and the shipment of samples
to and from facilities would no longer need to be manifested.
There are still certain procedures required to qualify for the
exemption.
A. General Reporting and Recordkeepinq Requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are being imposed to
facilitate inspector review, and if necessary, to take
enforcement action. The generator of the sample (who may also be
the shipper or sample collector) and the laboratory or testing
facility conducting the treatability study must keep copies of
contracts and shipping documents for a minimum of 3 years after
the completion of the study.
B. Generator-Specific Requirements. Generators and sample
collectors must also maintain records indicating the following:
- the amount of waste (per waste stream and treatment
process) shipped under the exemption;
- the name, address, and EPA identification number of the
study facility;
- shipment dates; and,
- whether or not any unused sample or any residue generated
from the treatability study was returned.
Beginning in 1989, generators must report this information in
their biennial reports. In addition, generators and/or sample
collectors who seek a variance to submit supplemental sample
material from a particular waste stream must indicate the reason
-------
-5-
for the request, support the additional quantity requested,
account for all sample material previously submitted from the
waste stream, and describe any technical or equipment
modifications and the corrected results.
C. Facility-Specific Requirements. Owners or operators of a
study facility must:
- notify the Regional Administrator or authorized State, by
letter, of the intent to conduct treatability studies at least 45
days prior to conducting any such studies;
- obtain an EPA identification number if it does not have
one;
- maintain records documenting compliance with the specified
time and quantity limits for treatment and storage for 3 years
from the completion of each treatability study.
Specific minimum information, by treatability study/ that
must be maintained includes:
- the name, address, and EPA identification number of the
generator or sample collector;
- information on the quantities of and dates that waste
materials were received, stored, and tested; and,
- the date the unused sample and residue were returned to the
generator or, if sent to a designated facility, the name of the
facility and its EPA identification number.
By March 15 of each year, each facility must submit a
comprehensive report to the authorized State or Regional
Administrator that includes the above information for all studies
of the previous calendar year and an estimate of the number of
studies and the amount of waste expected to be used in
treatability studies during the current year.
Additionally, laboratories or testing facilities that do not
return the unused sample or the residues to the generator or
sample collector within the specified time limits are subject to
appropriate regulation. Facilities must determine if they meet
the SQG requirements of Subject 261.5 or the accumulation
requirements of Subject 262.34.
5. Impact of the Rule
This exemption will reduce the overall costs and economic
impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations by
eliminating permitting requirements for laboratories and testing
facilities intending to conduct treatability studies. Facilities
and laboratories will be spared the time (as much as 2 years) and
the costs (estimated to be between $100,000 and $200,000)
otherwise necessary to obtain a RCRA permit. The Agency
-------
-6-
anticipates that most of the estimated 400 facilities which will
be conducting treatability studies will include testing
laboratories, research organizations, colleges, universities,
technical institutes, and those facilities involved in solid and
hazardous waste management.
6. Effective Date of the Rule
The need for more effective hazardous waste treatment
alternatives and the fact that this amendment reduces, rather
than increases, the existing requirements for facilities that
handle waste samples provide good cause to make this rule
effective immediately upon publication notwithstanding Section
4(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section
553(d). This amendment takes effect immediately upon publication
in the Federal Register. The regulations will be applicable only
in those States that do not have final authorization. Because
these changes are less stringent or reduce the scope of the
Federal program, States are not required to adopt this
rulemaking, although EPA strongly encourages States to do so as
quickly as possible. EPA will expedite review of authorized
State program revision applications.
7. Agency contact
For further information regarding the Treatability
Studies-Sample Exemption, contact Stephen Cochran at EPA
Headquarters telephone No. 202-475-9715 or FTS No. 475-9715.
-------
Office of Solid Waste
Laboratory Decision Tree
STO» t.
Q*t*rmiM the type
of
Type of Testing
STEP 2.
Determine If
material !• • watt*
STEP 3.
Determine if solid
waste I* • h«z*rdou»
waste
STEP 4.
Testability study
exemption
STEP 5.
Determine If exempt
recycling ooour*
STEP «.
Determine If special
recycling occur*
STEP T.
Determine II other
recycling occur*
Stunpfet criatBcwnzattor*
or composition testing
Is it solid waste
per §261.2?
STEP B.
Determine
occur*
If storage
STEP B,
Determine If treat-
ment or dlspoaai
occur*
STEP 10.
Verify that activity
requires a permit
YES
Is the waste listed in
§§261.31-33 or does it exhibit
a characteristic of a hazardous
waste (§§261.20-24)7
YES
Is trie activity something
other than a treatabilrty
study (defined in §260.10)?
V£S
Is the activity something
other than exempt recycling
specified in §261.6(a)(3)?
YES
Is the activity something
other than the special form
of recycling in §261.6(a)(2)?
YES
Is the activity something
other than §261.6(c)
recycling?
YES
Is the activity something
other than storage?
YES
Does treatment or
disposal (as defined
in §260.10) occur?
YES
Permit is required §270.1(c)
unless exempt under
§270.1(c)(2)«
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
§261.4
-------
Guidance on Laboratory Testing and RCRA Permitting
This guidance addresses only the issue of whether materials
received by a laboratory must be handled as a hazardous waste
under the federal permit or interim status hazardous waste
management standards. It does not address the issue of the
laboratory which generates hazardous wastes and whether
permitting is required for the laboratory-as-generator.
Individual states (whether authorized under RCRA or not) may
also have requirements that are more strict than the federal
requirements. Thus, although this guidance may indicate that a
particular activity may be conducted without requiring a permit,
in all cases the laboratory director must confirm with the
appropriate state agency whether a permit is required.
Additional assistance on all aspects of the determination
process outlined in this guidance may be obtained by calling the
RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance Hotline ((800)424-9346,
commercial (202)382-3000; FTS-382-3000).
-------
Step 1. Determine the type of testing that will occur.
If the testing is solely to determine a waste, soil, water, or
air sample's characteristics or composition, the sample's
handling may be subject to reduced regulations under 40 CFR
S261.4(d).
Step 2. Determine whether the material is a solid waste per
S261.2 (or, in the case of contaminated soil or water, contains a
solid waste). [Note: The term "solid waste" does not refer to a
material's physical form, but to its legal status as a waste vs.
commodity.]
This step requires looking at both the status of the material as
it .is handled in the "outside world" and as it is handled in the
laboratory. For instance, an EP toxic wastewater treatment
sludge which is landfilled in the "outside world" is a solid
waste and a hazardous waste; however, if it is being tested for
reclamation possibilities, it would be neither a solid waste nor
a hazardous waste until the experimental residues are discarded.
Another example would be an off-specification commercial chemical
product listed in §261.33. If, in the "outside world", it is
sent for reclamation, it is neither a solid waste nor a hazardous
waste. However, if the laboratory intends to incinerate it, it
is both a solid waste and a hazardous waste. Assistance in this
step may be found by referring to the Guidance Manual on the RCRA
Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Wastes (EPA 530-SW-86-015), or
by calling the RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance Hotline with
details about the specific situation.
Step 3. Determine whether the solid waste is a hazardous waste.
Refer to $261.4(b) to see if it is a "solid waste which is not a
hazardous waste." If it is not excluded by §261.4(b), refer to
SS261.31-261.33, to determine if it is a listed hazardous waste;
if it is not listed, refer to SS261.20-261.24 to determine if it
is a characteristic hazardous waste. For assistance, call
(800)424-9346.
Step 4. Determine whether the laboratory's activity qualifies
for the treatability study exemption at $261.4(e) and (f).
See the July 19, 1988 Federal Register (53 FJR 27290). Individual
states may not recognize this exemption.
Step 5. Determine whether the laboratory will be performing any
of the recycling operations on wastes which are described in
$261.6(a)(3). If so, the activity is not subject to federal RCRA
regulation.
-------
-2-
Step 6. Determine whether the laboratory will be recycling
wastes in the manner described in §261.6(a)(2).
(Note: Burning for energy recovery must be legitimate recycling.
Current enforcement guidance uses 5000-8000 BTU/lb as generated
(not as blended for burning) as the dividing point between
legitimate energy recovery and incineration.]
If so, the regulations in §261.6(a)(2) refer the reader to the
appropriate sections of Part 266. In some cases, these
activities will require permits.
Step 7. Determine whether the laboratory's activity is recycling
which may be (currently) exempt from regulation under §261.6(c).
A storage permit may be required.
Step 8. Determine whether storage of hazardous waste received
from off-site occurs. If so, a storage permit is required
(§270.1(c)) unless the activity is specifically excluded from the
permit requirement by §270.1(c)(2) and (3). Check Part 268 for
additional regulation of storage of certain hazardous wastes.
Continue to step 9.
Step 9. Determine whether treatment or disposal (as defined in
§260.10) occur. If so, a permit covering these activities may be
required (§270.l(c)). Research, Development, and Demonstration
activities may be covered by a special type of permit (see
§270.65). In addition, the laboratory must refer to Part 268 for
restrictions on placement of hazardous wastes on land (if land
placement is proposed).
Step 10. Verify that the activity requires a permit. Certain
activities are exempt from the permit requirement (see
§270.1(c)(2) and (3)). In addition, Part 268 contains the
restrictions on land placement of certain haazardoua wastes.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PKW i tu I IUM AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9441.1988(40)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation
FROM:
TO:
Marcia E. Williams, Director (WH-562)
Office of solid waste
Judy Kertcher, Acting Director (5HS-B
Solid waste Branch. Region V
Our office has reviewed tne information you provides in
your July 2*tn
4u CFR 261, as
the proauction
Marietta. OH.
in the process
FOOb hazaraous
spent toluene.
memo, in which yoj requested an interpretation o:
it applies to a still bottom waste generateo c-in
of polystyrene at the Chevron Chemical Company,
we have decided tnat toluene is used as a solvent
tnerefore. tne tower 201 still oottoms are a
waste that is generated curing the recovery of
The following information was used to make our decision
and to address the concerns outlined in your memo.
1. In a document submitted by Squire, Sanders; and Dempsey
on behalf of Chevron, it was stated that the toluene
is "added as a diluent" in the process. The toluene
is also useo as a carrier, or diluent, for the additives
which are used in the process. The property of a RCKA
solvent is the ability to solubilize, or to act as a
diluent.
2. Both styrene and toluene are recovered in Tower 201;
they are separated from the tars in this column. There-
fore; the waste generated at this point in the process
are still bottoms from the recovery of spent toluene,
an F005 waste.
3. The closed loop recycling process exemption does not
apply to this process. (See attacned discussion)
-------
- 2 -
4. Chevron made several arguments (e.g., the waste is not
ignitable and, consequently, not hazardous; the waste
does not contain toluene) that have not been addressed
by this decision. We feel that the three determinations
above resolve the issue of, whether the material in
question is hazardous waste.
Additional discussion on items 1-4:
1. Peter pxenbol of Chevron Chemical Company commented
that the -term "diluent" had been used by them before
they realized that it has carried with it such a
weighty connotation (that use as a diluent constitutes
use as a solvent.) He suggested that a different
were or description cojlo be used wnich would not be
as sensitive as the word "diluent". Tne cefinition
of the wore "cilje^t", however, is qui^e clear, anc
it was chosen previously as an accurate description
of the role that toluene plays in tne reaction.
Chevron wishes to use a different word now, but
toluene's function will not be changed by aoing so.
2. Of the feed that enters Tower 201, roughly 83% is
unreacted styrene and 4% is toluene. They are both
separated, together, from the tars in the column.
Toluene may not be the major component in the feed
stream to the column, out it is nonetheless being
recovered at this point in the separation from the
styrene.
3. The Federal Register excerpt on the closed loop recycl-
ing process reads as follows: "It should be notea that.
under today's rule, although secondary materials stored
in closea-loop reclamation processes that fit within
the exclusion of 5261.4(a)(b) are not solio waste;
wastes from their management are solid wastes. Thus,
still bottoms from solvent reclamation, if an exclusion
applies for another reason, can be hazardous wastes
if they are identified or listed. In this regard,
the Agency notes that many still bottoms from solvent
reclamation are listed wastes; as are the residual
spent solvents themselves (Hazardous rtastes P001-005)."
(FR Vol. 51. No. 134, 25443).
-------
4. Cnevron's otner arguments, tnat toluene is present in
tne waste in only ae minimis -quantities, ana tnat
toluene "is an essential ingredient in tne process
trom a Kinetic standpoint","etc., oecame moot points
oecause it was aeciaea tnat tne waste was tne listea
waste, fu05.
If you wish to discuss tne aoove in furtner oetail, please
call Yvonne Garoe on flS i7:>-t>b7*.
-------
9441.1983(4:
S5P 5 1988
Ms . Jane Magee
Assistant Commissioner for
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
Dear Jane:
This is .n response to your letter on the applicability of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations to
shooting ranges. In your letter you indicated that the Indiana
University in Bloomington has received a preliminary notice of
intent to sue under RCRA, alleging that the university shooting
ranges are hazardous waste landfills, fully subject to the
requirement for an operating permit and all applicable facility
standards.
The discharge of ball and sport ammunition at shooting
ranges does not, in our opinion, constitute hazardous waste
disposal. This is because we do not consider the rounds to be
discarded, which is a necessary criterion to be met before a
material can be considered a solid waste and, subsequently, a
hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.3(a)). Rather, the shooting of
bullets is within the normal and expected use pattern of the
manufactured product. This interpretation extends to the
expended cartridges and unexploded bullets that fall to the
ground during the shooting exercise. The situation/ in our
mind, is analogous to the use of pesticides whereby the
expected, normal use of a pesticide may result in some
discharge to the soils. This is a discharge incident to normal
product use and is not considered a hazardous or solid waste
activity falling under the jurisdiction of RCRA.
-------
.: ycj r.ave ar.y q-est :cr.3 recatcir.; cur
: 1 d 1 : < e ~. ^ :::. 3 c u 3 s the ; 3 s u e further, please call Elisacet
:swortr. :232: 352-2132 or :het Oszman .202' 3S2-4493.
S incerely,
/i
Matt Hale, OSW
Free Chanar.ia, OGC
Karl Bremer, Region 5
Chet Oszman, OSW
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Di rector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1983(42)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 88
2. Oil and Gas Exclusion Applicability
A cavern beneath the earth's surface is used to store natural gas that is later
consumed for home heating during winter months. Several compression stations
that require movement of the natural gas are operated at ground level. A RCRA
hazardous waste is generated at each compression station. Is this waste exempt
from regulation as a hazardous waste?
Wastes associated with and unique to the exploration, development, or
production of natural gas are excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste as
per 40 CFR Section 261.4(b)(5). The natural gas stored in this specific instance
must be retrieved from storage in much the same manner as when it was
originally produced prior to storage, and the wastes generated in both cases will
be nearly identical. In EPA's "Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and
Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes," 53 FR 25446
(July 6, 1988), the Agency determined that wastes from subsurface gas storage
and retrieval are exempt from hazardous waste regulation under RCRA, except
for such of those wastes which are not intrinsically associated with the removal
of the gas; the Regulatory Determination also lists some of these wastes. See 53
FR at 25454. In addition, wastes associated with manufacturing or
transportation, including movement by pipeline off-site, are not exempt from
hazardous waste regulation, nor are wastes generated at the gas storage facility
that are not uniquely associated with the gas retrieval process.
Source: Mike Fitzpatrick (202) 475-6783
Research: George Kleevic
-------
October 27, 1988 9441.1988(44)
Mr. Jon Greenberg, Manager
Environmental Policy
Browning-Ferris Industries
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Greenberg:
This is in response to your August 11, 1988, inquiry about
the status of hazardous wastes that are generated at one site and
treated at another. Specifically, we are responding to the
question of whether treatment residuals of a characteristic
hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.20-261.24 can be a listed
hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.30-261.33.
Determination of the proper EPA Waste Code may be made by a
careful examination of the generator's production processes. It
is the generator's responsibility to determine if his waste meets
the listing descriptions for hazardous wastes listed at 40 CFR
261.30-261.33 or if they exhibit a hazardous characteristic.
(See 40 CFR 261.20-261.24.) If the owner/operator of a
transportation firm or waste treatment facility determine that a
listed waste had been improperly labeled as a characteristic
waste by a generator, then the generator should be advised to
correct the error (a) on the manifest or receipt of wastes from
the generator should be refused. Giving the requirements of the
Land Disposal Restrictions regulations (40 CFR 268) both the
generator and the treatment facility could face penalties for
improperly analyzing and managing a listed hazardous waste. (See
51 FR 40572).
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
According to the requirements in the derived-from rule (40
CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)), a residual generated from the treatment,
storage or disposal of a listed hazardous waste is itself a
listed hazardous waste. A residual generated from the treatment,
storage, or disposal of a characteristic hazardous waste (or a
waste that has been listed only because it exhibits a
characteristic, such as F003) is a hazardous waste only if it
exhibits a characteristic. However, if a listed spent solvent,
such as F005, is mixed with the characteristic spent solvent
before or during treatment (e.g., solvent recovery), the mixture
"becomes" a listed waste when the listed waste is first added to
the characteristic waste. (See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR
261.3(b) (2).) Any residual generated from the treatment of this
mixture would be the listed hazardous waste F005.
In some cases, characteristic or nonhazardous wastes, when
treated, will have treatment residues that are listed hazardous
wastes. This will depend in each case on the scope of the
listing. An example is rinsewater from electroplating
operations. These rinsewaters are not listed and may or may not
exhibit the hazardous characteristic of extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity. However, once the wastewater treatment sludge
precipitates, it meets the listing description for F006 (with the
exception of precipitates from rinsewaters from certain excluded
electroplating processes). The listing applies whether the
sludge is generated at the electroplating facility or a
commercial waste treatment facility. Thus, a commercial waste
treatment facility must know the electroplating processes to
identify the wastewater treatment sludge correctly as F006. This
may require the treatment facility to obtain information from the
waste generator regarding processes that produced the waste to be
treated.
As pointed out in your letter, there is no specific
requirement for a generator to identify the processes that lead
to the generation of their waste. However, there is nothing to
prevent the treatment, storage, or disposal facility from
requiring such information before accepting the waste. Once a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility accepts the waste, it is
their responsibility to accurately characterize any residual
resulting from treatment. The Agency has no plans at this time
to change the regulations as they relate to this requirement.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
If you have any further questions, please contact David
Topping at (202) 382-7737, or the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (202)
382-3000.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
9441.1988(151
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OPf'CE Of
SOLID WAS'E AMD EMERGENCY "ES'OV.
NOV ^ 1988
Mr. Donald E. Stone
Manager, Environmental Compliance
GSX Chemical Services, Inc.
P. 0. Box 210799
Columbia, SC 29221
Dear Mr. Stone:
This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of
October 19, 1988 and your follow-up letter dated October 20,
1988, both dealing with waste listings for commercial chemical
products.
when defining a material as a hazardous waste under RCRA
Subtitle C, the material must first be defined as a solid waste
in accordance with 40 CFR Section 261.3(a). A discarded
material that is recycled by being reclaimed may be defined as
a solid waste, depending on the type of secondary material (see
Table 1, Section 261.2(c)(3)). Since you did not specify in
the examples in your letter the disposition of the mercury and
mercury-containing material, I am assuming that it is going tot
reclamation.
