-------
In addition, the I PC has collected TCLP data from more than 20 companies on their photo-
resist skins and solid residues. AH samples passed the TCLP test. None showed toxicity
characteristics high enough to be classified as characteristic hazardous waste. In order to
properly monitor and control the filtered skins, IPC encourages all of its members to
conduct periodic TCLP testing on the skin residues. We feel that these photoresist skins are
already properly regulated through the present TCLP testing regimens.
Despite letters and supporting data from the IPC (enclosed) and state EPAs as well as
extensive communication from OuPont and other photoresist suppliers, we have still
received no written clarification or resolution of this issue from the Federal EPA office. As a
result, the Region III interpretation has caused industry-wide confusion and is increasing
waste handling costs for circuit board manufacturers without yielding any environmental
benefit. Capturing non-hazardous photoresist solids under the RCRA F006 classification
greatly increases manufacturing costs while using up precious hazardous waste landfill
capacity that is needed for genuine hazardous waste.
If the Region III ruling is allowed to stand, it could add up to 10 million pounds annually to
the national hazardous waste stream. This unnecessary and costly expense would further
reduce the competitiveness of an industry already hard pressed by foreign competitors
operating under less stringent environmental and safety regulations.
While waiting for a response from your office, a number of IPC member companies or
regional circuit associations have proceeded with seeking interpretations from the state and
local authorities. We have enclosed copies of all such rulings received to date. Thus far,
every single state ruling has contradicted the Region III interpretation.
For these reasons, we feel that the Region III decision is clearly erroneous and should be
overturned by your office. We respectfully ask that you please expedite resolution of this
issue at your earliest convenience. If you need additional information or have questions, we
would be happy to discuss this issue and answer any questions at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Rhodes • Dr. John Lott Michael Kerr
Director of IPC '""' Senior Technical Circuit Center
Environmental, Safety Consultant Chairman of IPC
& Government Relations DuPont Company EHST Committee
Programs 919-248-5046 513-435-2131
708-677-2850
cc: Rick Brandes, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
-------
DuPont Electronic Materials
14TW Alexander Drive
P. 0. Box 13999
Research Triangle Park. NC 27709-3999
uU PONt) Tel 1919)248-5000
DuPont Electronic Materials
Chronology of Appeal on Resist Skins
• June 16, 1992 - DuPont letter to U.S. EPA asking for clarification on why resist stripper skins
and sludge were classified as F006 classification, based on industry data that there were no
hazardous materials in the skins and sludge.
• July 2, 1992 - IPC letter on behalf of the industry was sent to Sylvia Lowrance, USEPA, asking
that a clarification and reconsideration be made onof EPA Region III decision on F006 classification
for photoresist skins.
• Feb. 3, 1993 - Meeting between EPA Chief of Waste Identification Branch, Rick Brandes, and his
staff with DuPont representatives and their lawyer. EPA asked for additional information to confirm
the contention that PWB manufacturers do not intentionally allow metals into their stripper solution
in order to dispose of them. EPA indicated at the time that Federal EPA was in agreement with at
least the skins NOT being F006, but would need some time to "mend their fences with the regions".
Nothing was put into writing.
• August 2,1993 - letter sent to EPA by DuPont with arguments answering questions raised at the
February meeiting, among them were ones showing that the metal concentration in strippers were
not being used as a method of disposal for metals.
• December 6, 1993 - DuPont spoke to Rick Brandes by phone to find out what had been done with
respect to the F006 issue. Mr. Brandes indicated that there were still problems with some of the
regional EPAs as to their interpretation. DuPont indicated that Minnesota had decided that both
skins and sludge were NOT F006 and give Mr. Brandes the name of the EPA official who had been
sent the Minnesota information.
• January 24,1994 - DuPont discussed the problem with Mr. Gregory Helms (Chief, Characteristic
Section - Waste Identification Branch) who was standing in for Mr. Brandes at the AESF/EPA
convention in Orlando. Mr. Helms indicated that Region HI was still not cooperating with
Washington EPA on the interpretation. Mr. Helms said that another follow-up letter might help.
• February 3,1994 - DuPont sent a follow-up letter to Mr. Brandes - reiterating all the above,
indicating that the Minnesota state EPA had found that the material are not F006, and that the
interpretation was causing the industry an unnecessary expense and loss of competitiveness. A copy
of the letters from Minnesota and Midwest Circuits Association was included.
• March 1,1994 - We met with Mr. Brandes, but were unable to reach a resolution of the skins
issue.
JWL - 3/11/94
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ® Pfinted on Rec»cl8(1 Pap8r
ET-166 Rev. 11/93
-------
Summary of States/Regions Findings on F006
Region 2 - New York State - finds resist skins and sludge are NOT F006
[Hadco]
Region 4 - Florida State - finds that skins and sludge are NOT F006
[Name withheld]
Region 5 - Minnesota State - finds that resist skins & sludge are NOT F006.
[Midwest Circuit Association]
Region 9 - Arizona ( and soon to be California) - find that resist skins & sludge are NOT F006.
[Continental Circuits Inc.]
[Printed Circuit Alliance]
JWL-3/11/94
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
! WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9443.1994(05)
JUL I 5 1994
Mr. Scott Tease OFFICE OF
Technical Representative SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
HUBBARD-HALL INC. RESPONSE
P.O. Box 969
Inman, S.C. 29349
Reference: Applicability of Hazardous Waste Codes to the LASER
EX chemical polishing system
Dear Mr. Tease:
This responds to your letter dated June 15, 1994, requesting
an interpretation of the potential applicability of hazardous waste
codes to your process for chemical polishing.
It is our understanding, that LASER EX is a peroxide-based
chemical polishing system, which entails the chemical oxidation of
the surfaces of brass and copper alloys as the final step after
production and prior to plating, lacquering, antiquing, or
assembly. Specifically the process dips parts to be chemically
polished in an oxidative chemical bath. The actual process entails
an aqueous wash followed by a sulfuric predip, the LASER EX bath,
and a sulfuric acid post dip. A cold water rinse is performed
between each step. The process reportedly does not employ
electroplating or use cyanides.