In your first example, the mercury is contaminated before
being placed in the product (thermometer). If the contaminated
mercury is shipped off-site for disposal, it would be a solid
and hazardous waste identified as an off-specification
commercial chemical product (listed waste U151) in 40 CFR
Section 261.33. If, however, the mercury was sent for
reclamation, it would not be defined as a solid waste (see
40 CFR Section 261.2(c)(3)(Table 1)). Therefore, the mercury
would not be identified as listed waste U151 and a manifest
would not be required in this case because Subtitle C of RCRA
is not applicable to materials that are not defined as a solid
waste (see 40 CPR Section 261.2).
In your second example, the broken thermometer has been
used and meets the definition of a spent material in 40 CFR
Section 261.1(c)(l). Spent material sent for reclamation is
defined as a solid waste in 40 CFR Section 261.2(c)(3)(Table
1). The broken thermometer (mercury and glassware) could then
-------
-2-
be further defined as a hazardous waste if it exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste (i.e., EP toxic, in which
case it is hazardous waste D009). This determination is made
either through the generator's knowledge of the characteristics
of the waste or by subjecting the waste to the EP toxicity
leaching procedure (refer to 40 CFR Section 262.11(c)).
Finally, in your third example, if the mercurv-containing
batteries and switches can be defined as spent materials as
specified in 40 CFR Section 261.1(c)(l), the waste
identification process used in example two above would apply.
As is always the case, a RCRA authorized State might have
more stringent requirements so you should contact the
appropriate state'agency to determine what their regulations
reauire.
If you
Cochran at
have any additional
(202) 475-8551.
Questions, please contact Steve
Sincerely,
Robert W. Deirtnger
Chief, Waste
Characterization Branch
-------
STATES IMVIROWMEHTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1988(47)
NOV T
Mr. Glen Maiing
Mid-Atlantic Regional Manager
Sun Environmental, Inc.
Building 11A
Industrial Highway
Eddystone, PA 19013
Dear Mr. Maiing:
Thank you for your letter dated June 22, 1988, requesting
the Agency to justify its reasoning of why your PCB
dechlorination treatment process does not qualify for the
totally enclosed treatment exemption. In our Juno 14, 1988,
correspondence to you, the Agency stated that your treatment
system would not meet the exemption because it was not connected
to an industrial process. In your letter, you stated that you
consider Phase I and Phase III of the PCBX treatment system and
transformers as industrial production processes. Also, you have
requested from the Agency:
(1) Original documents submitted by Grede Foundry which
shows a flow diagram of producing reusable metal from
scrap material; and
(2) Technical justification to differentiate between scrap
metal material versus the reclamation of mineral oil.
After further reviewing your letter and reviewing the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, the
Agency believe* that your treatment system would not be
regulated under RCRA because of section 261.6 (a)(3)(iii). This
section states that used oil that exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste but is recycled in some other
manner than being burned for energy recovery is not presently
subject to regulation under RCRA. Therefore, the question of
whether your treatment system could qualify for the totally
enclosed treatment exemption is a moot point.
-------
- 2 -
Also, you requested process flow diagrams of the Grede
Foundry's production of reusable metals. The Agency did not
receive any process flow diagrams from the Grede Foundry, only
the correspondence between Region V and headquarters that I
believe you have already received.
In summary, the Agency believes that the treatment system is
not subject to RCRA requirements and, therefore, the totally
enclosed treatment exemption would not be applicable for your
treatment system. I apologize if there was any inconvenience
due to our response to your first letter.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITI
HATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOI
ENCY
9441.1983(43)
2 I 1985
SUBJECT: Possible Applicability of RCRA Regulations to Fluff
FROM: Mitch Kidwell, Environmental Protection Specialist
Waste Characterization Branch
Office of Solid Waste (OS-332)
THRU: Robert W. Bellinger, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Office of Solid Waste (OS-332)
TO: Richard La Shier and Janis Johnson
Chemical Regulation Branch
Office of Toxic Substances
This memorandum is written to present the possible
applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulations to contaminated
"fluff residuals from ferrous metals recycling activities (in
particular, automobile shredding).
As stated in the background document that was discussed at
the October 28th workgroup meeting, the key constituents of
concern in the fluff are PCBs and lead. PCBs are normally
regulated under TSCA, and lead (and other hazardous metals which
may also be found in the fluff) is potentially regulated under
RCRA. Assuming the lead is in concentrations equal to or
greater than the extraction procedure (EP) Toxic ity value of 5.0
mg/1 (see 40 CFR 261.24), the waste is a characteristic
hazardous waste subject to subtitle C provisions. The waste may
also be characteristically hazardous for other heavy metals at
varying concentrations (e.g. „ cadmium (1.0 mg/1) and chromium
(5.0 mg/1)). Once the waste has been determined to be
hazardous, it must either be treated until it no longer exhibits
the characteristic (at which time it may be disposed in a
Subtitle D facility), or it must be disposed in a RCRA Subtitle
C facility. There are no exemptions applicable to shredder
fluff.
-------
- 2-
We have been advised by Alec McBride, Chief of the Technical
Assessment Branch, OSW, that for certain waste streams, a
sampling and analysis method that accounts for the variability
of constituents in the waste stream may be appropriate. One
such method is presented in the attached draft guidance document
for Municipal Refuse Incinerator Ash. This method, if adopted,
may be used to determine the average property of the waste to
assess whether the waste is hazardous by characteristic. We may
want to consider using such a method to characterize shredder
fluff because of the high variability of the constituent
concentrations, depending on the feed material for any
particular batch of fluff.
Also, should the fluff be determined to be hazardous, it may
be subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions under 40 CFR 268.32
if it were to contain halogenated organic compounds (HOCs).
Appendix III of Part 268 lists the HOCs (including PCBs) .subject
to the California list prohibitions, provided that the total
HOCs are in concentrations of 1000 mg/kg or greater. Should the
fluff be determined to be a hazardous waste and contain HOCs in
concentrations equal to or greater than 1000 mg/kg, the fluff
would have to meet the applicable treatment standard prior to
placement on the land. The treatment standard applicable to
HOCs is incineration in accordance with the requirements of Part
264 Subpart 0 or Part 265 Subpart 0 (or 40 CFR 761.70).
Finally, it should be noted that the so-called "hard hammer"
for all hazardous wastes (listed and identified by
characteristic as of November 8, 1984) falls on May 8, 1990.
Under RCRA Section 3004 (g)(6)(C), unless EPA sets treatment
standards that are protective of human health and the
environment for a hazardous waste listed or identified (as of
November 8, 1984) by May 8, 1990, the waste is prohibited from
land disposal. Should the fluff be identified as a hazardous
waste, it would have to meet the applicable treatment standard
prior to placement on the land. (The treatment standard for
lead is expected to be proposed in the Fall of 1989, for the
last set of wastes subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions.)
Should you need further information, please contact me at
382-4805.
Attachment
-------
9441.1988(48a)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. Z0460
NOV2I see
OFFICE OF
Mr. Robert H. Lloyd SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Lloyd, Gosselink, Ryan
& Fowler, P.C.
P.O. Box 1725
Austin, Texas 78767
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Thank you for your October 13, 1988, letter concerning the
status of certain oil and gas wastes generated by The Western
Company of North America.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that
none of the wastes in question is exempt from hazardous waste
regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Congress intended to exempt the large
volumes of wastes that are intrinsic to exploration, develop-
ment, or production processes and are generated at exploration
or production facilities. Based on the scope of the RCRA
exemption as identified in the regulatory determination
published July 6, 1988, EPA believes that the acidic waste-
water, field waste liquids, and waste cement identified in
your letter are clearly not exempt.
Acidic wastewater, is not exempt because it is not
intrinsically derived from the exploration, development, or
production of oil or gas within the meaning of the statute.
It was never used in such operations, regardless of the intent
in preparing the mixture. This type of waste fits the
non-exempt category listed in the regulatory determination as
"oil and gas service company wastes, such as ... spilled
chemicals, and waste acids."
Field waste liquids are included in the non-exempt
category of "unused fracturing fluids or acids." There is no
distinction made between pre-mixed fluids or wastes composed
of the unmixed raw ingredients. Here again, the unused
portions are not intrinsically derived from oil and gas
exploration, development, or production operations as this
term is used in the statute, regardless of the intent in
preparing the mixture.
Your third item, waste cement, is also an unused product
and, as such, is not exempt. As you indicated, the waste
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, motor oil and paint, waste
solvents from equipment maintenance, and waste from truck
cleaning operations that you listed in your letter as items
four, five and six are also not exempt.
-------
-2-
We understand the confusion that can arise when the
different states in which Western operates interpret the
exemption differently. However, we believe that the
regulatory determination has provided substantial clarifi-
cation regarding the scope of the exemption. We hope that
this letter will help Western to plan and implement proper
waste management programs in all the states in which it
operates.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
GEORGE V BASHA.M 111
ANN R BIORK
CHFSLEY N BLEV1NS
ROBERT D. FOWLER
PAUL G GOSSELJ.S'K
ROBERT H LI.OYD
JIM MATHEWS
LLOYD, GOSSELINK, RYAN & FOWLER, p.c.
Attorneys at Law
Post Office Box 1725 Austin, Texas 78767
Office (512) 472-4551
Telecopier (512) 472-0532
October 13, 1988
KENNETH RAMIREZ
S. RHETT ROBINSON
MARTIN C ROCHELLE
ELIZABETH V ROOD
BRENT W. RYAN
CAROL VAUGHAN
GEORGE C. IALDW1N
o< Counsel
Licensed in the Sute
of Virginia and the
District of Columbia
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator for Solid
Wastes OS-100
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: The Western Company of North America - 79703
Dear Mr. Porter:
As a multi-state provider of services to the oil and gas
industry, The Western Company of North America (Western) is
directly impacted by the acts of the United States Congress and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to the
management of oil and gas wastes. Western must necessarily
manage the oil and gas wastes generated from its well servicing
operations pursuant to all applicable federal laws and
regulations, as well as those of the various states within which
it conducts business.
Western, therefore, is justifiably interested in the portion of
the 1980 Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) which exempts from Subtitle C regulations "drilling
fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the
exploration, development, or production of crude oil or natural
gas."1 In order to plan and implement proper waste management
programs, Western must have a clear understanding and, hopefully,
an official determination of whether particular wastes it
generates are covered within the scope of this exemption.
142 USC S692KB) (2) (A)
/-\ /— _
Ancfin Tovac 7ft7W
-------
Mr. J. Winston Porter
October 13, 1988
Pace 2
In this regard, Western has studied the EPA's "Regulatory
Determination for Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration,
Development and Production Wastes."2 While this determination
provides the most detailed description to date of exactly which
oil and gas wastes are exempt from Subtitle C regulations,
Western still needs additional clarification. This need stems
not only from Western's commitment to comply with RCRA
regulations but from the fact that the different states in which
Western operates are interpreting this exemption differently.
For example, the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act confers to the
Texas Water Commission (TWO Jurisdiction over "hazardous waste"
identified pursuant to RCRA.3 &t present, the TWC regulates
wastes generated by Western's well servicing activities as
hazardous waste under RCRA if such wastes are either listed or
are characteristically hazardous.
On the other hand, in 1981, Oklahoma's Director of the Industrial
Waste Division of the Oklahoma State Department of Health
indicated that the Western service facilities were exempt from
RCRA regulation pursuant to 40 CFR §261.4(b)(5), the federal
regulatory provision setting forth the exemption for oil and gas
wastes.4
Thus, while both Texas and Oklahoma determined which oil and gas
wastes to regulate based on respective interpretations of RCRA,
and not on a more stringent state law, their determinations are
different for essentially identical wastes generated by
essentially identical ©Derations. For Western, this means that
identical wastes must be managed differently depending on which
state is involved. This problem is complicated by the fact that
Western operates a total of 57 facilities in Texas, Oklahoma,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas,
Wyoming and South Dakota.
Western, of course, will manage its wastes pursuant to RCRA if it
is determined that the wastes are not covered by the exclusion.
2See 53 Fed. Reg. 25446.
3TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 4477-7, §§1(13), 3(b) (Vernon
Supp. 1988).
^A copy of this determination is attached.
-------
Mr. J. Winston Porter
October 13, 1988
Page 3
In some states it is already doing so based on individual state
determinations that the wastes are not exempt. It is apparent,
however, that a consistent interpretation of the RCRA exemption
is needed.
In this regard, Western has relied on two primary sources to
formulate its own preliminary interpretation of the scope of the
exemption: the legislative history related to the original RCRA
exemption and the EPA's recent Regulatory Determination related
to oil and gas wastes.
First, as stated previously, the 1980 RCRA Amendments exempted
from Subtitle C regulations "drilling fluids, produced waters and
other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or
production of crude oil or natural gas." (Emphasis added) .b
Regarding these "other wastes," RCRA's legislative history
indicates that:
The term "other wastes associated" is specifically
included to designate waste materials intrinsically
derived from primary field operations associated with
the exploration, development, or production of crude
oil, natural gas or geothermal energy. It would cover
such substances as: hydrocarbon bearing soil in and
around related facilities; drill cuttings; and materials
(such as hydrocarbons, water, sand, and emulsion)
produced from a well in conjunction with crude oil,
natural gas or geothermal energy; and the accumulated
material (such as hydrocarbons, water, sand and emul-
sion) from production separators, fluid treating
vessels, storage vessels, and production impoundments.
The phrase "intrinsically derived from the primary field
operations" is intended to differentiate exploration,
development, and production operations from transporta-
tion (from the point of custody transfer or of produc-
tion separation and dehydration) and manufacturing
operations. (Emphasis added.)6
542 USC 5692KB) (2)(A).
6EPA "Report to Congress, Management of Wastes from the
Exploration, Development and Production of Crude Oil, Natural
Gas, and Geothermal Energy," December, 1987, p. 6.
-------
Mr. J. Winston Porter
October 13, 1988
Page 4
Clearly, Western is involved in the exploration, development and
production components of the oil and gas industry. The services
Western provides consist primarily of well stimulation and
completion through hydraulic fracturing and acidizing, and well
cementing. In fact, the respective Western facilities are
located near well fields to facilitate the efficient
transportation of people, equipment and supplies from the
facility to the well head.
Next, with respect to the EPA's recent Regulatory Determination,
Western has carefully scrutinized the lists setting forth which
•wastes are included in the exemption and which are not. "7 Using
these lists, Western -ias tentatively determined whether the
following wastes are subject to, or exempt from Subtitle C
regulations. In addition to the type of waste, Western has
included a description of how each waste is generated, and its
determination and rationale as to whether the waste is exempt or
non-exempt.
1. Acidic Wastewater
Well stimulation is the process of either acidizing or
fracturing an oil or gas well to enhance production.
Stimulation is performed by pumping specially prepared
solutions of acid, water, chemicals and sand into a well to
stimulate production by eliminating obstacles to the flow of
oil and gas. These solutions are partially prepared at the
Western facility by combining the respective ingredients in
the 5,000 gallon tank of a tank truck. These solutions are
further augmented by adding additional materials (such as
chemicals, gels and sand) at the well site prior to pumping
the solution into the well.
Back at the Western facility, acid is stored in a large,
overhead tank before it is added to the water and chemical
solution in the tank truck. The acid is transferred to the
tank truck by gravity flow through a flexible hose, four
inches in diameter. During transfer, small quantities of
acid can spill from the hose or overflow from the tank truck.
These spills do not result from carelessness or inattention
but are a natural result of transferring large quantities of
753 Fed. Req. 25453-54.
-------
Mr. J. Winston Porter
October 13, 1988
Page 5
liquid into a tank truck. Any spilled solution is rinsed
with fresh water onto a concrete containment slab which
drains into a wastewater holding tank. This method is used
throuahout the industry.
Western classifies the wastewater in the holding tank,
mentioned above, as "well stimulation fluids" because the
sole purpose of preoaring the solution is to stimulate or
otherwise enhance the production of oil and gas. Thus, they
would be exempt. Even though the wastes will not reach the
well head, they are wastes strictly related to production
operations- not wastes related to transportation and
manufacturing operations.
Western recognizes that the EPA has indicated that "oil and
gas service company wastes, such as...spilled chemicals, and
waste acid" are not included in the oil and gas exemption.8
Western would assert that "soilled chemicals and waste acids"
not included in the exemption would pertain to spilled raw
products and materials while spilled solutions contained in
the wastewater holding tank would be exempt because once
mixed, the well completion, stimulation and treatment process
has begun. Further, RCRA waste classification is generally
based on a wastes composition, characteristic, or the process
by which it is generated, not on the geographic location
where it is generated. Thus, the most sensible and
meaningful interpretation of the category of "well
completion, treatment and stimulation fluids" would include
the wastes from this wastewater holding tank.
2. Field Waste Liquids
A tank truck carries the treatment and stimulation fluid
solutions, prepared at the Western service facility, to the
well site. Depending upon the stimulation function (either
acidizing or fracturing) and particular service needs of the
well, the stimulation fluid solution is then mixed in a
blender truck with varying combinations of briny water (from
other tanks at the well head or produced from the well),
crude oil pumped from the well, sand, gel, and chemicals as
part of the final solution being pumped into the well. For
example, when a well's oil flow is inhibited by paraffin and
8
53 Fed. Req. 25454.
-------
Mr. J. Winston Porter
October 13, 1988
Page 6
wax buildup within the oil itself, chemicals are added to the
stimulation fluid to dissolve these materials, thus enhancing
flow.
A pump truck is used to transfer the final stimulation fluid
solution from the blender truck into the well. After well
stimulation is accomplished, some fluids remain in the tank,
blender and pump trucks because it is technically impossible
to purge all fluids from them. The trucks then return to the
facility where these residual fluids are flushed from the
interior portions of the trucks. The resulting field waste
is a mixture of flush water and the treatment or stimulation
fluids used at the well head.
Western classifies this field waste as well treatment or
stimulation fluids. The waste would, thus, be exempt.
Whether these wastes are handled at the well head or the
facility does not affect their composition or intended
purpose and, therefore, should not affect their exempt
status.
In reaching this conclusion, Western has considered and
rejected the notion that these field wastes are included in
the category of "unused fracturing fluids or acids."9
Western would interpret this category to include those raw
products and materials (fluids, acids, chemical powders,
chemical liquids) which, for whatever reason, were never
prepared for transportation to or use at the well head.
Waste Cement
After a well hole is drilled, a casing pipe is inserted into
the hold. Because the casing is smaller in diameter than the
hole, there is a space between the hole and the casing
throughout the length of the hole. This "annular space" must
be filled and sealed with cement to prevent groundwater
contamination.
The well is "cemented" using a mixture of dry cement, water,
and special additives which are mixed at the well site and
will vary in type and proportion for each well. Because the
953 Fed. Reg. 25454.
-------
Mr. J. Winston Porter
October 13, 1988
Page 7
well operator can only estimate how much cement will be
needed to fill the annular space, Western must mix and
transport excess cement to well head to insure that no
shortages occur. Since the cement is specially blended for
each well, the excess cannot be reused and is taken back to
the facility for disposal.