Based on the information you have provided us, the process
does not employ electroplating or the use of cyanides and is
separate and distinct from any such operations. such process
wastes are not within the scope of the wastes listed in 40 CFR Part
261 Subpart D. However, solid wastes which are not listed
hazardous wastes in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D, may also be classed
as hazardous wastes, if they exhibit any of the characteristics of
a hazardous waste found in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C.
For example, based on the reported compositions of the baths
it is possible for waste baths or rinses containing sulfuric acid
to exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity (40 CFR 261.22).
Aqueous wastes which have a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater
than or equal to 12.5 must be managed as EPA Hazardous Waste Number
D002. In the case of the LASER EX bath and subsequent washes,
these waste baths and subsequent rinses may exhibit the
characteristic of ignitability and would require management as EPA
Hazardous Waste Number D001 (40 CFR 261.21). This is because the
bath contains the inorganic oxidizer hydrogen peroxide, which is
capable of severely exacerbating a fire once started by yielding
Recycl«d/R«cyclabl«
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% ntcycitd fiber
-------
oxygen to stimulate the combustion of organic matter. Once the
hydrogen peroxide has been chemically decomposed, the wastes would
no longer exhibit the ignitability characteristic due to the
presence of an oxidizer. Wastes which are hazardous because they
exhibit one of the 40 CFR 261 Subpart C characteristics of
hazardous waste remain hazardous and subject to the regulations
governing hazardous waste management, until they no longer exhibit
the characteristic. However, as stated in the final sentence of 40
CFR 261.3(d) (1), "wastes that exhibit a characteristic at. the point
of generation may still be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
Part 268, even if they no longer exhibit a characteristic at the
point of disposal."
The above discussion is limited to hazardous waste codes which
are most likely to be produced in the LASER EX process, as
described to us. This in no way limits the obligation of any waste
generator to fully characterize solid wastes being generated (see
40 CFR 262.11) and to manage such wastes in accordance with all
applicable federal or state regulations. States may impose
regulations more stringent than the federal program. Therefore,
you should also consult the local RCRA regulatory authority for
where the process is to be utilized.
Rick Brandes, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
-------
HUBBARD-HALL INC.
= O BOX 559 • 'NMAN. 5 C 29349
•303; -172-9031 • FAX i303) 472-21 ;7
June 15, 1994
Mr. Micheal H. Shapiro
Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am writing you to request a ruling on the waste classification of a
new chemical process. We have named our newest chemical
polishing system the Laser EX; it is based on hydrogen peroxide and
a stabilizer package. The polish is intended for use on brass and
copper alloys. I have already met with Max Diaz on the line, his
initial response was that the waste should not need to be classified as
long as the sludge produced in waste treatment passes a leech test. I
have given him much more information than I can include in this
short letter.
The Laser EX process is very simple. It involves an aqueous clean, a
sulfuric predip, the Laser dip step, and a sulfuric acid post dip.
There is cold water rinses in between each step; it is the waste that is
carried over into these rinses that we need the ruling on. I have
included with this letter a product data sheet and an M.S.D.S. for
more information.
Unlike most peroxide based systems, this system does not etch the
surface. Rather, it oxidizes the surface to form a protective brown
copper oxide coating over the alloy. When we remove this dark
brown oxide film a bright, leveled, and very clean surface is the
result. Some examples of where the Laser EX may find uses is as the
final step after production prior to plating, lacquering, antiqueing, or
assembly. Laser can take the place of hand buffing which leaves a
very difficult soil to clean off the part. The Laser EX is also a good
replacement for strong acid mix bright dips. There is no chance that
there will be water carried over into this step from a plating solution.
Laser EX does not use any electrical current for brightening. It may
MAIN OFFICE: 563 SOUTH LEONARD ST.. VVATER8URY. CONNECTICUT
-------
HUBBARD-HALL INC.
= 3 3cx 969 • :NMAN. 3 c 293^9
303 J72-303! • FAX 303, -172-21 17
not effect your ruling but the system uses no chelators, cyanides,
chromates, phosphates, or ozone deleting solvents.
Mr. Shapiro, I would like to thank you in advance for your help. If
there are any questions that you need answered please feel free to
give me a call. You can leave me a voice mail message at (800) 632
5017 box #256, or you can contact me directly at (919) 217 8281.
Along with the information on the Laser EX, I have included
information on our company. We have been in business for over a
century and a half; I hope you can tell by our literature that we our a
responsible supplier. Again, thank you so much for your help.
Please take care and God Bless.
Tease
Technical Representative
cc. Max Diaz
MAIN OFFICE' 563 SOUTH LEONARD ST.. WATERBURY. CONNECTICUT 06708
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
November 3, 1994 9443.1994(06)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Discarded Ammunition of 0.50 Caliber or Less
FROM: Sonya Sasseville, Chief
Alternative Technology Section (5303W)
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David Neleigh, Chief
New Mexico/Federal Facilities Section (6H-PN)
Region VI
This is in response to your request of June 14, 1994 in which you ask for a
clarification of EPA's policy regarding the disposal of munitions less than or equal to 0.50
caliber. EPA's policy was set forth in a June 2, 1988 memorandum on Classification of
Discarded Class C Explosives.
In that June memorandum, EPA stated "To date, only those Class C explosives
identified as off-specification small arms ball ammunition up to and including 0.50 caliber
have been demonstrated not to be subject to the Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements."
However, EPA did not intend to imply that small arms ball ammunition could not be
regulated for reasons other than reactivity. The Agency has maintained that small arms
ammunition intended for disposal, up to and including 0.50 caliber, is not reactive within the
meaning of 40 CFR 261.23(a)(6). The sole fact that small caliber ball ammunition is not
reactive does not necessarily exempt the waste from Subtitle C regulation. Non-reactive
wastes exhibiting another hazardous waste characteristic would be regulated. For example,
certain small caliber ammunition may fail the TCLP for lead. Generators of discarded small
caliber ammunition must determine whether their waste exhibits any other hazardous waste
characteristics identified in §261 Subpart C.
Your memo also describes an instance where a waste is disposed of in a popping
furnace "that does not fit the description of an incinerator and the munitions are less than or
equal to 0.50 caliber, then this would not be regulated under Subtitle C ..." You are correct
in that a device treating discarded ball munitions less than or equal to 0.50 caliber, would not
be subject to Subtitle C regulations, unless the waste fails for another characteristic rendering
it hazardous. However, please note that EPA classifies "popping furnaces" as incinerators
because the process that occurs in the enclosed unit is controlled flame combustion, as
discussed in the attached July 17, 1987 letter from Bruce Weddle to Jesse Cabellon.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
If you have any questions, please contact Jeffrey Gaines at (703) 308-8655.
Attachment
cc: Permit Section Chiefs, Regions I-V, and VII-X
Subpart X Permit Writers' Workgroup
Waste Combustion Permit Writers' Workgroup
Frank McAlister, PSPD
Jim Michael, PSPD
Jeffrey Gaines, PSPD
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FILE COPY
9442.1995(01)
OFFICi OF
SOLD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Charles D. Duthler
ICI Composites, Inc.
2055 East Technology Circle
Tempe, AZ 85284
Dear Mr. Duthler:
This is in response to your letter of July 12, 1994, concerning the characterization of
waste streams from polymeric coating operations. You stated that you are working on a
project to ensure that waste streams from polymeric coating operations are properly
characterized and you ask several questions related to these waste streams. We have
addressed your questions in the discussions below. In some cases, the determinations you
seek are based on site-specific factors and are best made by the appropriate regulatory agency
(i.e., State, or EPA Region implementing the RCRA program for a particular State).
Where applicable, we have provided general information to assist you in making your
determinations, but we recommend that you contact other more appropriate offices for the
determinations you seek.
1. How does a generator determine if his/her equipment qualifies as a manufacturing process
unit?
As you have noted, the preamble language at 45 FR 72025, October 30, 1980,
describes examples of manufacturing process units. These include "...distillation columns,
flotation units, and discharge trays of screens..." The preamble language also describes
these units as "tanks, or tank-like units (e.g., distillation units) which are designed to hold
valuable products or raw materials in storage or transportation or during manufacturing."
(45 FR 72025, October 30, 1980) A determination of whether the units you describe are
manufacturing process units is best made by the regulatory agency (i.e., EPA Region or
State) implementing the RCRA program in the area of operation. In addition, States with
authorized programs may impose more stringent requirements. For these reasons,
consultation with the State in which polymeric coating operations will take place is
recommended.
2. If an ignitable residue is removed from a unit with a wiper, does the resulting waste
carry the ignitability characteristic, or is the contaminated wiper to be evaluated to determine
if it exhibits the characteristic? How does the mixture rule apply to wipers used to clean
hazardous wastes?
contain* M !••« 50% fteyet«d flbtf
-------
A material that is a solid waste is by definition hazardous waste if it either 1) meets
one of the listings in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, or 2) exhibits one or more of the
characteristics described in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. Because there are no explicit
listings for "used wipers" in Part 261, Subpart D, a wiper can only be defined as listed
hazardous waste if the wiper either contains listed waste, or is otherwise mixed with
hazardous waste. Whether or not a. used wiper contains a listed hazardous waste, is mixed
with listed hazardous waste, only exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, or is not a
waste at all, will require site-specific determination. Any determinations or interpretations
regarding this diverse and variable waste stream should be made by the appropriate State or
EPA Region. We have enclosed a memo from Michael Shapiro to EPA Regional Waste
Management Division Directors dated February 14, 1994, on the subject of industrial wipers
and shop towels for your information.
3. What is the status of the proposed rule amending SW-846 to identify the technique suitable
to determine if a material contains a liquid for an ignitability determination?
The proposed rule is still undergoing Agency review. Promulgation of the Agency's
final ruling should occur in early 1995. In the interim, the Paint Filter test is the method to
use to determine if a free liquid is present for ignitability determination.
4. How does a generator determine if his/her wastes exhibit the potential for spontaneous
combustion?
No test method has been promulgated for "spontaneous combustion". It is the
generator's responsibility to compare the properties of his waste with the narrative definition
at 40 CFR §261.21(a)(2) and determine if the waste poses a hazard if improperly disposed.
Also be aware that the U. S. Department of Transportation, at 49 CFR §173.124{b),
discusses "spontaneously combustible material" and describes a Test Method for Materials
Liable to Spontaneous Combustion in 49 CFR Part 173 Appendix E.
I hope this letter is of assistance. If you have further questions, please contact Ann
Codrington at (202)260-4777, or Oliver Fordham at (202)260-4778.
David Bussard,
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosures
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
> WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FE9 7 MS 9442.1995(02)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Richard w. Goodwin
Environmental Consultants Associates
14 Ramapo Lane
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1994 requesting
information about policies regarding self-certification of non-
hazardous waste.
Policies do exist for self-certifying that some types of
waste are non-hazardous but not for others.
If waste is not "listed" nor derived from a "listed"
hazardous waste it would be hazardous only due to characteristics
at 40 CFR 261, Subpart C. In this case, a generator may either
test the waste or use knowledge to determine that it does not
exhibit one of the regulatory "characteristics" in 40 CFR 261 and
thus is not a hazardous waste.
If the waste is "listed" or derived from a "listed"
hazardous waste, that is, if it appears on one of the lists in 40
CFR 261, Subpart D, then the generator cannot currently self-
determine that a treated or mixed waste is no longer hazardous.
Instead, they must petition EPA to remove their waste under 40
CFR Sections 260.20 and 260.22. The waste is regulated until EPA
grants the petition. All of this is true whether the waste is to
be disposed of, or beneficially recycled, although EPA has
certain special exemptions in 40 CFR 261.2(e), 261.4, and 261.6,
for certain kinds of recycling.
R«cycl*6/R*cycUbl« • Printed wiffi VegeaWe Ol Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Posuxxisumer)
-------
EPA is currently developing a procedure by which listed
wastes can also be self-certified as no longer hazardous. That
rulemaking is referred to as the Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule. We expect proposal of this rule to be published in the
Federal Register by fall, 1995.