Western classifies these wastes as exempt because they are
(1) associated with measures to remove oil or natural gas
from the ground; (2) intrinsic to the exploration for, or the
development of, crude oil or natural gas; and (3) are
substances which are injected into the ground to facilitate
the drilling operation or maintenance of a well.10
4. Waste Lubricants, Hydraulic Fluids, Motor Oil and Paint
These wastes are generated as part of routine vehicle
maintenance and repair of equipment failures.
Western classifies these wastes as "used hydraulic fuels,"
"painting wastes," and "used equipment lubrication oils."
The wastes would, thus, be non-exempt.
5. Waste Solvents from Equipment Maintenance
These wastes are generated as a result of equipment parts
cleaning.
Western would classify these wastes as "spent solvents" and,
therefore, they are non-exempt.
6. Waste from Truck Cleaning Operations
Following each assignment, the truck exteriors are cleaned
resulting in wastewater, oily wastes and solids.
Western would characterize these wastes as wastes from
exterior truck cleaning operations and believes the wastes
are nonexempt.
10See EPA "Report to Congress, Management of Wastes from the
Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude Oil, Natura.
Gas, and Geothermal Energy," December, 1987, p. 7.
-------
Mr. J. Winston Porter
October 13, 1988
Page 8
Western believes the interpretation of exempt and nonexempt as
applied to the above waste streams to be consistent with the
meaning and intent of the oil and qas waste exemption contained
in the 1980 Amendments to RCRA.H In order to plan and
implement proper waste management programs, it is important that
Western know whether the EPA agrees. Western respectfully
requests, therefore, that the EPA render an opinion in this
regard.
Verv
RHLtih
Enclosure
cc w/enc:
Mr. Lawrence Jensen
U.S. EPA, Region IV
U.S. EPA, Region VI
U.S. EPA, Region VII
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
Ms. Michelle McFaddin
Mr. Graham Adelman
Mr. Ron McKeel
Mr. Robert S. Kier
3W5:79703.61/65
79703.FOOT
1]-42 USC S692KB) (2) (A)
-------
.«a» M. JOHNSON, U.O.
W At TEH SCOTT UAS1ON. Ill
JOMM I. CAAMICMAQ. 0.0 V
JOAN K. LEAVITT. M.O.
CDWAAO K. rut j*, u o. wet
MAWXOAJOAZ.
1000 NortntMt lOlh
Post Oflie* Bos S3551
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73152
September 28, 1981
Mr. Vernon Sorgee
The Western Company of North America
P.O. Box 186
Fort Worth, Texas 76101
Dear Mr. Sorgee:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm the interpretation
by the Okahoma Corporation Commission of the State and Federal
regulations regarding oil field service facilities (Tim Baker to
Vernon Sorgee, September 22, 1981). The interpretation at this
time is that such facilities are regulated by the Corporation
^^mmission and are exempted from the requirements of the Resource
•enservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR part 261.4, paragraph b5,
May 19, 1980) and the Oklahoma Controlled Industrial Waste Disposal
Act (63 O.S.Supp. 1979, Sec. 2756, paragraph 2).
This interpretation is based upon on-site inspection and the
regulatory history of the Western Company Yukon facility. Although
each Western Company facility will be evaluated separately, it
appears at this time that similar jurisdictional interpretation
will be applied to all Oklahoma sites.
Thank you for your attention to regulatory compliance. If
you have further questions, please contact me at (405) 271-533S.
Very truly yours,
Donald A. Hensch, P.E.
Director, Industrial Waste Division
DAH:RJ:amc
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1988(49)
DEC 6
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Solvent-Contaminated Wastestreams
from a Pharmaceutical Manufacturer
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: Arthur Moretta, UIC Control Program
Water Division, Region V (5WD-TUB-9)
This memorandum is in response to your request for
determination of the regulatory status of aqueous wastestreams
generated at an Upjohn Company pharmaceutical facility in
Kalamazoo, MI. All answers are based on our best understanding
of the process flowsheets which you sent and the information
which you provided over the telephone to my staff.
The spent solvent listings cover those streams that are
used to solubilize or mobilize other constituents (e.g. . for
degreasing or fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants,
reaction and synthesis media, and similar uses) and through
such use, have become contaminated to the extent that they must
be reclaimed prior to further use or reuse. See 50 ER 53315,
December 31, 1985.
Use as a reactant or an ingredient in the manufacture or
formulation of a commercial chemical product is not classified
as a solvent use for the purpose of the RCRA hazardous waste
listings F001 - F005. Therefore, spent materials from these
"non-solvent" uses do not meet the listing descriptions for
spent solvents. Also, process wastes that become contaminated
with small amounts of solvents during processing are not within
the scope .Qf the spent solvent listings. An example of this is
an aqueous effluent from a liquid-liquid extraction step, in
which a solvent has been used to extract a product from the
water and the water becomes contaminated with small amounts of
solvent. In this example, the solvent is removed with the
product and the solvent-contaminated water is not a spent
oolvont.
-------
-2-
Based on our review of the data submitted, we have made the
following determinations:
o All streams being sent to disposal wells from the acetone,
methanoi, and methylene chloride recovery processes (pp. A,
B, C, and D) either meet the listing description for spent
solvents or are residuals derived from the treatment of
spent solvents and therefore should be designated as an EPA
hazardous waste (F001 - F005).
o Those aqueous streams which result from liquid-liquid
extraction steps involving solvents are considered process
wastestreams and as such, do not meet the listing
description for spent solvent streams (see above).
o Filter press effluents such as the one exiting the unit
designated "ST-110" (p. 2-1) are considered spent solvent
streams because they consist of a solvent that was used as
a carrier for the product in the filtration step. However,
filter press effluents, such as the one exiting the filter
designated "VF-" (p. 4-2) are process wastewater streams,
not spent solvent streams, because water was introduced
into the production process as the carrier for the product
in filtration. In this configuration, the solvent was
removed prior to filtration; the small quantity of solvent
remaining in the system does not render the wastewater
filter press effluent a spent solvent.
o Rinse wastewaters, such as those from product or equipment
rinsing steps (pp. 1-3, 2-1) are not considered spent
solvents because they are process streams which may have
become contaminated with organic solvents.
Although a particular waste stream may not meet the listing
description for spent solvents, it may be hazardous if exhibits
one or more of the hazardous characteristics described in
40 CFR 261.20-261.24. Certain states may also have special
restrictions on the disposal of solvent-contaminated
wastestreams.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions,, please contact Ron Josephson at FTS 475-6715.
Attachments
cc: Eric Callisto, OW/ODW (WH-550)
-------
9441.1988(50
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC 7S88
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Mr. Phillip D. Stapleton
Stapleton Company
1350 West 12th Street
Long Beach, California 90813
De.ar Mr. Stapleton:
This letter is in response to your letter dated September
26, 1988 in which you asked several Questions pertaining to
your OMEGA EN Process.
In general, industrial plating operations vary greatly in
layout and processes utilized. Identifying wastes generated
from plating operations requires specific details on the
individual process steps, which usually include pretreatment of
the metal, application of the coating, and post treatment.
Identifying applicable RCRA regulations for materials generated
from reclamation of plating wastes is directly dependent upon
waste identification at the point of generation, as well as
specific information about further processing and the end use
of the reclaimed material. Determining the RCRA status of
units and facilities receiving the material is largely
dependent on similar information.
Your letter did not provide sufficient information to
specifically answer your questions. Even if you had provided
the requisite information, the Agency could only give you
hypothetical answers as to the general application of RCRA
regulations. For each individual facility, the appropriate
Region or RCRA authorized state will have to make the final
determination as to the applicability of RCRA regulations based
on an analysis of the actual facilities and processes.
Regardless of their RCRA authorization status. States may
impose regulations more stringent or broader-in-scope than
those in 40 CPR Parts 260-270 as a matter of State law.
The following discussion outlines RCRA regulations that
might apply to the OMEGA EN process, where crucial information
was not provided, I have made certain assumptions, which may
not properly characterize your process, and discuss the
applicable RCRA regulations for each assumption.
-------
-2-
Whether the filter cake from the APU330 unit meets the F006
listing depends upon the particular plating process or
processes at a generator's facility. Assuming that the APU330
device receives only wastes (such as bath solutions and/or
rinse waters) from an electroless plating operation, the
filter cake will not meet the listing for F006 or any other
waste currently listed in 40 CFR Section 261.31 (51 £R 43351,
December 2, 1986). However, if the APU330 device also receives
bath solutions and/or rinse waters from an eletroplating
process, the filter cake.may meet the F006 listing description,
and its subsequent management is regulated under Subtitle C of
RCRA. Further, the filter cake may be a listed hazardous waste
if the cake meets other listing descriptions or is derived-from
listed hazardous waste per 40 CFR Section 261.3(c)(2)(i) (e.g.,
F008 plating bath residues). The generator of these hazardous
wastes must comply with Part 262 for each shipment of waste to
Unit 2, and the Unit 2 facility is subject to a RCRA storage
permit for hazardous waste storage prior to reclamation in Unit
2 as specified in Section 261.6(c)(l).
Solid Waste Identification
In order to determine whether or not the filter cake is a
solid waste under Section 261.2, I have assumed that the filter
cake is either a sludge or a spent material. Each of these
assumptions is discussed below. Additional details are needed
to address the regulatory status of the filter cake.
a. Assume the filter cake is a sludge. If the APU330 unit
treats "dragout tank" wastewater, the filter cake may be a
wastewater treatment sludge. Sludge is defined in Section
260.10. If the sludge meets a listing description or is
derived from a listed waste, it is classified as both a solid
waste and a listed hazardous waste. Listed sludges are solid
wastes even when reclaimed, per Section 261.2(c)(3).
Assuming that the sludge {filter cake) exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic but is not listed, it is classified as a
solid waste and is subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulation except
when it is being reclaimed (Section 261.2(c)(3), Table 1).
No information was provided as to whether the filter cake
exhibits a RCRA characteristic. If the filter cake exhibits no
characteristic of a hazardous waste and is not listed, RCRA
Subtitle C is not applicable. More stringent and
broader-in-scope State laws and applicable subtitle D
regulations, however, will apply to the waste. Reclamation of
-------
-3-
the filter cake in Unit 2 will generate new materials (other
than products) that may need to be tested to determine whether
Subtitle C applies.
b. Assume that the filter cake is a spent material. if
the APU330 unit filters the plating bath and not the rinse
waters, the filter cake may more properly be classified as a
spent material than a sludge. The bath solutions being
filtered are spent materials and the filter cake is derived
from the spent materials. If the solutions were listed
hazardous wastes, the caTce would also be a listed hazardous
waste (50 FR 619, Note 7, January 4, 1985). Again, if no RCRA
characteristic is exhibited and no listing applies, RCRA
Subtitle C regulations are not applicable. If the spent
•material does exhibit a characteristic, or is listed, and is
sent for reclamation, it is identified and regulated as a
hazardous waste (Table 1, Section 261.2(c)(3)).
Regulation of Unit 2
If Unit 2 is a legitimate recycling unit, it will not be
regulated under Subtitle C when reclaiming sludges or spent
materials, unless the reclamation process is analogous to land
disposal or incineration (see 40 CPR 264.1(g)(2), 265.1(c)(6),
and 50 FR 643, January 4, 1985). If Unit 2 is an incinerator
and material is being recovered from a destruction process,
Unit 2 is subject to the incinerator standards in Subpart 0 of
Part 264 or 265 and to the requirement to obtain a RCRA permit,
Part 270. Generators and transporters of recycable materials
are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 261.6(b). Assuming
that Unit 2 is a recycling unit, Section 261.6(c) specifies the
RCRA requirements for the owner/operator.
status of Calcium Phosphite/Calcium Sulfate
The regulatory status of the calcium phosphite/calcium
sulfate reclaimed from Unit 2 will depend upon whether further
processing of the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate must be
provided and whether it is a product (40 CFR Section
261.2(e)(ii)). Assuming that a fertilizer market exists, a
calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate fertilizer product generated
from Unit 2 would result in classifying the recycled materials
as solid waste by Section 261.2(c)(l) (use constituting
disposal). If Unit 2 were reclaiming a hazardous waste, the
waste-derived commercial fertilizer produced for the general
public's use out of Unit 2 would not presently be regulated per
40 CFR 266.23U), provided they met the conditions of Section
266.20(b) (including any applicable treatment standards under
40 CFR Part 268).
-------
-4-
If the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate from Unit 2 were
converted to a cooling/heating system corrosion inhibitor, the
status of the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate would depend on
whether the material reauires further processing. (On the
distinction between a product and a waste see 50 FR 634,
January 4, 1985.) If the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate has
only been partially reclaimed and must be reclaimed further,
the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate may still be considered a
solid waste and a recyclable material. The recyclable
materials reclaimed (or partially reclaimed) to form the
calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate should be analyzed as
described above for the filter cake.
Status of Nickel Hydrate
Based on the data provided, the nickel hydrate is partially
reclaimed material that may or may not be a waste. If it has
been reclaimed and only needs to be refined in the cook unit to
form a commerical product, it may be more like a product than a
waste (see 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985) and, thus, may not be
subject to Subtitle C reouirements unless used in a manner
constituting disposal or incinerated. If the nickel hydrate is
a waste, you may be able to apply for a variance from the
definition of a solid waste under Section 260.30.
The above discussion was intended to provide the context in
which the PCRA regulations may effect the operation of the
OMEGA EN process. Because insufficient information was
provided to make accurate determinations, a number of different
assumptions had to be made to address each of the relevant
issues. In addition, you asked that I respond to the following
specific Questions:
1) Can EPA issue a document stating that the material is a
solid waste?
I have answered this Question as best I can based on the
information provided.
2) Will each generator of this filter cake require a
delisting from each State with more stringent regulations than
EPA?
The answer to this question depends on the individual
State's reauirements and their RCPA authorization status.
-------
-5-
Ouestions about the delisting process can best be answered by
referring to an EPA publication entitled Petitions to Delist
Hazardous Wastes—A Guidance Manual (EPA 530/SW-85-003). This
publication can be obtained by calling the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) at (703) 487-4650 and asking for
publication number PB85-194488. Specific auestions can be
answered by contacting Terry Grogan, Chief/ Delisting Section
at EPA Headouarters, at (202) 382-4206.
3) What are the provisions for the filter cake to be
shipped as a hazardous waste to our facility in Illinois, which
is not required to have a hazardous waste treatment permit?
If the filter cake is identified as a hazardous waste/
shipment of a hazardous waste off-site for recycling will
subject the generator to 40 CFR Part 262 requirements (40 CFR
Section 261.6(b)) The Illinois facility (Unit 2) will not be
required to have a treatment permit if Unit 2 is a recycling
facility (and not an incinerator or an industrial furnace).
However, if there is any storage of the hazardous waste
received from off-site prior to entering Unit 2, the facility
will have to obtain a RCRA storage permit under Section
261.6(c).
4) Will Stapleton be recruired to become a hazardous waste
treatment facility if it only processes its electroless nickel
material and returns all the nickel back to the process?
Again/ facilities that recycle recyclable materials are not
subject to RCRA treatment permit requirements. The storage of
hazardous waste prior to recycling/ however/ subjects the
facility to the requirement to obtain a RCRA permit (40 CFR
Section 261.6
-------
-6-
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the final
determination as to the applicability of RCRA regulations for
any specific facility must be made by the appropriate State
and/or EPA Regional Office.
If you have any further Questions or need additional
information, please contact Steve Cochran at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
/^Sylvia K.
^Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1939(01
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEB T 193S
Mr. Robert A. Gallaher
President
Allied Aircraft Sales, Inc.
P.O. Box 11816
Tucson, Arizona 85734-1816
Dear Mr. Gallaher:
This letter is in response to your letter dated October 27,
1988, in which you reauest conf i rmation that dross froir
secondary aluminum smelting operations is not a solid waste
when used as a feedstock in the manufacture of cement. I want
to apologize for taking so long to respond. The Questions you
asked are difficult ones to answer without fairly extensive
discussion.
As I understand your letter, you are interested in selling
aluminum dross, a by-product of secondary aluminum smelting,
for use in the manufacture of cement. The dross would be a
surrogate source of Al.O,, which is apparently a necessary
constituent in the formulation of cement. The normal source of
this Al-O, *s alumina-bearing clays. As such, vour
position is that the dross is not a solid waste, according to
40 CFR Section 261.2(e)(i) and (ii), because the dross is used
or reused as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a
product and is not being reclaimed and/or is used or reused as
an effective substitute for commercial products. As vou
accurately state in your letter, if the dross is not a solid
waste, it is not regulated as a hazardous waste.
There ar« several factual considerations that must be
addressed before a determination can be made as to whether the
dross is a solid waste when recycled in this manner. They
include:
- the status of the secondary material (i.e., is the dross
a listed or characteristic by-product);
-------
-2-
- factors in Section 261.2(e)(i) and (ii) that must be
considered, including whether reclamation occurs before
use/reuse, whether the dross functions effectively as .1
raw material, and other factors indicative of legitimate
recycling; and
- the end use of the cement (i.e., is the cement used in a
manner constituting disposal by being placed on the
land).
Each of these Questions/factors will be discussed in the
following paragraphs. Please be advised, however, that the
discussion is theoretical in the sense that a final
determination as to the regulatory status of the dross and
whether it is subject to RCRA regulation, must be made by the
appropriate EPA Regional Office or State based on the
circumstances associated with the specific site(s) where the
activities occur. It may also be the case that an individual
State may have more stringent or broader-in-scope regulatory
reoui rements.
The aluminum dross is a bv-product as stated in your
letter. There are no hazardous waste listings in 40 CFR Part
261 that would apply to aluminum dross, including the recently
promulgated process mining waste listings (see 53 £R 35412,
September 13, 1988). The assumption made herein is that the
dross exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, probably EP
toxicity for metals. If this assumption is not made, the dross
is not regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA and further
interpretation is not needed.
Regarding the existing mining waste exclusion in Section
261.4(b)(7) (i.e., solid wastes which are not hazardous
wastes), Allied Aircraft Sales, Inc. describes the dross as
being from secondary aluminum smelting. The existing
exclusion covers certain wastes from the processing of ores and
minerals, but only covers situations where the feedstock to the
smelter is at least 50% ore or mineral (see 53 FR 41290,
October 20, 1988). It is assumed that most of the feedstock is
scrap aluminum (greater than 50% scrap); therefore, the mining
waste exclusion would not apply to the dross.
In order for Allied Aircraft Sales, Inc. to claim that the
dross is not a solid waste per Section 261.2(e)(i) or (ii), the
dross must be directly used as an ingredient or substitute
without being reclaimed (see 50 PR 619, January 4, 1985). Since
you state that the cement manufacturer will "introduce aluminum
dross directly into the raw kiln feed", I assume no prior
reclamation will occur. Assumina that the dross is beina
-------
-3-
directly used as a feedstock, it must be determined if the
aluminum dross functions as an ingredient in the cement and if
use of the dross to produce cement yields distinct components
as.separate end products, and thus constitutes reclamation.
You have indicated that the dross is used to replace Al.O,
j.sed in the clay, but have not indicated whether distinct
.-opponents are formed.