Thank for your interest, ana I apologize for the delay in
responding to your inquiry.
Sincerely yours,
Shapiro, Director
of Solid Waste
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 27 1S95 9442.1995(03)
OFFICE OF
SOLD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Daniel Wozniak
Environmental and Safety Engineer
YKK AP America, Inc.
100 Firetower Road
Dublin, GA31021
Reference: Clarification of F006/F019 Interpretive Letter
Dear Mr. Wozniak:
This letter is in response to your request for further clarification of our
October 20, 1994 interpretive letter in reference to wastes generated from your
aluminum coating process. The following is the revised version of the letter,
reproduced here for future reference purposes. This action is being taken because
the phrase "metal salts" was inadvertently included in the original letter and is
irrelevant with respect to the intent of the listing.
Your process consists basically of three unit operations which are described
below, together with a discussion of the relevant hazardous waste listing
descriptions:
o The aluminum is first anodized in sulfuric acid. The F006 listing description
(40 CFR 261.31) specifically excludes wastewater treatment sludges from
sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum.
o The anodized material is next sealed and colored by immersion in solutions
of inorganic or organic colorants. Neither ferrocyanide nor chromate-
containing solutions are used in this coloring process. The material is finally
coated by electro-deposition with a clear acrylic film.
Based on the information you provided us, these processes apparently do
not involve the use of chromates or cyanides; thus, any wastes generated from this
process do not satisfy the descriptions of F006 or F019. Additionally, since these
processes are not identified in any of the specific or non-specific source hazardous
waste listings in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, any wastes generated from this
Recycfedftecyclabie
Prime* *mh Seydnola to* on p*o*f \tttt
-------
process would only be subject to evaluation for hazardous waste characteristics, as
specified at 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C.
Please be aware that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6926}
individual States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous
waste programs in lieu of the Federal program. When States are not authorized to
administer their own program, the appropriate EPA Regional office administers the
program and is the appropriate contact for any case-specific determinations.
Please also note that under Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6929)
States retain authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than Federal regulatory requirements. Although this interpretation
indicates that the wastes generated from the above processes are not subject to
the hazardous waste listings under federal regulations, the wastes may therefore
be subject to more stringent state or local regulations.
Thank you for your patience in this matter. If you have any further
questions, please contact Max Diaz of my staff at (202) 260-4786.
Wjlliam F. Brandes
Chief, Waste Identification Branch
cc: Jeffrey T. Pallas, Region IV
Renee Hudson Woodley, Georgia DNR
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 1 5 1994
go I I ^ iww » SaC WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Daniel Wozniak
Environmental and Safety Engineer
YKK AP America, Inc.
100 Firetower Road
Dublin, GA 31021
Dear Mr. Wozniak:
This letter is in response to your letter of November 24,
1993, outlining your aluminum coating process, and inquiring if
any of the wastes generated meet the hazardous waste listing
descriptions for F006 or F019 published at 40 CFR 261.31. We
have consulted with Mr. Jeffrey T. Pallas, Hazardous Waste
Management Branch, U.S. EPA Region IV and Ms. Renee Hudson
Goodley, Georgia Department of Natural Resources in preparing
this response.
According to your description in your letter, your process
consists basically of three unit operations which are described
below, together with a discussion of the relevant hazardous waste
listing descriptions:
o The aluminum is first anodized in sulfuric acid. The F006
listing description (40 CFR 261.31) specifically excludes
wastewater treatment sludges from sulfuric acid anodizing of
aluminum.
o The anodized material is next sealed and colored by
immersion in solutions of inorganic or organic colorants.
Neither ferrocyanide nor chromate-containing solutions are
used in this coloring process. The material is finally
coated by electro-deposition with a clear acrylic film.
Based on the information you provided us, these processes
apparently do not involve the use of metal salts, chromates, or
cyanides; thus, any wastes generated from this process do not
satisfy the descriptions of F006 or F019. Additionally, since
these processes are not identified in any of the specific or non-
specific source hazardous waste listings in 40 CFR Part 261,
Subpart D, any wastes generated from this process would only be
subject to evaluation for hazardous waste characteristics, as
specified at 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C.
Ftecycted/ftocyclabi*
*UHM w«i» S»yidno«» ** on paper mm
•omains M Mttt S0% rt«yclt4 fiber
-------
Please be aware that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
Section 6926) individual States can be authorized to administer
and enforce their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the
Federal program. When States are not authorized to administer
their own program, the appropriate EPA Regional office
administers the program and is the appropriate contact for any
case-specific determinations. Please also note that under
Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6929) States retain
authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than Federal regulatory requirements. Although this
interpretation indicates that the wastes generated from the above
processes are not subject to the hazardous waste listings under
federal regulations, the wastes may therefore be subject to more
stringent state or local regulations.
Thank you for your patience in this matter. If you have any
further questions, please contact Max Diaz of my staff at (202)
260-4786.
William F. Brandes
Chief, Waste Identification Branch
cc: Jeffrey T. Pallas, Region IV
Renee Hudson Woodley, Georgia DNR
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 2 5 1995
9442.1995 (04)
OFFICE Of
SOXO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Priscilla F. Adler
DEMETRIOU, DEL GUERCIO, SPRINGER & MOVER
801 South Grand Avenue, 10th Floor.
Los Angeles, California 90017-4613
Dear Ms. Adler:
I am writing in response to your May 10, 1995 request for an interpretation of 40 CFR
261.32 with respect the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste No. K052 ("tank bottoms Geaded) from
the petroleum industry"). Specifically, you inquired whether or not tank bottoms removed from
tanks containing only naphtha would be deemed to be K052 hazardous wastes.
The scope of the K052 hazardous waste listing is limited to only those tank bottoms
generated at or as part of a petroleum refinery from tanks employed in the storage of leaded
gasoline or leaded blending fractions. These tank bottoms are covered by the K052 hazardous
waste listing even if they do not exhibit any other characteristic of a hazardous waste.