Another consideration in determining whether Section
261.2(e) applies is how contaminated the dross is relative to
the clay for which it substitutes. An example of sham use may
be using sludges containing high concentrations of heavy metals
•to form cement (see 50 FR 638). You provided no data on the
hazardous constituents in the aluminum dross. It would also be
important to know how much variability there might be in
different batches of dross and whether the dross is used only
in amounts necessary for the production process.
Assuming that the dross does not contain high levels of
hazardous constituents relative to the clays normally used, and
is used only in necessary amounts/ I would likely conclude that
Section 261.2(e)(i) or (ii) applies (as claimed in your
letter), and that the dross is not a solid waste when so used.
However, EPA makes it clear that hazardous secondary materials
(e.g., spent materials, sludges, by-products, and scrap metal)
used as ingredients in waste-derived products that will be
placed on the land are solid wastes (Section 261.2(c)(l) and
50 FR 619). It is conceivable that Portland cement might be
used in situations where it is applied directly to the land
(e.g., building foundation materials, see 50 FR 628). A
characteristically hazardous secondary material would be
regulated as a solid and hazardous waste up until the formation
of product (50 FR 647).
It may be difficult to ascertain the end uses of the cement
each time a hazardous secondary material is used as an
ingredient. The preamble to the January 4, 1985 Federal
Register states clearly, however, that if a secondary material
is to be ultimately used in formulating a product to be placed
on the land, then it is a solid waste from the point of
generation, through transportation, and including any storage
prior to being used in formulating a product. The Agency has
temporarily deferred regulation of these waste-derived products
applied to the land (SO FR 646), provided the product used in a
manner constituting disposal meets applicable land disposal
restriction standards (Section 266.20(b)). Although the
product is not regulated, the use as disposal on land continues
to subject the secondary material used to form the product to
regulation as a solid and hazardous waste, notwithstanding the
fact that Section 261.2(e)(i) or (ii) would otherwise classify
qualifying dross as not being solid waste.
-------
-4-
As a final note, in your letter you referred to "fly ash as
a constituent in cement" (from 50 £R 619) as an example given
by FPA of using or reusing secondary materials as feedstocks in
production processes. According to the description qi.'/en in
the May 6, 1987 Federal Register (52 FR 16987), cement kilns
produce large amount's of particulate emissions (flv ash) which
are often returned to the kiln. Not only is this ash probably
very similar to what is already in the kiln, it is specifically
exempt from RCRA as well (Section 261.4(b)(8)). Thus, the fly
ash example may not be directly applicable to the use/reuse of
aluminum dross.
In summary, Section 261.2(e) is likely to be applicable to
the dross if it is not reclaimed, if it is an effective
substitute, and if the product formed is not applied to the
land. No data is provided on the amount or type of hazardous
constituents in the dross. If toxic metals are involved, you
should determine how the levels of toxic metals in the dross
differ from those found in the clays normally used.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the final
determination as to the regulatory classification of the dross
and the extent of regulation under RCRA, if any, for a
particular site or operation must be made by the appropriate
EPA Regional Office or State.
If you have any additional Questions or need further
clarification, please call Steve Cochran at (202) 475-9715.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
, Director
-------
UNITED STATES ENtTirORRENTAL PROTECTION ACEHCT
JAN3 1989
9441.1989(02)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Status of Personnel Protective Equipment as a RCRA
Waste
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Timothy Fields, Jr., Director
Emergency Response Division
This memo is in response to your inquiry about our planned
"de minimis" rule and about-the status or" personnel protective
clothing and other debris in the interim.
The "de minimis" rule is intended to define levels of
contamination below which wastes are not hazardous. In concept,
this could apply to any type of material, including clothing and
debris. However, there could be some difficulty in applying
this approach to all of the materials of concern to you since
test methods needed to determine the level of contamination may
not be appropriate for all of the materials encountered. I have
asked the staff responsible for developing the rule to consider
this aspect of the "de minimis" determination as they proceed.
Until the time that a "de minimis* approach is available,
there are several options for dealing with contaminated clothing
and other similar debris.
Since clothing and the other materials of concern are not
considered solid wastes, they can be dealt with through the
"contained in" policy. That is, if the hazardous contaminant
can be removed, the underlying material is no longer considered
to be a hazardous waste and its disposal is not restricted. As
you noted in your memo, this may not be appropriate in all
situations, since it may generate large volumes of contaminated
rinsate which must be treated before disposal.
UNITED STATfS IWTHTOWINTAL PROTICTIOM AGIMCY
-------
Where .t is impossible or impractical to remove the
contamination, the materials must be treated in accordance with
the applicable land disposal restriction (LDR) standards and
other applicable requirements of Subtitle C. If the waste is
one for which treatment standards have been set, the material
must be treated to the applicable LDR levels, or a treatabiiity
variance must be granted. The determination of which option is
more appropriate will depend on the nature of the underlying
material and on the treatment methods available.
If the method of treatment necessary to meet the LDR
treatment standards is inappropriate for the material in
question, another method of treatment can be proposed through a
treatabiiity variance. Since the underlying materials vary
greatly, it is not possible to give general guidance on what
methods of treatment are appropriate in these circumstances.
This decision must be made on a case by case basis.
If the waste in question is a soft hammer waste, as is the
case in the situation described in the Region V memo which you
attached, then the soft hammer provisions described in the
August 17, 1988 Federal Register Notice on the First Third Final
Rule should be followed. You should note that, although cost
nuy be used to sone ::-:~9nt in determi-.ing the practicability c:
treatment for soft hammer wastes, it is not a consideration in
determining treatment for wastes which have standards in effect.
Finally, you cite the empty container rule as relevant
here. While it is possible that the amount of hazardous waste
remaining in a container could exceed *lat contained in clothing
or other materials there is no "empty ule for anything but
containers, and that concept would no -pply to the situations
you have described.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9441.1989(03)
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
JAN 24
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Status of Contaminated Groundwater and Limitations
on Disposal and Reuse
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Directo
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Jeff Zelikson, Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
In your memo of December 16, 1988 and the attached
materials, you stated your understanding of the current policy
on the classification of contaminated groundwater and described
issues which have arisen in California regarding reuse of
contaminated groundwater from a Superfund site.
You have accurately stated the effects of the "contained
in" policy which governs situations such as the one you have
described. Briefly, a contaminated groundwater which has been
treated such that it no longer contains hazardous constituents,
need not be considered to be a hazardous waste, and beneficial
reuse of the water is permissible. We have not yet issued
definitive guidance on levels below which the groundwater is no
longer considered to contain hazardous wastes. Ontil such
definitive guidance is issued, the Regions may determine these
levels on a case-specific basis.
It is our expectation that ultimately the guidance on
levels of hazardous wastes which may remain will mirror the
levels in the De Minimis rule which is now under development
by OSW. I know that Region IX has been participating in the
Work Group discussions and reviews of this proposal and I urge
you to continue this involvement.
In its present form, the De Minimis approach contemplates
levels based on health-based standards (where available),
assuming direct exposure. With respect to the constituents
of concern at the Fairchild Superfund site — trichloroethane
-------
-2-
•nd dlchloro«thyl«m« — th« icvclfl r»«*ining in th« traatad
groundw«t«r ax« v«ll b.low th« KCLi »nd would th«c«foe« b«
con«i§t«nt with th« 0« Mlnieic «ppco«ob.
If you h«vt additional
-------
9441.1939(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRAURY 89
1. Coke and Coal Tar Recyclable Material Requirements
A facility owner/opera tor "blends" decanter tank tar sludge from coking
operations (K087) with purchased creosote (a diluent) to use as a fuel in art open
hearth furnace to produce steel. Since creosote is derived from coal tar, would
this K087/creosote fuel meet the exclusion in 40 CFR Section 261.6(a)(3)Oii) for
coke and coal tar from the iron and steel industry that contains K087?
No. The exclusion in Section 261.6(a)(3)(vii) applies only to the coke and coal
tar fuels that are derived from K087 waste. Coke is the residue from the
destructive distillation of coal. The coke serves as both a fuel and a reducing
agent in iron and steel production processes. Some coke plants recover by-
products given off or created during the coke production process. The
recovery of the by-products generates the tar decanter sludge, K087.
During the recovery of the volatile organics in the by-product coke
production process, tar separates by condensation from coke oven gas and
drains into a decanter tank. The tar sludge settles to the bottom of the tank
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 89
able Material Requirements (Confd,)
and ia ivgulated as K087 (see Figure 1). K087 is considered hazardous because
of the high levels of phenol and naphthalene which are toxic to humans and
aquatic life (see Listing Background Document for K087).
Some coke plants use the decanter tank tar sludge (K087) as a raw material in
either the sintering process or open hearth furnace operations. The sludge
can be recycled by mixing it with coal before it is charged to a coke oven to
produce coke (Figure 1). The coke product is then used as a fuel in steel blast
furnaces. Additionally, the sludge is sometimes mixed back into the coal tar
by-product which is also frequently used as a fuel.
In the January 11, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 1684), the EPA proposed to
exempt coke and coal tar fuel derived from K087 if sufficient data was
provided to EPA to demonstrate that contaminants in the recycled waste did
not add significant concentrations of contaminants to the coke fuel product
(50 FR 1689-1690). The exemption was proposed to be applied narrowly and
only to fuel products containing hazardous waste that was generated by the
production process itself. The exemption would only apply to the coke and
coal tar hazardous waste fuel. It would not apply to fuels containing other
wastes and would not apply to wastes before they are reintroduced into the
production process. Thus, generators would nave to comply with the storage
requirements of 40 CFR 262.34 or the facility standards per 40 CFR 264/265 (50
HE 1689-1690).
In the November 29, 1985 Federal Register, the EPA finalized the exemption
for K087 waste derived coke (a hazardous waste fuel) and the exemption of
coal tar produced from coal tar decanter sludge (see Figure 1). Coke and coal
tar fuels derived from K087 are excluded from regulation when used to
produce coke because the contaminants levels in the coke do not appreciably
increase by recycling the tar sludge (K087). Bom of these waste derived fuels
are exempt per 40 CFR 261(a)(3)(vii) (see 50 £B 49170- 49171).
Therefore, in this situation, where the decanter tank tar sludge (K087) is
mixed or blended with purchased creosote, the exemption would not apply
because coal tar is not being recycled and no coke fuel is derived (see Figure 2).
The owner or operator of the process in question is mixing hazardous waste
(K087) with creosote. The burning of this hazardous waste would be subject
to the incinerator regulations under 40 CFR Part 264/265 Subpart O.
Source: Dwight Mustick (202) 382-7926
Research: Renee Pannebaker (202) 382-3000
-------
9441.1939(05)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 89
2. Drip Gas Exclusion
Drip gas is collected from a natural gas line located at the production site. Is this
condensate exempt from being a hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5)?
According to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5), "Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other
wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude
oil, natural gas or geothermal energy..." are not subject to regulation as
hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, if the drip gas is
collected from lines that are associated with movement of the natural gas on-
site (i.e. the exploration, development, or production site) then the drip gas is
exempt from being a hazardous waste. An example is drip gas from gathering
lines on the production site that lead to an on-site central storage tank.
On the other hand, if the drip gas is collected from lines that are used for the
off-site movement of natural gas, the drip gas is not excluded under 40 CFR
261.4(b)(5). For example, drip gas collected from lines used to transport
natural gas from the production site to an off-site distribution center would
not be excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5).
The rationale behind this on-site /off-site distinction arises from the
legislative history of RCRA Section 3001(b)(2)(A) which is directed to
"...drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the
exploration, development, or production of crude oil or natural gas...." The
legislative history discusses "other wastes" as follows:
The term "other wastes associated" is specifically included to
designate waste materials intrinsically derived from primary
Held operations associated with the exploration, development,
or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy. It
would cover such substances as: hydrocarbon bearing soil in
and around related facilities; drill cuttings; and materials (such
as hydrocarbons/ water, sand, and emulsion) produced from a
well in conjunction with crude oil, natural gas or geothermal
energy; and the accumulated material (such as hydrocarbons,
water/ sand and emulsion) from production separators, fluid
treating vessels/ storage vessels/ and production
impoundments.
The phrase "intrinsically derived from the primary field operations" is
intended to differentiate exploration, development, and production
operations from transportation (from the point of custody transfer or of
production separation and dehydration) and manufacturing operations.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 89
2. Drip Gas Exclusion (Cont'd)
EPA ha* outlined 3 criteria as a test of whether a particular waste qualifies for
the exemption. 1 The criterion that addresses the on-site /off-site issue is as
follows:
Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes intrinsically derived from
primary field operations associated with the exploration, development, or
production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy are subject to
exemption. Primary field operations encompass production-related activities
but not transportation or manufacturing activities. With respect to oil
production, primary field operations encompass those activities usually
occurring at or near the wellhead, but prior to the transfer of oil from an
individual field facility or a centrally located facility to a carrier (i.e., pipeline
or trucking concern) for transport to a refinery or to a refiner.
With respect to natural gas production, primary field operations are those
activities occurring at or near the wellhead or at the gas plant but prior to the
point at which the gas is transferred from an individual field facility, a
centrally located facility, or a gas plant to a carrier for transport to market.
Primary field operations encompass the primary, secondary, and tertiary
production of oil or gas.
Wastes generated by the transportation process itself are not exempt because
they are not intrinsically associated with primary field operations. An
example would be pigging waste from pipeline pumping stations.
Transportation (for the oil and gas industry) may be for short or long
distances....
Thus, drip gas collected from lines associated with transport of natural gas
from the production site to an off-site distribution center would not be
covered by the exemption.
"Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude Oil.
Natural Gas, and Geotherm*! Energy," Report to Congress, December 1987, pp. 7-%. A listing of
wastes covered by the exemption appears in EPA's "Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and
Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes," 53 f& 25446 (July 6, 1988).
Source: Mike Fitzpatrick (202) 475-6783
Research: Kenneth Leigh Mitchell, Ph.D. (202) 382-3000
-------
9441.19391 10)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 2 T 1989
SOi.0 was" AMD 5M?i>Gt
Ronald B. L. Jones
Environmental Consulting
15 Hollow Road
Watertown, Connecticut 06795
Dear Mr. Jones:
This letter responds to your February 13, 1989 letter (and
subsequent phone call) regarding the regulatory status of flue
dust, and metal hydroxide sludge under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) . Specifically, you request
a clarification concerning the regulatory status of flue dust
and metal hydroxide sludge being recycled by two different
methods: 1) reclamation for metal content, and 2) use as a
micronutrient in fertilizer.
It is my understanding that your client, a brass mill,
generates two EP toxic characteristic waste sludges. These?.
are: 1) a flue dust generated by an air pollution control
device (defined as a "sludge1* in 40 CFR 260.10), and 2) a metal
hydroxide sludge generated by an on-site wastewater treatment
unit. Neither waste is a RCRA listed hazardous waste and your
client has concerns about the proper management for the
characteristic hazardous wastes.
As the table at 40 CFR 261. 2(c) states, a characteristic
sludge is not a solid waste (and thus, not a hazardous waste)
when reclaimed. This status applies at the point of generation
(i.e., if the sludge is to be reclaimed, it is not a solid waste
and, therefore, not regulated under RCRA Subtitle C, unless it
is accumulated speculatively) . You should note that section
261. 2 (f) requires the generator to document his/her claims that
a certain material is not a solid waste.
On the other hand, the same table states that both listed
and characteristic sludges that are placed on the land or
incorporated into a product that is applied to the land (i.e.,
used in a manner constituting disposal) are solid wastes (and
thus are hazardous wastes). As section 261. 2 (e) (2) states, even
materials that are recycled by use or reuse as ingredients to
make a product are solid wastes (and if applicable, hazardous
wastes) when such recycling involves use constituting disposal.
This status applies at the point of generation (and, thus,
storage of the wastes prior to such use or reuse is subject to
-------
- 2 -
regulation under RCRA Subtitle C). [NOTE: For characteristic.
sludges, if the product placed on the land no longer exhibits a
hazardous characteristic, the product would not be a hazardous
waste (a solid waste derived from the treatment of charac-
teristic hazardous waste, such that it no longer exhibits a
characteristic, ceases to be a hazardous waste).]
You should also be aware that State and local regulations
are also applicable, and may differ from Federal.regulations.
You should contact the State regulatory agency, as -well as the
appropriate EPA Regional office to determine the applicable
regulations.
Should you require further information, you may call the
RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or Mitch Kidwell, of my staff,
at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Qz£&*&^->
Robert W. Derringer
Chief
waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED f TES ENV1ROMMEMTAL PROTECTION / 'MCY ,««,»,,,.
-7 4 41 , I? O 3 ( 1 1,
27 1989
James E. Johnson
President
SAFCO Environmental
1255 South 188th
Seattle, Washington 98148
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This letter responds to your February 13, 1989 letter
concerning the regulatory requirement for a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) storage permit for
facilities engaged in hazardous waste recycling activities. In
particular, you ask whether a storage permit is required for
your recycling of hazardous wastes by blending, mixing, physical
separation, or distillation without prior storage of the
hazardous wastes.
The Agency does not require a storage permit for activities
where no storage occurs. For example, if a hazardous waste is
received at the recycling facility and immediately fed directly
into the recycling process (i.e., no storage occurs), then a
RCRA storage permit would not be required. In your .letter, you
state that you have heard that a holding time of 24 hours is
allowed prior to the waste being directly fed into the recycling
process. Federal regulations do not specify an allowable
"holding time" prior to the waste being introduced to the
recycling process; however, the appropriate EPA Regional office
or authorized State regulatory agency may specify such a holding
time on a site-specific basis, defining a time at which storage
begins. As you stated, some States and Regions do allow up to
24 hours for the off-loading of a hazardous waste into the
recycling process before the waste is considered to be stored,
thus requiring a storage permit.
I should also point out to you that hazardous waste fuel
blending tax^» are subject to storage regulations. As the April
13, 1987 Federal Register notice specifically states, tanks
used for blejitting hazardous waste fuels or for settling out
impurities art* subject to regulation as storage tanks, and are
not exempt recycling units (see 52 FR 11820).
In your letter, you also raised a question on the
possibility of case-by-case regulation of recycling activities
under 40 CFR 261.6(c). As you noted, case-by-case regulation of
-------
- 2 -
certain recycling activities is already provided for under 40
CFR 260.40. The Agency is not currently planning to modify
these regulations; however, EPA is reevaluating the regulations
applicable to recycling activities and may determine that
regulatory amendments are necessary to encourage environmentally
protective recycling.
Finally, you should be aware that local and State
governments may have applicable regulations that differ from
Federal regulations. You should contact your State regulatory
agency, as well as the appropriate EPA Regional office for
specific answers about your recycling activities.
Sincerely,
' •• • . ' /"'.--
A. Straus
Deputy Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9441.19891 12:
Dr. Peter Landrum
Research Chemist
Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory
2205 Commonwealth Boulevard
Ann Arbor, MI 46105-1593
Dear Dr. Landrum:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 4, 1989
to Dr. Southerland regarding the disposal of sediment samples.
As I understand, most samples are only tested with a bioassay,
and the chemical composition is often unknown.
According to 40 CFR 261.4(d)(l), samples collected for the
sole purpose of testing are not subject to any requirements under
the regulations for hazardous waste management. In addition,
under 40 CFR 261.5(a), if the waste generated is less than 100 kg
per month, the generator is conditionally exempt as a small
quantity generator and may accumulate up to 1000 kg of waste on
the property without being subject to the requirements of the
hazardous waste regulations.
These two exclusions are for the Federal regulations; state
regulations nay be more stringent. In those cases, state
requirements must also be met.
I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have any
questions on this issue, please call Ossi Meyn at 202/382-6977.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization & Assessment
Division
-------
9441.1939(141
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 21989
SOL.'O '/VASTE
Wm. Roger Truitt
Schmeltzer, Aptaker and Sheppard, P.C.
2600 Virginia Avenue NW, suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20037-1905
Dear Mr. Truitt:
This letter responds to your April 4, 1989 request for
clarification of the regulatory status under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of your client's
metal galvanizing process residues.
As I understand your client's process, metals parts are
placed in a kettle of molten zinc (the first step in the
galvanizing process) and then placed in a chromic acid quenching
bath for chrome passivation. During this process, zinc and
charcoal residues are carried over from the molten zinc bath
into the chromic acid bath (the passivation solution) . As a
result of this continuous process, fine particles of
chrome-coated zinc and charcoal accumulate in the passivation
solution. These particles settle out of the passivation
solution and are then partially devatered and re introduced to
the molten zinc kettle as a substitute for raw material
feedstock for the process. These chrome-coated zinc and
charcoal particles would otherwise be considered hazardous
wastes because they exhibit a hazardous characteristic
(chromium) .
You presented three different regulatory interpretations
that would exclude these secondary materials from regulation as
a hazardous waste. Based on the information you supplied in
your letter/ I concur that these secondary materials are not
solid wastes; however, I will only respond with the most
straighforward regulatory provision that excludes these
material* from regulation as a solid waste, namely, 40 CFR
261. 2 (c) (3), which states that a by-product exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste that is being reclaimed is not
a solid waste.
Based upon the information in your letter, the particles of
chrome-coated zinc and charcoal meet the definition of a
by-product found at 40 CFR 261.l(c)(3). The dewatering process
of the accumulated by-product is defined as reclamation (see 40
CFR 261.l(c) (4)) . Thus, the chrome-coated particles are
reclaimed from the liquid portion of the by-product to make
those particles available for use in the zinc kettle (or, as
-------
- 2 -
stated in your letter, more amenable for reintroduction into the
process). As 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3) states, a by-product, hazardous
solely because it exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous
waste, that is reclaimed, is not defined as a solid waste and,
therefore, is not a hazardous waste.
You should be aware that State and local regulatory agencies
nay have applicable regulations that differ from the Federal
regulations. Also, you should contact the appropriate EPA
Regional Office or State regulatory agency for a more specific
determination regarding your client's facility. Should you have
further questions, please contact the RCRA Hotline at (202)
382-3000, or Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Dellinger
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1989(15)
APR 5
Adrienne J. Bzura
Corporate Counsel
Old Bridge Chemicals, inc.
P.O. Box 194
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857
Dear Ms. Bzura:
This letter responds to your March 21, 1989 correspondence
requesting a written determination on the regulatory status of
material known as "drove" by the brass industry. Specifically,
you requested a statement that drove is considered a "scrap
metal" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Based on the description of drove provided in the National
Association of Recycling Industries (HARD Circular, I cannot
conclusively state that drove, in the generic sense, is a scrap
metal as defined in 40 CFR 261.i(c)(6), although some components
of drove may meet the regulatory definition of scrap metal.
Similarly, based on the NARi description and information
gathered in phone conversations, drove would not be considered a
"spent material" under RCRA. And, provided that the drove is
not derived from a pollution control device (e.g., the drove is
not mixed with bag house dust), it would also not be a
"sludge." Drove most clearly fits the description of either a
co-product or a by-product. Because the distinction between fee-
the two classifications -is not always clearly defined, I will
only address the scenario of drove being classified as a
by-product.
As stated at 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3), a non-listed by-product
(i.e., a by-product that exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste defined at 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C) that is reclaimed is
not a solid waste under RCRA. As you stated in our phone
conversationt all of the drove is reclaimed and, therefore is not
defined as aJLSOlid waste (and, thus, not a hazardous waste).
[NOTE: Beetle the regulatory status is the same whether a
material i**fc*reclaimed non-listed by-product or a co-product,
the distinction is moot.]
-------
- 2 -
You should note that State and local regulatory agencies may
have applicable regulations that differ from Federal
regulations. You should also contact your State regulatory
agency, as well as the appropriate EPA Regional office for
further information on the regulatory status of the drove.
For more information, please contact the RCRA Hotline at
1-800-424-9346, or the EPA Region II office. You may also call
me at (202) 382-4805.
Sincerely,
Mitch Kidwell
Environmental Protection Specialist
Review Section
-------
9441.1939!:'
| +
\A\I7Z?
'-.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
APR I 4 1989 S°L:° WAS7E ANO
Elizabeth W. Rovers
Project Engineer
C.T. Male Associates, P.C.
50 Century Hill Drive
P.O. Box 727
Latham, New York 12110
Dear Ms. Rovers:
This letter responds to your March 15, 1989 request for
clarification of the regulatory status of your client's plastic
packing media removed from an air stripping tower that is
treating groundwater contaminated with the F001 solvent
trichloroethylene (TCE). In particular, you asked how the
"derived from" rule applies to the plastic media (i.e., is the
media a hazardous waste?) and whether the media, even when
treated to non-detectable levels, would have to be delisted to
lose its status as a hazardous waste.
The plastic packing media, when removed from the air
stripping tower for disposal, is considered a spent material that
is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste because it
contains a hazardous waste (i.e., FOOD. The "derived from"
rule (40 CFR 261.3(c) (2)) is not directly applicable because the
plastic packing media is considered to be an integral part of the
treatment process, not a solid waste residue derived from the
treatment of a hazardous waste. Therefore, when the media no
longer contains the hazardous waste, it no longer is considered
to be a hazardous waste and may be disposed in a Subtitle D
landfill. The plastic packing media does not need to be
delisted; however, the burden of demonstrating that the media no
longer contains a hazardous waste remains.
You also stated that your client intends to treat the
TCE-contaminated plastic packing media to non-detectable levels
by volatilization. You did not provide enough information on
this aspect of the process for me to determine whether a permit
is required; however, I can state that volatilization does
constitute treatment, as defined at 40 CFR 260.10. I urge you to
contact the appropriate EPA Regional office, as well as the State
-------
- 2 -
regulatory agency to determine whether a permit is required.
Also, you should be aware that State and local governments may
have applicable regulations that differ from Federal
regulations. You should contact the State regulatory agency to
determine whether other regulations are also applicable.
Should you need further general information, you may contact
the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-464-9346, or Mitch Kidwell, of my
staff, at (202) 382-4805. For questions specific to your
client's facility, you should contact the appropriate EPA
Regional office and the State regulatory agency.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Dellinger, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
CKJTLJ<:A FOR EVALUATING WHKTHKK A WASTL ;:; HKINC; Ki-:c;YCi.;:n
The difference between recyciir.c and treatment is ?o~etirnes
difficult to di st iricuisr.. In seme cases, one :s trying tc
interpret intent from circumstantial evidence shoving mixed
rotivation, always a difficult proposition. The potential for
abuse is such that great care must be used when making a
determination that a particular recycling activity is to go
unregulated (i.e., it is one of those activities which is beyond
the scope of our jurisdiction). In certain cases, there may be
few clear-cut answers to trie question of whether a specific
activity is this type of excluded recycling (and, by extension,
that a secondary material is not a waste, but rather a raw
material or effective substitute); however, the following list of
criteria may be useful in focusing the consideration of a
specific activity. Here too, there may be no clear-cut answers
but, taken as a whole, the answers to these questions should help
draw the distinction between recycling and sham recycling or
treatment.
(1) Is the secondary material similar to am analogous raw
material or product?
o Does it contain Appendix VIII constituents not iound
in the analogous raw material/product (or at higher
levels)?
o Does it exhibit hazardous characteristics that the
analogous raw material/product would not?
o Does it contain levels of recoverable material
similar to the analogous raw material/product?
o Is much more of the secondary material used as
compared with the analogous raw material/product it
replaces? Is only a nominal amount of it used?
o Is the seondary material as effective as the raw
material or product it replaces?
(2) What degree of processing is required to produce a
finished product?
o Can the secondary material be fed directly into the
process (i.e., direct use) or is reclamation (or
pretreatment) required?
o How much value does final reclamation add?
-------
ji What is the value of the secondary material'/
o Is it listed in mdusL.ry news letters, trade
journals, etc.?
o Does the secondary material have ecor.o.r.ic value
comparable to the raw material that normally enters
the process?
(4) Is there a guaranteed market for the end product?
o Is there a contract in place to purchase the
"product" ostensibly produced from the hazardous
secondary materials?
o If the type of recycling is reclamation, if, -.Me
product used by the reclaimer7 The generator? rs
there a batch tolling agreement? Ciote that sinre-
reclaimers are normally TSDFs, assuming they store
before reclaiming, reclamation facilities present
fewer possibilities of systemic abuse).
o Is the reclaimed product a recognized commodity?
Are there industry-recognized quality specifications
for the product?
(5) Is the secondary material handled in a manner
consistent with the raw material/product it replaces?
o Is the secondary material stored on the land?
o Is the secondary material stored in a similar manner
as the analogous raw material (i.e., to prevent
loss)?
o Are adequate records regarding the recycling
transactions kept?
o Do the companies involved have a history of
mismanagement of hazardous wastes?
(6) Other relevant factors.
o What are the economics of the recycling process?
Does most of the revenue come from charging
generators for managing their wastes or from the
sale of the product?
o Are the toxic constituents actually necessary (or of
sufficient use) to the product or are they just
"along for the ride."
These criteria are drawn from 53 FR at 522 (January 8, 1988); 52
FR at 17013 (May 6, 1987); and 50 FR at 638 (January 4, 1985).
-------
9441.1939( 19
UMTE'J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEMCY
'.VASHIN'GTON. D.C. 20460
APR 26 198S
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: F006 Recycling • ' i l,
•' / i * ' i • A- f i |- • •
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrancfe-r-fii'Altor I
Office of Solid Wastje (OS-300)
i
TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
It has come to the attention of EPA Headquarters that many
of the Regions and authorized States are being requested to make
determinations on the regulatory status of various recycling
schemes for F006 electroplating sludges. In particular,
companies have claimed that F006 waste is being recycled by
being used as: (1) an ingredient in the manufacture of
aggregate, (2) an ingredient in the manufacture of cement, and
(3) feedstock for a metals recovery smelter. The same company
may make such requests of more than one Region and/or State.
Given the complexities of the regulations governing recycling
vs. treatment and the definition of solid waste, and the
possible ramifications of determinations made in one Region
affecting another Region's determination, it is extremely
important that such determinations are consistent and, where
possible, coordinated.
Two issues are presented. The first issue is whether these
activities are legitimate recycling, or rather just some form of
treatment called "recycling" in an attempt to evade regulation.
Second, assuming the activity is not sham recycling, the issue
is whether the activity is a type of recycling that is subject
to regulation under sections 261.2 and 261.6 or is it excluded
from our authority.
With respect to the issue of whether the activity is sham
recycling, this question involves assessing the intent of the
owner or operator by evaluating circumstantial evidence, always
-------
a difficult task. Basically, the determination rests on whether
the secondary material is "commodity-like. " The main
environmental considerations are (1) whether the secondary
material truly has value as a raw material/product (i.e., is it
likely to be abandoned or mismanaged prior to reclamation rather
than being reclaimed?) and (2) whether the recycling process
(including ancillary storage) is likely to release hazardous
constituents (or otherwise pose risks to human health and the
environment) that are different from or greater than the
processing of an analogous raw material/product. The attachment
to this memorandum sets out relevant factors in more detail.
If the activity is not a sham, then the question is whether
it is regulated. If F006 waste is used as an ingredient to
produce aggregate, then such aggregate would remain a solid
waste if used in a manner constituting disposal (e.g., road-base
material) under sections 261.2(c)(l) and 261.2(e)(2)(i) or if it
is accumulated speculatively under section 261.2(e)(2)(iii).
Likewise, the F006 "ingredient" is subject to regulation from
the point of generation to the point of recycling. The
aggregate product is, however, entitled to the exemption under
40 CFR 266.20(b), as amended by the August 17, 1988, Land
Disposal Restrictions for First Third Scheduled Wastes final
rule (see 53 FR 31197 for further discussion). However, if the
aggregate is not used on the land, then the materials used to
produce it would not be solid wastes at all, and therefore
neither those materials nor the aggregate would be regulated
(see section 261.2(e)(1)(i)).
Likewise, cement manufacturing using F006 waste as an
ingredient would yield a product that remains a solid waste if
it is used in a manner constituting disposal, also subject to
section 266.20(b). There is an additional question of whether
the cement kiln dust remains subject to the Bevill exclusion.
In order for the cement kiln dust to remain excluded from
regulation, the owner or operator must demonstrate that the use
of F006 waste has not significantly affected the character of
the cement kiln dust (e.g. , demonstrate that the use of F006
waste has not significantly increased the levels of Appendix
VIII constituents in the cement kiln dust leachate). [NOTE:
This issue will be addressed more fully in the upcoming
supplemental proposal of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule,
which is pending Federal Register publication.]
For F006 waste used as a feedstock in a metals recovery
smelter, the Agency views this as a recovery process rather than
use as an ingredient in an industrial process and, therefore,
considers this to be a form of treatment that is not currently
regulated (see sections 261.2(c) and 261.6(c)(1)). Furthermore,
because this is a recovery process rather than a production
process, the F006 waste remains a hazardous waste (and must be
-------
r.anageci as such prior to introduction to the process), and the
slag from this process would normally be considered a "derived
from" F006 waste. However, for primary smelters, the slag may
be considered subject to the Bevili exclusion provided that the
owner or operator can demonstrate that the use of F006 waste has
not significantly affected the hazardous constituent content of
the slag (i.e., make a demonstration similar to the one
discussed above for the cement kiln dust). [NOTE: Tn the
supplemental proposal of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule
noted above, the Agency will be proposing a definition of
"indigenous waste" based on a comparison of the constituents
found in the waste to the constituents found in an analogous raw
material. Should the F006 waste meet the definition of an
"indigenous waste," the waste would cease to be a waste when
introduced to the process and the slag would not be derived from
a hazardous waste.]
Also, you should be aware that OSW is currently reevaluating
the regulations concerning recycling activities, in conjunction
with, finalizing the January 8, 1988 proposal to amend the
Definition of Solid Waste. While any major changes may depend
on RCRA reauthorization, we are considering regulatory
amendments or changes in regulatory interpretations that will
encourage on-site recycling, while ensuring the protection of
human health and the environment.
Headquarters is able to serve as a clearinghouse to help
coordinate determinations on whether a specific case is
"recycling" or "treatment" and will provide additional guidance
and information, as requested. Ultimately, however, these
determinations are made by the Regions and authorized states.
Attached to this memorandum is a list of criteria that should be
considered in evaluating the recycling scheme. Should you
receive a request for such a determination, or should you have
questions regarding the criteria used to evaluate a specific
case, please contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at FTS
475-8551.
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES EMYIKOHMEMTAL PROTECnOM MGBtCT
9441.1989(20
Mr. Gene Rideout
Systems Manager
Dangerous Goods Consultants
P.O. Box C.P. 283
Roxboro, Quebec H8Y 3E9
Dear Mr. Rideout:
This response addresses your letters dated August 30, 1988,
February 7, 1989, and March 15, 1989, regarding the lab sample
exclusion found in 40 CFR Section 261.4(d). It is our
understanding that you wish to transport via private or company
vehicle samples of hazardous waste from Canada into the United
States for analysis. You question whether the samples that you
are shipping must be managed as hazardous waste in the United
States. You would also like to know if it is acceptable to use
a personal or company automobile to transport the sample
material in the United States.
Based upon the information that you have provided, it
appears that the samples are being handled and shipped in a
manner that is outlined in the lab sample exclusion (40 CFR
261.4(d)). Therefore, these samples are exempt from the federal
hazardous waste regulations including the hazardous waste import
requirements as outlined in 40 CFR 262, Subpart E and 40 CFR
264.12. In addition, as long as each shipment is in compliance
with the lab sample exclusion, including the documentation and
packaging requirements of 261.4(d)(2)(ii), as well as U.S.
Department of Transportation regulations, that may apply, and
any other applicable regulations, the mode of transportation
used is at your discretion.
Please be aware that the applicability of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery.Act in a particular State may be
different; therefore, you should contact any RCRA authorized
State through which you may travel.
-------
- 2 -
If you have any further questions or need additional
information, please contact Emily Roth of my staff at
(202) 382-4777.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Deputy Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
i i ; i i i I i j i i t i i i I i i ; i i i I j t i j i i i I j j i i i ; i j i ; j i i I ; i i j i i i i i i i i i i ; I i
OSW-332-ED-RSCC-8801-LM-4/12/89-RIDEOUT
LM-4/I4/89 RIDEOUT
LM-4/24/89 RIDEOUT
-------
UMITEO ST. '£S EMVWONMEHTAL PROTECTION AC CY 9441.1989(22)
Mrs. Phyllis A. Shay
3700 Petre Road
Springfield, OH 45502
Dear Mrs. Shay:
Thank you for your letter of April 7, 1989 to the
Administrator. We understand your concerns about the
disposal of scrap amalgam fillings from dentists in the
United States and the health effects of amalgam on dental
patients. We appreciate your bringing to our attention your
personal experience with amalgam.
The Agency defines as hazardous any solid waste which
has been listed as a hazardous waste or meets any of four
hazardous characteristics; ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity. Dental
amalgam contains mercury and silver. If discarded, dental
amalgam can be a hazardous waste if mercury and silver are
extracted by the EP test, and are present above certain
concentrations. The maximum permitted concentration of
mercury ia^th* extract is 0.2 milligrams per liter (Mercury
has been deigned EPA hazardous waste number D009.). The
maximum permitted concentration of silver in the extract is
5.0 milligrams per liter (Silver has been assigned EPA
hazardous waste number D011.).
-------
UMITED ST. '£S ENVUZQKMENTAL PROTECTION AC CY
- 2 -
The hazardous waste regulations (promulgated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)) also provided
special, reduced regulations for generators of small quantities
of hazardous waste. The regulations define "small quantity
generator" as one generating less than 1,000 kg of hazardous
waste in a month and "conditionally exempt small quantity
generator" as one generating less than 100 kg of hazardous
waste in a month. Most dentists would probably generate much
less than 100 kg (about 220 pounds) of dental amalgam a month
and be classified as a conditionally exempt small quantity
generator.
Thus, your concerns are about generators who are most
likely exempt from the hazardous waste regulations. Some
dentists presently send their unused and waste dental amalgam
to scrap metal dealers for recycling. I suggest that you
contact your local health department to see if they could
coordinate with dentists to send amalgam to a central location
or locations for recycling.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Dellinger
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Office of Solid Waste (OS-332)
cc: (AX)
Administrator's correspondence office
disk:f chau 8801: "amalgam11:5/15/89
-------
UNITED S. f ES ENYIRONMEHTAL PROTECTION A. HC
9441.1989(23)
MAT 31
John R. Sims, Jr.