Naphtha is an unleaded petroleum fraction isolated for blending or production of other
blending stocks. The tank bottoms from only naphtha storage at a refinery would not be a listed
hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.31, and would not otherwise be subject to regulation as a
hazardous waste unless they exhibited one of the characteristics of a hazardous waste, as
provided for in 40 CFR 261.21 - 261.24.
Please note that under section 3006 of RCRA, individual states can be authorized to
administer and enforce their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the Federal program. In
addition, section 3009 of RCRA allows states to promulgate regulatory requirements that are
more stringent than the Federal program. Therefore, you should contact the appropriate state
environmental agency in your state for other applicable laws and regulations that may exist.
If you have any further questions, please contact John Austin at (202) 260-4789.
Sincerely,
' Michael/Shapiro, Director
Officeof Solid Waste
FaxBack* 11941 \J
R*cyci«a.R*cyelabl* • Pnnieo wi* VegeoWe OI Based Inks on 100% Recydoo Paper («0% Postoonsumtr)
-------
MONALD J. OCL CUCRCIO
•jfrrmC'r z. •. S^XINCC*
• CMAIG A. Move*
ANOCLA SMANAMAN
STC^MCN A. OCL GUCftOO
MICHACL A. PMANCIS
LAUMIC C. OAVI*
WCOINA nuonus eo««
LCSLIC M. SMAHIO
M. SUItMAN
O. TMIMAMCHC
KCAMIT O. MAMSH
KAMCN MCLAUHIN CMANO
»i*iseiLLA r. AOLCI*
AMOHCW J. •MACKCW
DEMETRIOU. DEL GUERCIO. SPRINGER 8 MOVER
ATTOSNCYS AT LAW
0OI SOUTH OKANO AVCNUC. IO»» rLO
COS ANCELE5. CALIFORNIA 90017-4613
IZIJI «i»-B*O7
May 10, 1995
MIS o. ocMCTmou uei
Or COUMSCL
MICMAMO A. OCL OUCNOO
W. SCOTT LOVC-fOV SB
WAMCS l». OCL OUC*ClO
WILLIAM CLLIOTT VINCY
JOHN S. MCOONALO
MAM6AMCT •. HILOCSMANO
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, Room 2101
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Request for Rule Interpretation
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
We are herewith requesting that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (the "EPA") provide to us a written
interpretation of 40 CFR § 261.32 with respect to the scope of the
EPA Hazardous Waste No. K052 ("tank bottoms (leaded) from the
petroleum industry") . Specifically, are tank bottoms removed from
tanks containing naptha deemed to be K052 hazardous wastes, if the
tanks have never held leaded gasoline?
Doug of the EPA RCRA Hotline informed me on May 9, 1995
that, pursuant to a February, 1994 oral interpretation by the EPA,
K052 refers only to tank bottoms from tanks that have held leaded
gasoline. _. We are seeking a written rule interpretation so that we
may properly advise our clients of any federal requirements
applicable to the disposal of naptha tank bottoms.
Please telephone me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
PFA:mhs
UP008\NPTHK052.UR
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9442.1996(01)
MAR 25 1995
_ . . . _ _ , OFFJCCOF
Patricia A. Tucker souo WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Gobe Enterprises RESPONSE
49 Essex Court
Meriden, CT 06450
Dear Ms. Tucker:
This is in response to your February 20, 1996 letter regarding the waste
characterization of the unused chemical "potassium hexacyanocobalt (II) -
ferrate (II)," and of the spent material that results after use of that
chemical for the selective removal of Cs-134 and Cs-137. In particular, you
ask for the Agency's assessment of whether or not the spent material would be
considered a hazardous waste and hence a mixed waste (hazardous and
radioactive).
A solid waste is considered hazardous if it is either listed or fails
one of the four "characteristics" (40 CFR 261}, assuming it has not been
otherwise excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. Neither the unused
product nor the spent material you describe in you letter is a. currently
listed hazardous waste and, based on the analysis provided, neither appear to
exhibit any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.20) .
Based upon the Agency's assessment of the physical properties of the
hexacyanocobalt(II)-ferrate(II) ion-exchage media, it also appears unlikely
the media would exhibit the characteristics of a hazardous waste. Therefore,
the unused discarded potassium hexacyanocobalt (II)-ferrate (II) product or
spill residues thereof would not be RCRA hazardous waste.
However, if 40 CFR 261.24 toxicity characteristic constituents are
present in the wastes being treated, then there is some potential for the
spent ion-exchange media to become a hazardous mixed waste. In general, the
Agency would not expect spent hexacyanocobalt(II)-ferrate(II) ion-exchage
media to become characteristically hazardous due to contaminants adsorbed
during the treatment of Cs-134 and Cs-137 bearing waste streams. However,
this eventuality cannot be assessed fully without knowledge of the
characterization of the waste stream to be treated. It is the responsibility
of the waste generator to determine whether or not a waste is hazardous (40
CFR 262.11) by either testing the waste or by applying knowledge of the hazard
characteristic of the waste in light of the materials or the processes used,
and to dispose of the wastes in compliance with all applicable regulations.
If you have further questions concerning mixed waste, please contact
Nancy Hunt at (703) 308-8762. If you have questions regarding hazardous waste
characteristics, please contact John Austin at (202)260-4789.
incerely yours
Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
PATRICIA A. TUCKER
60BE ENTERPRISES
49 ESSEX COURT
MER1DEN.CT O6450
TEL-(203) 235 7636
FAX-(203) 237 1655
February 20,19%
Mr. Michael Shapiro
M/C 5301
Office of Solid Waste
U.S.E.P.A.
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Sir.
On November 17,1995, nay colleagues and I visited staff members in your office to discuss the
waste characterization of a chemical which we intend to import from Finland. This chemical. Potassium
cobalt hexacyano ferrate, is a black granular media resembling ground charcoal. Its intended use, as
expressed in our low level exemption of our PMN, will be the selective removal of Cs-134 and Cs-137
from various liquid waste streams.