Sims, Walker & Steinfeld, P.c.
Suite 875
1275 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Sims:
This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1989, in which
you ask for a determination of the regulatory status of the
absorbent rags that have been used to wipe up the crude oil
resulting from the spill of crude oil from the Exxon tanker
Valdez. We cannot conclude that the .rags are not a hazardous
waste from the information provided. We can advise you on the
process whereby you determine the status of your waste.
Furthermore, our Region X office in Seattle, Washington, may be
able to provide assistance in confirming your determination
should that be necessary.
As you mention in your letter, you discussed the contaminated
rags with Ms..Roth of this office via telephone on several
occasions. Ms. Roth referred you to the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) governing the determination and regulation of
hazardous waste, specifically, 40 CFR Part 261 - Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste. The crude oil contaminated rags
are not listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, as a hazardous
waste; therefore, you must determine whether they meet any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste as presented in Part 261,
Subpart C. Ms. Roth indicated that the characteristic that the
rags would likely exhibit is that of ignitability as defined in
Section 261.21; however, you must determine if the rags meet any
of the characteristics as defined in Part 261, Subpart C. If
they do not exhibit any of the characteristics, then the
absorbent rag* would not be considered a hazardous waste under
federal regulation.
You also indicate that you have discussed the regulatory
status of the rags with the appropriate authorities in each of
the three states involved in the transport of the contaminated
rags. If the waste is determined not to meet the definition of
hazardous waste according to the Federal regulations as described
above and is managed in accordance with all state regulations,
then the method of containment and transportation is at your
discretion.
-------
If you wish to receive a written confirmation of your
determination from EPA, you should present your findings to the
Waste Mana.gew.ent Division of EPA's Region K office at 1200 6th
Avenue, Seattie, Washington 96iOJ. Mr. Gearbeard, who is the
Waste Management Branch Chief, may be reached at (206) 442-278Z.
Mr. Gearheard will be able to assist you if necessary in making
your determination.
If you have any further questions regarding this letter,
please contact Emily Roth of my staff at (Z02). 382-4777.
Sincerely,
Matt Straus, Deputy Director
Characterization & Assessment
Division
cc: Michael Gearheard, EPA Region X
Stan Hungerford, State of Alaska
Earl Tower, State of Washington
Mike Downs, State of Oregon
-------
9441.1989(24)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3
/ WASHINGTON O C Z0460
,szz
AUG i 6 ::-==
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Monthly Report—RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance
Hotline and Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know
Information Hotline Report for May 1989
\ C HV/—
FROM: Thea McManus, Project Officer"T\, ^ Wr
Office of Solid Waste M^
TO: See List of Addressees
This report is prepared and submitted in support of Contract #68-01-7371.
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTION'S AN'D RESOLVED ISSUES—MAY 1989
A. RCRA
1. Medical Waste-Household Medical Waste
According to Section 259.30(b)(l)(ii) of the Medical Waste Tracking regulations
(54 FR 12374), household waste is not regulated as medical waste. Would this
exemption apply to household waste generated by health care providers m
private homes?
Household waste, as defined in Subtitle C regulations (40 CFR Section
261.4(b)), is excluded from the definition of medical waste in RCRA Section
1004(40), and is not subject to the requirements of the demonstration
program. The November 13, 1984 Federal Register (49 EB 44978) stated that
the exclusion is limited to waste generated by individuals on the premises or
a residence, for individuals and composed primarily of materials found ;n
waste generated by consumers in their homes. Thus, if domestic waste .s
generated by individuals at a residence, it is "household waste" and thus
excluded from this program. Medical waste generated in homes by home
health care providers thus is "household waste." Because the household
wastestream is excluded, the waste generated by a health care provider :n
private homes would not be subject to the tracking or managemer.t
requirements even when the waste is removed from the home jrd
transported to the physician's place of business.
Source: Becky Cuthbertson (202) 475-6713
Research: Kim Jennings (202) 382-3112
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9441.1989(27)
JUN 6 -389
Julie Wanslow
Hazardous Waste Section
NMEID
1190 Saint Francis Street
Santa Fe, N.M. 87503
Dear Ms. Wanslow:
In response to your phone conversation of March 22, 1989,
with Mike Fitzpatrick of my staff, we have prepared the
following explanations to clarify the boundaries of the oil
field RCRA exemption as discussed in the December 1987 EPA
Report to Congress (RTC) and given final definition in the July
1988 regulatory determination.
The scope of the exemption as defined in the RTC and
regulatory determination is based on the legislative history and
Sections 3001(b)(2)(A) and 8002(m) of RCRA. Using these sources
the Agency has identified three separate criteria to be used
when defining specific waste streams that are exempt.
These criteria are listed on pages 11-18 and 11-19 of the RTC
(enclosed.)
In regard to pipeline or gathering line-related wastes,
the following excerpts from the criteria in the RTC may prove
helpful:
"Primary field operations encompass those activities
occurring at or near the well head, but prior to the
transport of oil from an individual field facility or
a centrally located facility to a carrier (i.e., pipeline
or trucking concern) for transport to a refinery or to
a refiner.... Waste generated by the transportation
process itself are not exempt because they are not
intrinsically associated with primary field operations....
Transportation for the oil and gas industry may be for
short or long distances." [emphasis added].
According to the Manual of Oil and Gas Terms (sixth
edition) there are many terms in common usage within the
industry and applied to the various pipelines associated with
oil and gas production and transportation (see enclosed
definition of "pipeline"). Feeder lines may or may not be
exempt depending on the point of custody transfer or other
-------
- 2 -
site-specific factors relating -to transportation from the
primary field-operation as defined in the RTC. Although the
Agency used the term "gathering line" in the RTC in reference
to a generally small diameter pipe within a primary field
operation, the term "gathering line" itself should not be used
as the determining factor in defining the scope of tne
exemption. Rather, the applicability of the criteria in the
RTC to the particular line in question should be used in
determining the scope of the exemption.
As for gas plant cooling tower wastes, the July 6, 1988,
regulatory determination identifies "cooling tower blowdown" as
exempt and "gas plant cooling tower cleaning wastes" as
non-exempt. The difference between the two is that blowdown is
comprised only of water, scale or other wastes generated by the
actual operation of the cooling tower; whereas cleaning wastes
include any solvents, scrubbing agents or other cleaning
materials introduced into the process solely to remove buildup
or otherwise clean the equipment and are not included as part
of the functional operation of the cooling tower. Since these
cleaning wastes can come from any cooling tower, they are not
intrinsically derived from primary field operations for natural
gas production. The determining factor for defining the
exemption is not the frequency with which the cooling tower is
blown down, either with or without cleaning agents, but whether
the resulting waste is solely derived from the normal operation
of the tower for natural gas production or from any added-
cleaning materials.
I trust these explanations will enable you to better
determine the scope of the RCRA exemption as applied to the
specific waste streams within your jurisdiction. If you have
any further questions please contact Mike Fitzpatrick at
(2~2) 475-6783.
Sincerely,
Dan Derkics
Chief
Large Volume Waste Section
Enclosure
cc: Mike Pitzpatrick
ivy Main, Office of General Counsel
-------
1. Exempt wastes must be associated with measures (1) to locate oil
or gas deposits, (2) to remove oil or natural gas from the ground,
or (3) to remove impurities-from such substances, provided that
the prrrrfication process is an integral part of primary field
operations.5
2. Only waste streams intrinsic to the exploration for, or the
development and production of, crude oil and natural gas are
subject to exemption. Waste streams generated at oil and gas
facilities that are not uniquely associated with the exploration,
development, or production activities are not exempt. (Examples
would include spent solvents from equipment cleanup or air
emissions from diesel engines used to operate drilling rigs.)
Clearly those substances that are extracted from the ground or
injected into the ground to facilitate the drilling, operation, or
maintenance of a well or to enhance the recovery of oil and gas
are considered to be uniquely associated with primary field
operations. Additionally, the injection of materials into the
pipeline at the wellhead which keep the lines from freezing or
which serve as solvents to prevent paraffin accumulation is
intrinsically associated with primary field operations. With
regard to injection for enhanced recovery, the injected materials
must function primarily to enhance recovery of oil and gas and
must be recognized by the Agency as being appropriate for enhanced
recovery. An example would be produced water. In this context,
"primarily functions" means that the main reason for injecting the
materials is to enhance recovery of oil and gas rather than to
serve as a means for disposing of those materials.
3. Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes intrinsically
derived from primary field operations associated with the
exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas,
or geothermal energy are subject to exemption. Primary field
operations encompass production-related activities but not
transportation or manufacturing activities. With respect to oil
production, primary field operations encompass those activities
occurring at or near the wellhead, but prior to the transport of
oil from an individual field facility or a centrally located
facility to a carrier (i.e., pipeline or trucking concern) for
transport to a refinery or to a refiner. With respect to natural
gas production, primary field operations are those activities
occurring at or near the wellhead or at the gas plant but prior to
that point at which the gas is transferred from an individual
field facility, a centrally located facility, or a gas plant to a
carrier for transport to market.
Thus. «astes associated
-------
Primary field operations may encompass the primary, secondary, and
tertiary production of oil or gas. Wastes generated oy the
transportation process itself are not exempt because they are not
intrinsically associated with primary field operations. An
example would be pigging waste from pipeline pumping stations.
Transportation for the oil and gas indust-y may be for short or
long distances. Wastes associated with rr^nufacturing are not
exempt because they are not associated with exploration,
development, or production and hence are not intrinsically
associated with primary field operations. Manufacturing (for the
oil and gas industry) is defined as any acti- ;ty occurring with'n
a refinery or other manufacturing facility tne purpose of which is
to render the product coranercially saleable.
Using these definitions. Table II-l presents definitions of exempted
wastes as defined.by EPA for the purposes of this study. Note that this
is a partial list only. Alth..gh it includes all the major streams that
EPA has considered in the preparation of this report, others may exist.
In that case, the definitions listed above would be applied to determine
their status under RCRA.
Waste Volume Estimation Methodology
Information concerning volumes of wastes from oil and gas
exploration, development, and production operations is not routinely
collected nationwide, making it necessary to develop methods for
estimating these volumes by indirect methods in order to comply with the
Section 8002(m) requirement to present such estimates to Congress. For
this study, estimates were compiled independently by EPA and by the
American Petroleum Institute (API) using different methods. Both are
discussed below.
Estimating Volumes of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings
EPA considered several different methodologies for determining volume
estimates for produced water and drilling fluid.
11-19
-------
UNITED ~ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGCNCT 9441.1989(29)
June 15, 1989
Michael Lodick
President
North Coast Associates, Inc.
361 Delaware Avenue, Suite 405
Buffalo, New York 14202
Dear Mr. Lodick:
This letter responds to your March 20, 1989 letter to
Ms'. Wendy Grieder in the Office of International Activities. In
your letter, you requested confirmation from U.S. EPA that the
export of a secondary material not deemed to be a waste is not
subject to notice requirements under the U.S.-Canadian Bilateral
Treaty. The secondary materials of concern in this case are
spent abrasives from sandblasting which may or may not exhibit
the hazardous characteristic for lead (D008) as found at 40 CFR
261.24. You claim that these secondary materials are used,
without prior reclamation, as a substitute for silica, aluminum
and iron in the manufacture of Portland cement and that these
materials contain only contaminants that are similar to and no
greater than those found in the analogous raw materials.
The regulatory status of these secondary materials depends
upon several factors. If indeed these secondary materials are
legitimate substitutes for an analogous raw material, the next
consideration is how these materials are being recycled. In
this case, the secondary materials most likely are being used in
a manner constituting disposal (i.e., the Portland cement
manufactured from these secondary materials will be, or is
likely to be, placed on the land). As stated at 40 CFR
261.2(e)(2)(i) , materials used in a manner constituting disposal
are solid wastes (and thus, if hazardous, hazardous wastes).
Therefore, if these secondary materials do, in fact, exhibit a
hazardous characteristic, they must be managed as a hazardous
waste, including manifest requirements.
As a^^Bfcrdous waste requiring a manifest, such secondary
material^^K^ subject to the export notification requirements
under thJHfyi-Canadian Bilateral Treaty, even though such
materials nay not be considered a waste in Canada. Were such
materials to be recycled in the same manner in this country, the
recycling facility (i.e., the cement manufacturer) would be
-------
- 2 -
required I^^BV* a RCRA storage permit. However, assuming the
cement nor^llpkr exhibited a characteristic, the cement would not
be a hazaroBHwaste. If the cement did exhibit a hazardous
characteristic, it would be subject to 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart c.
On the subject of the responses you received from Michigan
and Pennsylvania, States are required to provide equivalent
(i.e., at least as stringent) regulations as the Federal program
to obtain authorization. Therefore, authorized State
requirements must cover, at a minimum, all hazardous wastes
covered by the Federal program. If the appropriate personnel in
the State regulatory agencies wish to discuss the conclusions
presented in this letter, I would be happy to accommodate them.
Also, should you have any further questions regarding the Federal
regulatory status of the spent abrasive material, you may contact
me at (202) 382-4637.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Deputy Director
Characterization and
*«••» A «•«•<•> «*«»*• rt
-------
UNITED .TES EMVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9441.1989(30)
JUN I 9
Mr. Thomas C. Jorling
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
State of New York
Albany, New York 12233-1010
Dear Mr. Jorling:
I am writing in response to your letter of May 5, 1989, in
which you ask numerous questions concerning the regulatory
status, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
of environmental media (ground water, soil, and sediment)
contaminated with RCRA-listed hazardous waste.
As you point out in your letter, it is correct that the
Agency's "contained-in" interpretation is that contaminated
environmental media must be managed as if they were hazardous
wastes until they no longer contain the listed waste, or are
delisted. This leads to the critical question of when an
environmental medium contaminated by listed hazardous waste
ceases to be a listed hazardous waste. In your letter, you
discuss three possible answers (based on previous EPA positions
and documents) which you believe address this question, and
request the Agency to clarify its interpretation. Each of these
is discussed below.
The first possible answer you cite would be that the
contaminated media would be a hazardous waste unless and until it
is delisted, based on the "mixture" and "derived-from" rules. As
you correctly state in your letter, a waste that meets a listing
description due to the application of either of these rules
remains a listed hazardous waste until it is delisted. However,
these two rules do not pertain to contaminated environmental
media. Under our regulations, contaminated media are not
considered solid wastes in the sense of being abandoned,
recycled, or inherently waste-like as those terms are defined in
the regulations. Therefore, contaminated environmental media
cannot be considered a hazardous waste via the "mixture" rule
(i.e., to have a hazardous waste mixture, a hazardous waste must
be mixed with a solid waste per 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)).
Similarly, the "derj
Our
•contain.1!
»ust| be,mana
-------
-2-
listed hazardous waste. These environmental media must be
managed as hazardous waste because, and only as long as, they
"contain" a listed hazardous waste, (i.e., until decontaminated).
The second possibility you mention is that environmental
media contaminated with a RCRA listed waste no longer have to be
managed as a hazardous waste if the hazardous constituents are
completely removed by treatment. This is consistent with the
Agency's "contained-in" interpretation and represents the
Agency's current policy.
The third possibility you discuss comes from Sylvia
Lowrance's January 24, 1989, memorandum that you cited in your
letter. This memorandum indicates that OSW has not issued any
definitive guidance as to when, or at what levels, environmental
media contaminated with listed hazardous waste are no longer
considered to contain that hazardous waste. It also states that
until such definitive guidance is issued, the Regions may
determine these levels on a case-specific basis. Where this
determination involves an authorized State, such as New York, our
policy is that the State may also make such a determination.
Related to such a determination, you ask whether a risk
assessment approach that addressed the public health and
environmental impacts of hazardous constituents remaining in
treatment residuals would be acceptable. This approach would be
acceptable for contaminated media, but would not be acceptable
for "derived-from" wastes under our current rules. Additionally,
consistent with the statute, you could substitute more stringent
standards or criteria for contaminated environmental media than
those recommended by the Federal EPA if you determined it to be
appropriate.
The Agency is currently involved in a rulemaking effort
directed at setting de minimis levels for hazardous constituents
below which eligible listed wastes, treatment residuals from
those waste*, and environmental media contaminated with those
listed wastes would no longer have to be managed as hazardous
wastes, fbs approach being contemplated in the De Minimis
program would be similar to that used in the proposed RCRA Clean
Closure Guidance in terms of the exposure scenario (direct
ingestion), the management scenario (not in a waste management
unit), and the levels (primarily health-based).
Your final question related to whether the "remove and
decontaminate" procedure set forth in the March 19, 1987 Federal
Register preamble to the conforming regulations on closing
surface impoundments applies when making complete removal
determinations for soil. These procedures do apply when one
-------
-3-
chocses to clean close a hazardous waste surface impoundment cy
removing the waste. The preamble language states that the Agency
interprets the term "remove" and "decontaminate" to mean removal
of all wastes, liners, and/or leachate (including ground water)
that pose a substantial present or potential threat to human
health or the environment (52 FR 8706). Further discussion of
these requirements is provided in a clarification notice
published on March 28, 1988, (53 £fi 1144) and in OSWER Policy
Directive # 9476.00-18 on demonstrating equivalence of Part 265
clean closure with Part 264 requirements (copy enclosed).
I hope that this response will be helpful to you in
establishing and implementing New York's hazardous waste policies
on related issues. Should you have additional questions, please
contact Bob Dellinger, Chief of the Waste Characterization Branch
at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
OS-305/DELLINGER/D.BARTOSH - 382-4646/SLD/6-2-89/CONTROL
NO: AX891796/DUE DATE: 6-5-89/CONTROL #26(WORDPERFECT)/NAME:
JORLING
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20*60
JUN \ 91939
9441.1989(30)
Mr. Thomas C. Jorling
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
State of New York
Albany, New York 12233-1010
Dear Mr. Jorling:
I aa writing in response to your letter of May 5, 1989, in
which you ask numerous questions concerning the regulatory
status, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
of environmental media (ground water, soil, and sediment)
contaminated with RCRA-listed hazardous waste.
As you point out in your letter, it is correct that the
Agency's "contained-in" interpretation is that contaminated
environmental media must be managed at if they were hazardous
wastes until they no longer contain the listed waste, or are
delisted. This leads to the critical question of when an
environmental medium contaminated by listed hazardous waste
ceases to be a listed hazardous waste. In your letter, you
discuss three possible answers (based on previous EPA positions
and documents) which you believe address this question, and
request the Agency to clarify its interpretation. Each of these
is discussed below.
The first possible answer you cite would be that the
contaminated media would be a hazardous waste unless and until it
is delisted, based on the "mixture" and "derived-from" rules. As
you correctly state in your letter, a waste that meets a listing
description due to the application of either of these rules
remains a listed hazardous waste until it is delisted. However,
these tiro rules do not pertain to contaminated environmental
media. Under our regulations, contaminated media are not
considered solid wastes in the sense of being abandoned,
recycled, or inherently waste-like as those terms are defined in
the regulations. Therefore, contaminated environmental media
cannot be considered a hazardous waste via the "mixture" rule
(i.e., to have a hazardous waste mixture, a hazardous waste must
be mixed with a ifilid vaste per 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)).
Similarly, the "derived-fro»" rule does not apply to contaminated
media. Our basis for stating that contaminated environmental
media must be managed as hazardous wastes is that they "contain"
-------
-2-
listed hazardous waste. These environmental media must be
managed as hazardous vaste because, and only as long as, they
"contain" a listed hazardous waste, (i.e., until decontaminated).
The second possibility you mention is that environmental
media contaminated with a RCRA listed vast* no longer have to be
managed as a hazardous vast* if the hazardous constituents are
completely removed by treatment. This is consistent with the
Agency's "contained-in" interpretation and represents the
Agency's current policy.
The third possibility you discuss comes from Sylvia
Lowrance's January 24, 1989, memorandum that you cited in your
letter. This memorandum indicates that OSW has not issued any
definitive guidance as to when, or at what levels, environmental
media contaminated with listed hazardous vaste are no longer
considered to contain that hazardous vaste. It also states that
until such definitive guidance is issued, the Regions may
determine thes* levels on a case-specific basis. Where this;
determination involves an authorized State, such as New York, our
policy is that the state may also make such a determination.
Related to such a determination, you ask vhether a risk
assessment approach that addre«sed the public health and
environmental impacts of hazardous constituents remaining in
treatment residuals would b« acceptable. This approach vould be
acceptable for contaminated media provided you assumed a direct
exposure scenario/ but vould not be acceptable for "derived rom"
vastes under our current rules. Additionally, consistent v. ,1
the statute, you could substitute more stringent standards or
criteria for contaminated environmental media than those
recommended by the Federal EPA if you determined it to be
appropriate.
The Agency is currently involved in % rulemaking effort
directed at setting de nininis levels for hazardous constituents
belov which eligible listed vastes, treatment residuals from
those waste*, and environmental media contaainated with those
listed vastes would no longer have to be managed as hazardous
vastes. The approach being contemplated in the ne Miniais
program would be similar to that used in the proposed RCRA Clean
Closure Guidance in -arms of the exposure scenario (direct
ingestion), the management scenario (not in a waste management
unit), and the levels (primarily health-based).
Your final question related to whether the "remove and
decontaminate11 procedure set forth in the March 19, 1987 I
Register preamble to the conforming regulations on closing
surface impoundments applies when making complete removal
determinations for soil. These procedures do apply when one
-------
-3-
chooses to clean close a hazardous vast* surface impoundment by
removing the waste. The preamble language states that the Agency
interprets the tern "remove" and "decontaminate" to mean removal
of all wastes, liners, and/or leachate (including ground water)
that pose a substantial present or potential- threat to human
health or the environment (52 FR 8706) . Further discussion of
these requirements is provided in a clarification notice
published on March 28, 1988, (53 F£ 11*4) «nd in OSWER Policy
Directive I 9476.00-18 on demonstrating equivalence of Part 265
clean closure with Part 264 requirements (copy enclosed) .
I hope that this response will be helpful to you in
establishing and implementing New York's hazardous waste policies
on related issues. Should you have additional questions, please
contact Bob Dellinger, Chief of the Waste Characterization Branch
at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
^?~7/
Jonathan Z. wnnon
Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED n %TES ENVIRO»*EMT*L PROTECTION :NCY ?;A1
Dr. William H. McBeath
Executive Director
American Public Health Association
1015 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Dr. McBeath:
Thank you for your letter of June 7, 1989, in which you
requested information regarding the disposal of dental amalgam.
More specifically, you requested that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) send you information on:
1. "a recent EPA ruling concerning dental amalgam";
2. how EPA determined that amalgam is a hazardous
substance;
3. the extent of improper recycling of amalgam; and
4. any plans EPA may be making to develop rules for
the disposal of amalgam and to educate dentists
about "the environmental technology that is
applicable and effective in the recycling
and disposal of dental amalgam.11
First, we believe that your reference to a recent EPA ruling
concerning dental amalgam may be explained by the enclosed letter
of May 17, 1989, from Robert H. Dellinger of EPA to Phyllis A.
Shay.
As a secondary material that is being disposed of, amalgam
is defined as a solid waste under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). 2PA defines as hazardous any solid waste
that has been listed as a hazardous waste or that meets any of
the four hazardous characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity. Dental
amalgam is not specifically listed as a hazardous waste under
-------
Federal regulations. Therefore, the generator of waste dental
amalgam i» responsible for determining whether it exhibits any of
the four hazardous characteristics. Since dental amalgam
contains mercury and silver, it may exhibit EP toxicity.
Please bear in mind that many State and local regulatory
agencies have their own hazardous waste regulations, which may
differ from Federal regulations. We strongly encourage
generators of waste to contact their State regulatory agencies to
determine what, if any, State regulations are applicable.
We have neither received information on nor examined the
extent of improper recycling of dental amalgam that may be
occurring. At this time, we do not plan to develop specific
rules for the disposal of dental amalgam. We believe that the
past enclosed guidance on the hazardous waste regulatory
requirements provides sufficient information to enable small
quantity generators to comply with the requirements.
Thank you for your interest in hazardous waste management.
If you have further questions about the identification of waste,
you may call the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, Edwin Abrams, of
my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
OS-305/DELLINGER/J.OCALLAGHAN - 382-4646/LS/6-26-89/CONTROL
NO: AX892155/DUE DATE: 6-23-89/DISX #29/NAME: MCBEATH
FOLLOW-UP RESPONSE
-------
9441.1989(32)
V
TON,
6 !2r3
Michael S. Giannotto
Shea > Gardner
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Giannotto:
This is in response to Magma Copper Company's pet:1: ion
December 16, 1988, requesting a clarification of -.Me !:•>:-1
hazardous waste listing, acid plant blowdovn slurry. Mudce
resulting from the thickening of blowdovn slurry from primal.
copper production. You contend that the K064 listing does not
apply to Magma's waste which is generated during primary
smelting operations.
In your petition you state that Magma's acid plant
blowdown (APB) is a wastestream that results from the
processing of off-gases from the flash furnaces and converters
used to smelt copper. The APB is piped to a totally enclosed
tank called a "tailings agitator" where it is mixed and
neutralized with large volumes of alkaline tailings from
Magma's- beneficiation process. The tailings/blowdown mixture
is then piped to on-site tailings ponds. You state that there
is no stage or operation at Magma where acid plant blowdown is
thickened. Also, you state that the blowdown is never sent to
dedicated lagoons for settling and no portion of Magma's
blowdown becomes a slurry/sludge which is recycled back to the
smelter for processing. You further state that the APB does
not undergo any process that concentrates potentially hazardous
constituents in a sludge or slurry. Finally, although this
fact does not effect whether the waste in question meets the
listing description, you provided information on the
concentration of hazardous constituents in the APB and
APB/tailings mixture which indicate that these wastes do not
fail the EP toxicity test.
Based on the information provided in your petition as
described above, and assuring its accuracy the Agency does not
believe that Magma's APB or APB/tailings mixture meets the K064
listing description. Therefore, the Agency does not formally
need to rule on your petition. It is our understanding that
-------
i o •- - <- i -1 r-i >• i~, r >- o • • • p•..• ' !,"C . 3.~ - ' ?. 5 ft ) i •; - • • o ' " ' t. SCl S '„ ^ t. °S CO'»'. " ' C
ppeals for the District c: Loiur^ia Circuit.
I hope this letter has addressee your concerns.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
:c: Eldor. D. Helmer, Magma Copper Company
Andrew A. Brodkey, Magma Copper company
-------
9441.1989(34)
.5322;
JUL 6
Mr. Kenneth A. Rubin
Morgan, Lewis, and Bocklius
1300 M Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Rubin:
This is in response to your letter dated May 22, 1989,
regarding Tri-state Mint, Inc. and whether the spent cyanide
solution they disposed of onto C Avenue in an industrial park
area of Sioux Falls, South Dakota is EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F007 (Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating
operations). In making this determination, it is first
necessary to determine whether the process used by Tri-State
Mint in generating this waste is an electroplating operation.
•in a previous memorandum to the Denver Regional Office, it
was indicated that the process used by Tri-state Mint was an
electroplating process. However, upon further evaluation, we
believe that the process is not an electroplating operation
within the scope of the F007 listing, but a metals recovery
operation. While the operation appears similar and the
residues contain similar constituents, it is materially quite
different. In particular, electroplating includes those
operations where the metal is plated or coated with a thin
surface onto a base material by electrode decomposition to
provide protection against corrosion, to increase wear or
erosion resistance, or for decorative purposes. The solutions
that are used generally contain low concentrations of the metal
ions. At Tri-State Mint, the operation is not designed to coat
or plate a base material per se. but to recover silver ions
selectively from other impurities in the cyanide bath. These
solutions are usually more concentrated with metal ions than
those used in an electroplating process. In your letter, you
compare the process used at Tri-State Mint to electrowinning
which is a metal refining process defined as the recovery of
rather pure forms of metal from a solution by means of
electrolysis. To the extent that Tri-State in fact uses a
process for recovering silver, we agree that the operation used
by Tri-State Mint that generated the waste in question is not
electroplating within the scope of the F007 listing. As a
result, the waste that was disposed of by Tri-State Mint would
not be EPA Hazardous Waste No. F007.
-------
In makiric •_ h j c ^]e'. °rn i nav i or , i' shoulrl )~>e no'. ry.l ". V.af *.':•«
'.ViSte ir. question nay still be hazardous if it exhibits any of
the hazardous waste characteristics; if this is the case, r.he
disposal of the cyanide solution OP.to C Avenue would have to
comply with the interim status or permit requirements of
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). It should also be noted that the determination made
today is solely an interpretation of an existing listing
regulation; EPA is not providing Tri-State with an exemption
from any liability under RCRA, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), or the
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. Finally,
you should also be aware that States may impose regulations
that are more stringent than the Federal regulations. Thus,
the State of south Dakota may consider Tri-State Mint Inc's
cyanide solution to be listed hazardous waste.
If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free
to call Mr. Matthew A. Straus at (202) 382-4637.
Sincerely,
Jeffery Denit/, Deputy 'Director
Office .of Solid Waste
/ . s
-------
USE
**?
9441.1989(39
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-J- 3 I
OF
SOLID WAS'E AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Joe Haake
Hazardous Waste Coordinator
Dept. 441C, Mail Code 0801800
McDonnell Douglas
P.O. Box 516
Saint Louis, Missouri 63166-0516
Dear Mr. Haake:
. This responds to your May 9, 1989 request for a regulatory
interpretation regarding the "recycling" of unused
off-specification jet fuels into new jet fuel. You state in
your letter that the waste fuel is not a spent material because
it has never been used, resulting instead from the overflow
during fueling and from fuel drained from tanks/lines following
testing. However, because of the stringent military fuel
specifications, it cannot be used as jet fuel without
reclamation or reprocessing.
Although you currently manage the off-spec fuel as a
hazardous waste (D001), you intend to sell the fuel to a
refining company as a feedstock to produce jet fuel. You
therefore believe that as an ingredient in an industrial
process, the off-spec fuel would not be a solid waste. However,
as I understand from your letter, the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) believes that as a material used to
produce a fuel, the off-spec fuel would remain a solid waste.
EPA Headquarters does not agree with either interpretation.
In particular, we believe that the "recycling" activity
described in your letter is not "use as an ingredient in an
industrial process." Although the off-spec fuel nay go through
a manufacturing process, the activity is best characterized as
reclamation (i.e., the jet fuel that does not meet the purity
specifications is reprocessed into jet fuel meeting the required
purity specifications).
Also, MONK'S regulatory interpretation, as stated in your
letter, differs from the Federal interpretation. While MDNR
states that because the material is being used to produce a fuel
(i.e., burning for energy recovery) it remains a solid waste,
the Agency considers the material's original intended purpose
when commerical chemical products are involved. Under the
existing regulations, commercial chemical products (or off-spec
commercial chemical products) that are reclaimed are not solid
waste even if the material is used to produce a fuel if that is
the materials intended purpose. Thus, this off-spec jet fuel,
if used to produce jet fuel, is not a solid waste (i.e., an
off-spec fuel is being reclaimed to be used as a fuel — its
intended purpose). Although the regulatory language found at
-------
- 2 -
40 CFR 261.2 (c) (2) (ii) , which states that in such cases a
commercial chemical product is not a solid waste if it itself is
a fuel, only addresses commercial chemical products listed in
section 261.33, it is implicit in the rules that the same
reasoning applies to commercial chemical products that are not
listed. A clarifying discussion of this is found in the
April 11, 1986 Federal Register notice (50 FR at 14219), the
technical correction notice to the January 4, 1985 Definition of
Solid Waste final rule (50 FR 614).
The Agency's interpretation is that you are reclaiming an
off -specification commercial chemical product (which would
otherwise be a hazardous waste because it exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste) for its intended purpose
and, therefore, is not a solid waste. Although the reclaimed
commercial chemical product is burned for energy recovery, it is
not a solid waste because this was its intended purpose.
The State of Missouri is authorized to implement the
hazardous waste program under RCRA and may promulgate State
regulations or make regulatory interpretations that are more
stringent than Federal regulations or interpretations. You must
also comply with MDNR's regulations.
Should you have further questions of a aore general nature,
you may contact the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or
Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551. For questions of
a more site-specific nature, you should contact the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources and the EPA Region VII office.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: Kenneth J. Davis
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Lynn Harrington, Chief
Permits Branch
Region VII
-------
9441.1989(40)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
ALJG 2
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
James T. Allen, Ph.D.
Chief
Alternative Technology Section
Toxic Substances Control Division
Department of Health Services
714/744 P Street
P.O. Box 942732
Sacramento, California 94234-7320
Dear Mr. Allen:
This letter responds to your February 6, 1989, correspondence
requesting written confirmation of the regulatory status of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as refrigerants under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
As a spent material being reclaimed for reuse, the spent CFCs
meet the definition of solid waste under Federal regulations (see
40 CFR 261.2). However, to meet the definition of hazardous
waste and, thus, be subject to Subtitle C of RCRA, the spent CFCs
must either be specifically listed as a hazardous waste, or must
exhibit one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste.
Certain CFCs that are used for their solvent properties are
listed as hazardous wastes when spent (see EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. F001 and F002 at 40 CFR 261.31). Also, certain CFCs that
are unused commercial chemical products are listed hazardous
wastes when discarded (see 40 CFR 261.33). However, CFCs used as
refrigerants, do not meet any of the hazardous waste listings.
Thus, a used CFC refrigerant is a hazardous waste only if it
exhibits one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste.
On July 28, 1989, published a Federal Register notice
(54 FR 31335) that clarified the applicability of RCRA Subtitle C
regulations to CFC refrigerants (see enclosure). This notice
also announced the availability of data relating to whether CFC
refrigerants exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous waste. In
determining whether the CFC refrigerant to be recycled is a
hazardous waste because it exhibits a characteristic of a
hazardous waste, a generator may cite the Federal Register
notice to demonstrate that such materials do not exhibit a
hazardous characteristic under normal operating conditions.
-------
- 2 -
Should you have any further questions regarding the
applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulation to the recycling of
CFC refrigerants, you may contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at
(202) 475-8551.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Michael J. Petruska
Acting Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITE TATES ENVIRCHMEMTAL PROTECTIO ' GENCY
9441.1989(42)
AUG 4 1989
Donald G. Everist, P.E.
Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.c.
1015 15th Street, N.w.
Suite 703
Washington, D.c. 20005
Dear Mr. Everist:
Thank, you for your letter of June 5, 1989, requesting a
finding on whether depleted mixtures of ethylene glycol and water
from heat exchangers are regulated by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). If these mixtures are intended for disposal, they
are regulated as "solid waste1* by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Per authority provided by RCRA, EPA has developed a Federal
regulatory scheme for the proper treatment, storage, and disposal
of hazardous waste, a subset of solid waste. We have enclosed a
copy of the Federal hazardous waste regulations as found in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The waste coolant you have described is not listed as a
hazardous waste under EPA's hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR
261.30). However, as a generator of a solid waste, you are still
obligated to determine either from knowledge of the waste coolant
or by appropriate testing of the waste (40 CFR 261.20) whether
your waste exhibits sufficient properties of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity to render them
characteristically hazardous and thus subject to control under
the FedarBjfefessardous waste regulations.
If yf^Kvssts coolant fails to exhibit one or more of the
hazardousfBBjbrmcteristics, than your waste is deemed to be a
nonhazardotts*, solid vast*. Thar* ara no Federal regulations for
nonhazardous vasts generators. You should, however, inquire
about Stats and local regulations that say apply to your vasts
coolant.
-------
We appreciate your efforts to dispose of these wastes
responsibly. If you have any further questions about Federal
regulation* applicable to the coolant mixture, please contact
Robert Dellinger of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
O'S-305/DELLINGER/J.OCALLAGHAN - 382-4646/SLD/7-10-89/CONTROL
NO:SWER-89-0810/DUE DATE: 7-10-89/DISK #27/NAME: EVERIST
-------
UNITED S^TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
" 't 4 i . 19 39(431
AUG I T 1989
Joseph E. Micucci, D.D.S.
Belleyue Medical Building
660 Lincoln Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15202
Dear Dr. Micucci:
This letter responds to your July 30, 1989, request for
information regarding the regulatory status of scrap dental
amalgam under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and potential liability under section 107 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). These issues will be addressed separately.
Dental amalgam is not specifically listed as a hazardous
waste under RCRA. The burden on the generator is to then
determine whether the amalgam exhibits a characteristic of a
hazardous waste. You indicated in your letter that the American
Dental Association (ADA) has conducted research that indicates
that amalgam does not exhibit the characteristic of EP
toxicity. If true, the amalgam would not be a hazardous waste.
However, the responsibility for determining the regulatory
status of a waste is borne by the individual generator (who may
cite the ADA research as applying knowledge of his waste in
determining the regulatory status).
You also state that your collections of amalgam for
recycling or refining are not expected to exceed 100 kg per
month. A generator (in this case, the dentist or dental supply
house) of less than 100 kg per month of total hazardous waste
(not any one particular hazardous waste) or 1 kg per month of
acute hazardous waste is considered a conditionally exempt small
quantity generator. The wastes generated by such a generator is
exempt from regulation provided the generator complies with the
provisions found at 40 CFR 261.5. If, however, the amalgam is
not a hazardous waste, this exempt status would not apply since
there would be no need for the exemption.
Regard£tog your potential liability under section 107 of
CERCLA, tfijii liability is not dependent upon a material's RCRA
regulatory »tatus. Rather, section 107 states that in the event
of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance,
any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for
disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for
transport for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances
owned or possessed by such person shall be liable for the costs
of response. This liability is based upon a person's
-------
UNITED STVTES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- 2 -
the release or threatened release of hazardous
necessarily "wastes," although hazardous wastes
are certa^^K^included) as defined under section 101(14) of the
CERCLA std^Bi. Should your dental amalgam be composed of any
constituerrlirthat meet the definition of CERCLA hazardous
substances, and there is a release from the reclamation facility
(or disposal facility) that received your amalgam, you may be
subject to joint and several liability in an enforcement
action. However, each enforcement action is case-specific and
liability would be determined by the implementing agency in
coordination with the principle responsible parties.