Our media has a strong affinity and enormous capacity for Cesium removal. The
decontamination factor (DF) is two orders of magnitude greater than any other media currently available.
The resulting volume .reduction of solid radioactive waste is equally huge by comparison. We have
recently demonstrated, for example, that Callaway Nuclear Plant in Fulton, MO would need to bury 9 cu.
ft of our media instead of 375 cu. ft. of the "next best" ion exchanger to remove cesium from the same
volume of water.
The use of this chemical would be prevalent at nuclear plants and for U.S.D.O.E. cleanup efforts
at sites such as Hanford. When the media eventually becomes chemically exhausted, it must be buried in
a high integrity container (HIC) at an approved radioactive waste burial site such as in Bamwell, SC.
Our concern has been the detrimental effect a hazardous waste characterization under RCRA
might cause. If characterized as hazardous, the resulting spent media would be a mixed waste (hazardous
and radioactive) and undisposable at current burial sites. Concerns expressed by potential clients has
made it obvious to us that our media will not be accepted unless they are confident that we have worked
closely with your office to insure proper characterization. They must feel confident that they will be able
to dispose of the media when it is spent
Our media is not specifically listed under 40 CFR as hazardous, and it does not exhibit any
characteristics of hazardous materials as defined under 40 CFR 261 Subpart C. During our November
17th meeting,, members of your staff were particularly concerned with the possibility of free cyanide gas
liberating from the media under various pH conditions. It was agreed that an outside source would test for
cyanide liberation under conditions defined in EPA method 9010 (Revision 2, Sept 1994). I have
attached a copy of the report from the University of Helsinki verifying that no free cyanide gas is liberated
by our media. I have also attached copies of a toxitity report, 11/17/95 meeting notes and our written
-------
correspondences, to date, as evidence that we have thoroughly explored the question of hazardous
classification.
Since our potential customers have expressed concerns about this product, we respectfully request
that your office verify our findings in the form of a letter. We would like you to state that based on the
evidence presented and on the current regulations, this media would not be considered hazardous in either
its unused (potassium) or spent (cesium) forms.
Thank you in advance for considering this request and a special thanks to your staff members
who have been quite helpful in our efforts to work with you. If you need any further documentation or if
you have any further questions, please dq not hesitate to call me at (203) 235-783S.
Sincerely,
", -<*$ '.' • '
Patricia Tucker
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f t^W£7 1 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9442.1996(02)
OFFICE OF
1 QQ£ SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
, t.yyv RESPONSE
Randall A. Jones
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Molten Metal Technology, Inc.
400-2 Tottea Pond Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
Dear Mr. Jones,
Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1996 on EPA's revised "Policy on Enforcement of
RCRA Section 3 0040) Storage Prohibition at Facilities Generating Mixed Radioactive/Hazardous
Waste." In that letter you express concern that the policy defines "commercially available
treatment technology and disposal capacity" to include a facility that has a RCRA permit, interim
status, a Research, Development, and Demonstration permit, or a Land Treatment permit. You
indicated that based on this definition a generator might assume that recycling facilities are not
included as acceptable alternatives for mixed waste disposal. I would point out that the policy
does suggest several available alternatives (without specifically endorsing any one of the
alternatives) which a generator might explore to dispose of material that is both hazardous and
radioactive. Molten Metal's trademarked Quantum-Catalytic Extraction Process is mentioned in
the policy as a recent technological development.
There was no intent in the definition to exclude legitimate recycling facilities, but rather to
emphasize the use of permitted facilities for waste treatment and disposal. Of course, if the
material is legitimately used as an ingredient in a manufacturing process, or if a legitimate
recycling facility that meets, or is exempt from, RCRA requirements is available to accept
materials EPA would not extend the enforcement policy to generators that did not avail
themselves of legitimate recycling opportunities. EPA seeks to encourage the reuse of materials
when this is possible. I trust this clarifies this issue. If you have further questions, you may wish
to contact Nancy Hunt at 703-308-8762, since she chaired the EPA workgroup that drafted the
revised enforcement policy.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew Hale, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
R«eycUd/R*sycUW« . Printed with Vegetable Ol Based Into on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postawsumei)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9442.1996(03)
OCT-24 1995
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Peter H. Weiner
Heller, Efirman; White, and McAuliffe
333 Bush St.
San Francisco, California 94104-2878
Dear Mr.. Weiner:
Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1996'regarding the regulatory status under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of spent copper etchants managed by Heritage
Environmental Services, Inc. ("Heritage"). You raised an important question, and we appreciate
your interest in this matter. I hope the following discussion addresses your concerns.
As we understand it, Heritage receives spent etchants from the manufacturers of printed
wire boards. At its facility in Indiana, Heritage then uses the etchants to produce trirbasic copper
chloride (TBCC), an animal micronutrient. A residue generated in the TBCC manufacuring
process is then treated .by adding additional chemicals to produce "fresh" alkaline etchaht.
Heritage argues that they are using the spent" etchant as an ingredient in an industrial process to
make a product (i.e, TBCC).> This kind of use would exclude the etchant from the definition of
solid waste as long as no reclamation occurred (see 40 CFR 261.2(e)(l)(i), adopted verbatim by
the State of Indiana at 329IAC 3.1)). The Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) has determined that the spent etchant. at Heritage's facility is indeed being used as an
ingredient in an industrial process, and that this use meets the terms of the regulatory exclusion.
As stated in your letter, you believe that Indiana was incorrect in its interpretation, and
you asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to request that the state revise its
determination.. Your belief is based upon the Agency's preamble discussion of this regulation at
50 FR 614, 619 (codified at 40 CFR 261.1 (c)(5)(i)). In that discussion, EPA stated that "when
distinct components of the material are recovered as separate end products (i.e., recovering lead
from scrap metal in smelting operations), the secondary material is not being used, but rather
reclaimed and thus, would not be excluded under this provision". Since Heritage is producing
separate products at its plant (i.e.,. TBCC and "new"etchant), you have argued that reclamation is
occurring which would disqualify the entire process from exclusion under 40 CFR 261.2(e)(l)(i).