The regulatory status of amalgam provided in this letter
applies to Federal regulations. State regulations may be more
stringent, and I encourage you to contact your State regulatory
agency for an interpretation of the applicable State
regulations. Should you have any further questions regarding
the status or CERCLA liability of your scrap amalgam, you may
contact the RCRA/CERCLA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or may
contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Petruska
Acting Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
IMIIIMIMMIIIIIIIIIItlllMIIJIIMMIIIIMIMIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIl
6s-332-MiTCH-PDisk-MK-8/i6/89-WCBu23
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1989(47)
AUG 25/989
Mr. Jack H. Goldman
Manager, Environmental 5?«i'vices
The Aluminum Association, Inc.
900 19th Street, Northwest
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Goldman:
This is in response to your letter of August 4, 1989
concerning your request that the Agency: (1) adopt your
November 9, 1988 proposed exclusion for spent potliner in place
of the Agency's definition in the March 3, 1989 letter to
Kaiser Aluminum; and (2) adopt the characteristic test per your
November 1988 petition for those portions of spent potliner
that are not excluded from Subtitle C regulation by your
proposal.
In your letter you state that you partially agree with the
Agency'.s March 3, 1989 letter to Kaiser in which EPA determined
that only the carbon portion of the material contained inside
the electrolytic reduction cell constituted the "potliner" and
that the K088 listing did not include the six other materials
identified by Kaiser Aluminum as contained in the "pot" (i.e.,
the cell's, steel shell, steel collector bars, cast iron used to
place steel collector bars in pre-baked carbon blocks, thermal
insulation composed of insulating brick or alumina, the silicon
carbide brick side walls and end walls of the pot, and frozen
aluminum metal pad and electrolytic bath). However, you
indicated that by excluding the insulation from the scope of
the potliner listing, this material would "thereby not be
regulated as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA". it
appears that you have misinterpreted the March 3, 1989 letter
to Kaiser Aluminum.
The purpose of the March 3, 1989 letter was to clarify the
scope of the K088 listing only and provided no interpretation
regarding the regulatory status of these other materials under
Subtitle C. In fact, these wastes would be considered
hazardous if they exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous wastes as defined in 40 CFR 261. Specifically,
the Agency's clarification of the K088 listing would not
1PA
OFFICIAL FILE COP"*
-------
Your request for adoption of the Association's proposed
exclusion under §261.4 and a characteristic test for materials
not covered by the exclusion was made in your comments to the
September 13, 1988 final rule to list six smelting wastes as
hazardous. This request will be addressed in the near future
in a Federal Register notice in which we will respond to all of
the issues raised in petitions submitted on the smelting waste
listing rule. To address these issues, however, the Agency
must propose to grant or deny the petitions and take public
comment on our proposed response before a final action can be
taken.
I hope this letter has clarified our earlier determination
on the scope of K088 and the status of materials not covered by
the listing. Should you have any additional questions, please
feel free to call Denise Wright at 245-3519.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
USB
9441.1989(48)
UM'ED STi'ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCv
r,. WASHINGTON. DC 20460
-
-------
reclaimed material is not used to produce a fuel; and 6) the
reclaimed material is not used to produce a product that win
be placed on the land.
Laclede is not eligible for this exemption. The reason is
that the K062 is trucked (not piped) to the recycling site.
While the Closed-loop exclusion does allow for the use of
"other comparable enclosed means of conveyance," the Agency
would not deem trucks to be comparable. The preamble
discussion found at 51 FR 25443 clearly states EPA's intent
that the closed nature of the process is a decisive factor and
further defines that "closed" refers to "hard connections from
point of generation to point of return to the original
process." Trucks do not meet this definition. In addition, if
the recycled materials are used to produce a product (such as
fertilizer) that is applied to the land (I.e.. . used in a manner
constituting disposal per Section 261.4(a)(8)(iv)), the solid
waste exemption would not apply. There may also be some
question as to whether the storage unit Laclede uses meets the
definition of a tank or a surface impoundment. There was not
enough information provided to make that determination; the
Region or State must define the storage unit.
The second exclusion that Laclede is claiming is found at
section 721.104(a)(7) of the State regulation (which is assumed
to be equivalent to 40 CFR 261.2(e)(ii), involving use/reuse of
a material as a substitute for a commercial product). While
this exclusion may apply to the iron sulfate by-product from
the reclamation activity, it would definitely not apply to the
K062 waste. This exclusion applies to materials which are used
or reused without reclamation (see the January 4, 1985 Federal
Register notice, 50 FR 637, 638). The K062 is clearly being
reclaimed and, therefore, is not eligible for this exclusion.
Again, the exemption would not apply if use constituting
disposal is involved (see Section 261.2(e)(2)(i)).
The third exclusion Laclede claims is under section
721.102(e)(1)(B). of the State regulation (which is assumed to
be equivalent to 40 CFR 261.4(a){7), involving the exemption of
spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid from
the definition of solid waste). Apparently, Laclede is
confusing reclamation of a spent material with the production
of virgin material. The K062 is definitely being reclaimed
(i.Q.. contaminants are being removed to make it reusable).
The preamble discussion found at 50 FR 642 (January 4, 1985)
clearly describes the process of using spent sulfuric acid as
an ingredient in the production of virgin sulfuric acid.
Nothing in the reclamation process indicates that virgin
sulfuric acid is being produced with K062 used as an
ingredient. Therefore, this exclusion is also not applicable
to Laclede.
-------
The regulatory determination of concern associated with
the Laclede facility is that K062 is a hazardous waste being
reclaimed. The residues of the reclamation process (which
itself is not regulated) are also hazardous waste K062
(although the sulfuric acid that is recovered is an effective
substitute for a commercial chemical product) and must meet the
treatment standards (and notification requirements) under the
land disposal restrictions program (40 CFR Part 268) prior to
placement on the land (i.e.. before a fertilizer produced from
the iron sulfate can be applied to the land). Also, the iron
sulfate (after reclamation) may be demonstrated to be an
effective substitute for a commercial chemical product for uses
other than those constituting disposal and, if so, would cease
to be a K062-derived hazardous waste.
If you have any additional questions, please contact
Mitch Kidwell at FTS 475-8551.
-------
9441.1939(49)
UNITED STATES 6MVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 28 1969
Of net O*
SOLID WASTE AND e^ERGENC1" RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Waste Identification for a Bottling Facility
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch (2AWM-HWC)
This memorandum is in response to your memorandum dated
September 11, 1989, in which you requested waste identification
clarification on two issues concerning Fisher Scientific t Inc.
The first issue revolves around the containerizing of
commercial chemical products. The facility takes product in
bulk form and containerizes it in smaller vessels via a process
line. During the process, some residual material from
commercial chemical product number one (e.g., toluene) remains
in the process line after purging with pressurized nitrogen
gas. When the next bulk order is processed, which involves a
chemically different product (e.g., trichloroethylene)
commercial chemical product number one contaminates the first
few vessels of commercial chemical product number two. This
impure product is emptied into a common holding tank (i.e.,
becomes waste). You ask for the regulatory status of this
waste. This waste is an off-specification commercial chemical
product and as such is a listed hazardous waste. In the above
example, commercial chemical product number two clearly is not
used for its solvent properties and, because it is mixed with
commercial chemical product number one, the resulting mixture
would b« correctly designated as an off-specification
commercijift chemical product.
The second issue concerns characteristic waste (nitric
acid). The characterization of solid waste as hazardous is
dictated by the regulations under RCRA and appropriate State
regulations. The Department of Transportation regulations do
not overlap in this particular instance; thus it is correct to
state that 49 CFR Section 172.101 has no correlation to, and
does not supersede, 40 CFR Section 261.21. If the waste meets
the description under Section 261.21, then the waste is
classified as Hazardous Waste No. D001; if the waste meets the
-------
description under Section 261.22, then it is classified as
Hazardous Waste No. D002.
If you have any additional questions on these issues,
please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Cochran of my staff at
FTS 382-4769.
-------
UHITF- VTATESTHVWWWENTXi: PROTECT!' ACEKCT 9441.1989(50)
OCT 20
Mr. Kevin Anthony
Environmental Assistant
MagneTek Ohio Transformer
1776 Constitution Avenue
Louisville, OH 44641
Dear Mr. Anthony:
Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1989, in which you
requested information concerning the handling of "Fw series solid
wastes. More specifically, you requested that we send you
information on handlers and alternate disposal or reclamation
processes for rags and similar materials, which have absorbed
various volatiles and "F" wastes through wipe down and cleaning
processes. In general, the EPA Regional Offices are responsible
for this type of inquiry. However, because you have indicated that
Region 5 referred you to my office, my staff has coordinated with
them to prepare the following response for you.
Rags and similar materials may be incinerated and the residue
landfilled. Laundering these rags is an alternative to
incineration, for those rags which can be laundered. Dan Patulski
of Region 5 did not have any additional information on handlers and
alternate disposal or reclamation processes for rags and similar
materials.
If you have any further questions, you can contact
Mr. Patulski at (312) 886-0656. He has your letter and will be
given a copy of this reply.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*- -VMV-_-"' WASHINGTON. D.C
9441.1989(51)
OCT 5 1989
SOLID WASTE. AND EMERGbNCV RESPONSE
Mr. Travis P. Wagner
Labat-Anderson Incorporated
2200 Clarendon Boulevard
Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22201
Dear Mr. Wagner:
I an writing in response to your letter requesting written
clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) definition of a liquid as it applies to ignitable and
corrosive wastes.
There are three RCRA definitions which include the term
"liquid". The definitions vary depending on the specific
regulatory application. For hazardous waste identification by
means of the three relevant characteristics (Ignitability,
Corrosivity or Extraction Procedure Toxicity), the general term
liquid applies. "Liquid" is defined as the material (liquid
phase) that is expressed from the waste in Step 2 of Method 1310
(the Extraction Procedure).
As Mr. Friedman indicated, only those wastes that contain a
liquid component are subject to testing against the flash point
criteria of Section 261.21. Therefore, if a waste does not yield
a liquid phase when subjected to Method 1310, it cannot be an
ignitable waste under the criteria of Section 261.21(a)(l).
Similarly, Section 261.22(a)(2) states that a liquid waste
is a corrosive waste if it exhibits a pH less than or equal to 2
or greater than or equal to 12.5. If a waste does not yield a
liquid when subjected to Method 1310, it is not evaluated against
this criteria and is not a corrosive waste.
A second definition of liquids which is applied to determine
whether a drummed waste is prohibited from land disposal because
it contains "free liquid", is found in Method 9095 (the Paint
Filter Test). If any material drips from the filter during the
test, the waste is deemed to contain "free liquid" and is banned
from land disposal.
-------
Many people have used the Paint Filter Test to evaluate
wastes for ignitability or corrosivity. This is done to save
time and effort. Since liquids that separate out of the waste
using Method 9095 are generally also liquids using Method 1310
wastes that contain ignitable or corrosive liquids using Method
9095 can generally be considered to be ignitable or corrosive
wastes.
The third definition of liquids was developed when the 1984
amendments to RCRA prohibited the use of adsorbents to solidify
liquid wastes if the adsorbents would release the contained
liquids under landfill pressures. Prohibited adsorbents are
those that contain "releasable liquids". While the Agency has not
yet promulgated a specific test procedure for defining when a
waste contains "releasable liquid11, a draft procedure has been
developed and proposed - Method 9096 (the Liquid Release Test).
I trust that this explanation clarifies the RCRA
definitions. Please contact us if you need further assistance.
Sincer
ance
irector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1989(52)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OCT 6
Mr. Daniel Threlfall
Chemviron, Inc.
P.O. Box 15598
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15224
Dear Mr. Threlfall:
This letter is in response to your letter of September 19,
1989 concerning the wastewater treatment sludges generated at
witco's Petrolia, Pennsylvania facility. As I understand the
situation, these sludges are considered hazardous by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER),
because the sludges may contain small amounts of methanol. I
also understand that you are currently awaiting a decision from
PADER on a petition requesting the exclusion of these sludges
from consideration as hazardous waste. As part of their
decision-making process, PADER has requested that EPA document
its regulatory classification of these sludge wastes. Our
classifcation of these wastes, which assumes that the information
provided in your letter is correct, is discussed below.
EPA's listed hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific
sources are presented in 40 CFR Part 261.31 and 261.32,
respectively. The wastewater treatment sludges generated at
Witco's facility are not described in either of those lists.
Furthermore, the analyses you conducted on samples of the waste
indicate that the waste is not hazardous with respect to the
hazardous waste characteristics listed in 40 CFR Part 261.20.
Thus, EPA does not consider the wastewater treatment sludges you
describe to be listed hazardous wastes or characteristically
hazardous wastes. Please note, however, that a change-in the
kind or concentration of hazardous constituents present in the
sludge could effect the determination as to whether the sludge
would fail one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous
waste.
As you are probably aware, however, the State of
Pennsylvania has been authorized by EPA to conduct its own
hazardous waste program. Any state authorized by EPA must
ponduct a program which is at least equivalent to the Federal
program; states may, however, choose to operate a hazardous waste
program which is more stringent or broader-in-scope than the
Federal program. With respect to the sludges discussed herein,
it appears to be the case that state regulations classify these
sludges as hazardous waste.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMA""
OCTOBER 1989 9441.1989(53)
6. Clarification of F019 T.-feting and Applicability to Other Wastewater
Treatment Sludges
A manufacturing process involves the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum. Wastewaters from this process are treated and a sludge results
that meets the F019 listing in 40 CFR Section 26131. Treatment of the
wastewaters generates a less dense liquid supernatant overlying the listed
sludge. Will this supernatant carry the F019 waste code as well?
The resulting supernatant will not be considered F019 because it is the
wastewater from which the sludge was formed, and because the
wastewater is not itself listed. The F019 listing applies to the sludge
produced from treating wastewaters from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum. The hazardous constituents present in the
influent wastewater settle out and concentrate in the sludge.
Therefore, it is this sludge which the Agency regulates as listed
hazardous waste F019. The treatment of any wastewaters may
preserve an aqueous supernatant from the wastewater The
supernatant will be considered a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous waste set forth in 40 CFR Part
261 Subpart C, or if some relevant act of mixing of the wastewater
with the listed sludge occurs.
A discussion of F006 sludge and supernatant in the August 17,1988,
Federal Register (53 FR 31153) has direct applicability to this situation.
The discussion states that "filtrate from F006 sludges could be
hazardous under the derived-from rule" as could be the case with
filtrate from F019 sludges, and any other listed wastewater treatment
sludges. There may be cases during wastewater treatment in which
hazardous constituents that have settled out of wastewaters into a
listed sludge become recombined and resuspended in the
supernatant, resulting in a derived-from hazardous waste. This
uncommon situation will generally occur due to improper design or
malfunction of a wastewater treatment system. In these cases, the
burden of proof will be on the Agency to prove that hazardous
constituents in the sludge have become commingled with the
supernatant. The preamble goes on to say that if the filtrate is similar
in identity and constituent concentration to the influent wastewater
to the wastewater treatment process, it is not considered to be a
derived-from hazardous waste. Rather, it will be viewed as the
original influent wastewater. These situations will be addressed by
the Agency on a case-by-case basis.
Source: Bob Scarberry (202) 382-4770
Denise Wright (202) 245-3519
Research: Jenny Peters
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1989 9441.1989(54)
2. Manufacturing Process Unit
An owner/operator of a military facility manufacturing explosives is in
the process of cleaning out his manufacturing units (tanks). They are
cleaned by rinsing and then by flashing or torching the inside of the unit.
k this tank required to be permitted under RCRA as a treatment tank, i.e.,
is this activity classified as open burning/open detonation?
This tank is classified as a manufacturing process unit and therefore
is not subject to RCRA regulation. Because it is not a hazardous
waste storage tank, it will not be regulated under the Subpart J
standards of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. The waste inside a
manufacturing process unit is not regulated until it exits the unit or
until it remains in the unit (which has ceased operation) longer than
90 days, per 40 CFR Section 261.4(c). In this case, once the waste is
removed by rinsing, it should be handled according to RCRA Subtitle
C regulations, if it is hazardous waste.
The subsequent activity of cleaning out the manufacturing process
unit by torching is not regulated under RCRA, if it takes place
promptly. Once the unit ceases operation, the removal of residues
must occur before 90 days are up; otherwise, removal could be
regulated. Also, regardless of timing, if the operator removes any
residues from the tank after burning, the residues may be subject to
regulation if they are hazardous per RCRA Subtitle C
Source: Ed Abrams (202) 382-4787
Research: Mary Stevens
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1989 9441.1989(55)
7. Clarification of Spent Solvent
A foam manufacturer uses 100% CFC - 11 (trichlorofluoromethane) in the
production of flexible foam. The trichlorofluoromethane acts as a blowing
agent by physically opening the foam cell. It is then released into the
ambient environment and is captured by a vapor recovery system. Once
collected, the spent trichlorofluoromethane is sent off-site for recycling.
Should this material be managed as F002?
The spent trichlorofluoromethane is a solid waste because it is a spent
material being reclaimed. In order for the spent trichlorofluoro-
methane to be considered F002, the trichlorofluoromethane must
have been used as a solvent The December 31,1985 Federal Register
(50 FR 53316) clarifies that "only solvents that are used for their
'solvent* properties — that is, to solublize (dissolve) or mobilize other
constituents" would be covered by the F001 - F005 spent solvent
listings. Specific examples include "solvents used in degreasing,
cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants and reaction and
synthesis media." In the case of foam production, the trichloro-
fluoromethane is not being used to solublize or mobilize, rather, it is
simply opening the form cell by a physical mechanism. Therefore,
the spent trichlorofluoromethane would not meet the F002 listing.
Since the use of trichlorofluoromethane in this manner does not
meet a hazardous waste listing, this spent material would be a
hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA only if it exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic under 40 CFR 261.21 - 261.24.
Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475-6715
Research: Mary Beth Clary
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY 9441.1989(56}
NOVEMBER 1989
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—NOVEMBER 1989
A. RCRA
1. Treatability Studies Sample Exemption
The treatability studies sample exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(e) and (f) conditionally
exempts generators of waste samples and owners or operators of laboratories or
testing facilities conducting certain defined treatability studies from Subtitle C
hazardous waste requirements. Is it within the scope of 40 CFR 261.4(e) and (f)
for the testing facility to return the samples to the generators of the samples after
the treatability study is completed?
Yes; 40 CFR 261.4 (f)(10) states, as one of the conditions of the test facility
exemption, as follows: "The facility determines whether any unused sample
or residues generated by the treatability study are hazardous waste under
Section 261.3 and, if so, are subject to Parts 261 through 268, and Part 270 of
this Chapter, unless the residues and unused samples are returned to the
sample originator under the Section 261.4(e) exemption." 40 CFR 261.4(e) is
analogous to the sample exclusion in 261.4(d) in that its intent is to exclude
samples from all regulations under Subtitle C as long as all provisions in
the exclusion are complied with. This is restated in the preamble to
Sections 261.4(e) and (f), July 19,1988 Federal Register (53 £R 27292, 27295),
which states that, upon completion of the treatability study, the owner or
operator of the laboratory can return the unused samples and residue to the
generator or.:-,m} le collector wF ur,f gaining .excluded from Subt;' • C
hazardous waste regulations.
Source: Michael Petruska, OSW (202) 475-8551
Research: Renee T. LaValle
------- |