At issue in this case are two operations. In the first operation, a spent material is used as
an ingredient to make a product (TBCC), resulting in a residue. The second operation uses the
Rocycled/Rocyclabja • Primed whh Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
residue from the first to make another product (fresh etchant), but the second operation may
involve reclamation (although the IDEM has not made a formal determination on this point). If
we assume reclamation occurs in the second operation, the question is whether a facility would be
barred from claiming the use-as-ingredient exclusion because of the subsequent reclamation. The
answer to this question depends on whether the operations are considered to be one industrial
"process" (in which case the reclamation would presumably disqualify the facility from claiming
the exclusion) or two sequential "processes" (in which case the reclamation in a subsequent
process would not generally nullify the exclusion).
RCRA regulations, preambles, and past interpretations do not define how many (or how
few) operations may be included in an industrial process. In EP A's experience, situations at
different facilities vary so much that it is not possible to develop a general rule about whether
operations should be considered one process or multiple processes. The Agency believes that
any such rule would inevitably be too inflexible to address the many different types of industrial
operations being conducted throughout the country, for this reason, we have historically left the
determination of this question to States authorized to administer and enforce the RCRA program
under section 3006, or to EPA Regions where the State is is not authorized, ^uniform national
interpretation would not be adequate to address the large variety of circumstances prevailing at
different industrial facilities.. States and Regions are more competent to evaluate the site-specific
factors that must necessarily enter into this kind of decision.
We have consulted with Region V after their meeting on June 25, 1996 with
representatives from Phibrotech, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and the IDEM.
The Region and the States would like to thank Messrs. JackBenheim and Tom'Moran for taking
the time to further discuss these issues with them. As you are aware, most of the issues discussed
during the meeting had been evaluated before, but the discussions served to underscore the
complexity of these regulatory determinations, particularly with respect to the Heritage operation.
Follow-up discussions between Region V and the IDEM indicate that the IDEM remains
committed, to its original ruling on the Heritage process.
Based on our discussions with Region V and the State of Indiana, and a review of existing
policy, we believe that Indiana's interpretation of 40 CFR261.2(e)(l)(i) is not inconsistent with
the language of this provision. For this reason, we will not request the State to revise its
determination.
As you may be aware, EPA is currently engaged in an effort to change the RCRA
regulations governing hazardous waste recycling. This effort has three goals. First, we want to
clarify and simplify these regulations to make them more "user-friendly" for all concerned, while
still folly protecting human health and the environment. We also want to remove disincentives
that may lead industries to dispose of their wastes rather than reusing them. As part of this
effort, we plan to reexamine and possibly change the current regulatory distinctions between
"reuse" and "reclamation". The Agency hopes to propose these regulatory revisions in early
1997.
-------
Thank you again for the time and attention you have devoted to this matter. These are
important environmental issues, and we appreciate your concern. If you have any questions,
please call me at 703-308-8895.
Sincerely yours,
A. Cotsworth, Deputy Director
f Solid Waste
-------
VO
£
Characteristics Of Hazardous Waste
(Subpart C)
-------
9443.1980(02)
Mr. Jack L. Cooper, Director
Environmental Affairs
National Food Processors Association
1133 20th St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Cooper:
I am writing in response to your letter to me of July 30,
1980 and your visit to the Agency on July 25, 1980. You raised
several issues in these communications which relate to the impact
of the hazardous waste regulations (as promulgated in the Federal
Register on May 19, 1980) on food processors.
Specifically, the food processors frequently use a dry-
caustic peeling process which produces a waste which may, on
occasion, exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of
corrosivity since its pH would equal or exceed 12.5. You further
indicated that this waste is always neutralized to well below a
pH of 12.5 and thus would not be a hazardous waste when it leaves
the plant for final disposition. You also indicated that you
feel such wastes, and the facilities generating and treating such
wastes, should not be included in the RCRA Subtitle C program.
In re-evaluating the regulations and our intent to only
control those hazardous wastes which if improperly managed may
present a potential hazard to human health and the environment,
it appears that some modification to the regulations may be
warranted. The Agency disagrees, however, that the appropriate
approach is to declare caustic food processing waste non-
hazardous. To do so would be inconsistent with EPA's May 19,
1980 regulations which identify highly corrosive wastes (pH above
12.5 or below 2.5) as hazardous wastes. Such wastes can cause
serious burns or seriously pollute surface waters. In the case
of your industry, overflows and leaks resulting from improper
operation could result in injuries to persons who might have
access to the area. Improper management could also result in the
release of toxic lists and fumes.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
- 2 -
In sum, we don't think it appropriate to exempt a waste as
non-hazardous because it is usually adequately managed. Such of
the Act. The structure of RCRA involves a determination first
appropriate regulation, the Agency is directed to assure the
public that management is safe. Unless regulations requiring,
proper handling are imposed, the Agency and the public have no
assurance that proper management is being achieved.
To make this same point another way, an interpretation such
as the one you are requesting would allow a great majority of
waste producers to seek exclusion from the program on the grounds
that they manage their wastes properly.
On the other hand, the Agency agrees that imposition of some
of the provisions of the May 18, 1980, regulations may be
unnecessary for relatively simple neutralization facilities. A
more appropriate approach might be to establish a special set of
standards applicable to neutralizations to implement such an
approach. We hope to make a decision on this regulations before
November 19, 1980, the effective date of the May 19, 1980,
regulations.
I would like to thank you for bringing this particular
problem to our attention. Our goal is to promulgate a set of
regulations which will protect human health and the environment
from the improper management of hazardous waste, but yet not
place an unnecessary burden on American industry. Please feel
free to call Mr. Alfred Lindsey if you have any further
questions. Mr. Lindsey can be reached at (202) 755-9185.
Sincerely yours,
Eckardt C. Beck
Assistant Administrator
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9443.1981(01)
STATE-ENVlROt.'liN'A.. Pc3
n
E O*1 WATEF
AND WASTE MANAGEMEN"
Mr. M. J. Boris
American Steel Foundries
3761 Canal' Street
East Chicago/ IN 46312
Dear Mr. Boris:
I an writing in response to yor letter of May 11, 1981
requesting a ruling on whether the American Foundrymen's
Society (AFS) Standard Test Procedure in which the container
is handshaken twice daily by inverting it 15 times is an
acceptable agitation procedure to employ when conducting the
Extraction Procedure toxicity test [40 CFR 261.24].
The AFS method is not acceptable since it doe? not
meet the definition of acceptable agitation; "...an
acceptable extractor is one which will impart sufficient
•agitation to the mixture to not only prevent stratification
of the sample and extraction fluid but also insure that all
sample surfaces are continuously brought into contact with
well mixed extraction fluid". Specifically the AFS method is
deficient in that during the 12 hours or more that the sample
remains undisturbed, stratification is likely to take place.
The magnetic stirrer method you also asked about may
however be used if, after application of the Structural
Integrity Procedure, the waste material is a monolithic
piece. By suspending the sample in a continuously stirred
bath of extraction fluid, the objectives described in the
aforementioned specification will be met*
I hope that this answers you question. If you have any
additional questions/ please feel free to give me a call at
(202) 755-9187.
David Friedman
Manager, Waste Analysis Program
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
-------
9443.1983(01)
JAN I 0 1983
REi WCBDF034b
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ignitable Solids Definition
FROM: John H. skinner, Acting Director
Office of Solid waste (WH-562)
TOt David A. Wagoner, Director
Air and waste Management Division, Region VII
As you requested in your «iemo of December 15, I an writing
to clarify the definition of an ignitable solid under 40 CFR
261.21 as it applies to materials such as titanium swarf.
As Gene Grumpier correctly advised Greg Weber- of Region V,
in order for a solid waste to be an ignitable waste it must
be capable, under standard temperature and pressure, of both
causing fires through friction, absorption of moisture or
spontaneous chemical changes and burn so vigorously and per-
sistently that it creates a hazard. Thus, if the titanium
swarf is very difficult to ignite it would not be classified
as a hazardous waste even though, once ignited, it oay pose a
hazard.
In order to remove the ambiguities inherent in such a
definition, OSW is in the process of developing specific testing
methods and hazardous waste definition thresholds for ignitable
solids. However* such tests are not expected to be ready tor
proposal until PT 84.
If you have any comments or questions concerning the
ignitable waste definition please give David Friedman or
Florence Richardson a call at PTS 382-4770.
WH-565BsDFRIEDMAN:df:5248:382-4770:WSM:1-5-83 Disk DF:03:45
-------
9443.1983(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 83
o Question: A wastewater which is not identified or listed in 40 CF3
Part 261 is placed in a surface impoundment for dewatering.
A constituent of the wastewater is reactive when dry.
Does the surface impoundment becane subject to RCRA if it
never dries out..during its active life?
Answer: the surface impoundment becomes subject r.o RCRA when it dries
out after receiving its final volurte of waste, if the waste
is immediately reooved as it becones reactive {dewatered),
then the operator would be a generator for that waste. If
the waste dries out first and becomes reactive, then the surface
iropouncberit would be subject to the regulations.
Source: Fred Lindsey
Research: Irene Horner
-------
9443.1983(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 83
5. Question:
Anwser:
If a material is 80% solid and 20% water, can the FH be measured
under 261.22{a)(D?
It is still testable if it contains free liquids (water). The
aguecus phase of the proposed paint filter test could be used to
determine if there are free liquids.
Source Karen Gale
Research: Florence Richardson
-------
9443.1983(04)
JUL -5 1983
Mr. B. H. Conlin 5. _
Komex Consultants Ltd. = -
• 300, 1615-10** Avenue S.W. G, r
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T3C OJ7 * .
> r
Dear Mr. Conlin: cT*
t" cr
I an writing to you in response to your letter of May 18, >~~
1983, regarding practices and regulations for containment and 3 c
disposal of solid wastes in the resource processing industry. £.;
N "
M *
At the present time, waste gypsum produced as a by-product of o '
processing phosphate rock is exempted by statute from regulation ^r
as a hazardous waste. The exemption, under Section 3001 (b) (3) (A.) (ii) ° £
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), is 3^
in effect "until at least six months* after the date of submission M\
of a report required under Section 8002(p) on "materials generated ^[
from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and *• >•
minerals, including phosphate rock and overburden from uranium \:
mining.* EPA plans to submit the required report in October 1934. 5J
O c
The Agency is conducting two studies related to the phosphate i? :
industry. The first study, which focuses on the mcfeals minino and " •
processing industry, also includes sampling and analysis of phos- £"
phate industry solid wastes in Regions IV and X. A total of 77 io~
waste samples (64 solid and slurry samples and 13 liquid samples) JL
were collected and analyzed from the phosphate mining industry* ^
Although most of tjhese samples were collected from mining and bene- ~
ficiating* wastes, two samples were collected from gypsum waste— ^
gypsum pond liquid and^gypsum pond embankment. Analytical results £
indicate that sjetals concentrations in the gypsum pond liquid \
exceeded EF «Miclty values for eadmlum and chromium. Acetic acid f
extract from «Ji« gypsum pond embankment did not fail any of the EP £
toxicity critsria. The gypeum pond psjnd embankment sample, however, i
contained 1.4 pioocuries/gram of Radium 226. 2
On Decesiber 18, 1978, EPA proposed hasardous waste regulations
.containing guidelines in the form of an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking concerning Radium 226. According to the advanced notice
of proposed regulations, a waste would be considered hazardous when
the total analysis for Radium 226 was equal to or greater than a
concentration of 5 picocuries/gram for solids. To date EPA has not
-------
pronulgated this contemplated standard. Zf EPA doc* promulgate
the standard at. 5 picocuri«a/gra», the waate gypaua could be
lidered hazardous again* pending eesjpletion of the study
—- to Congress.
In addition to this ongoing mining study, If A has recently
initiated another atudy focused specifically on waste ujypsisi fi
th« pteo«phait« procaaaing indvatry. Initial aaapling of vmataa
rla a«h«dnl«4 t« b»?in Jnly 11* It83. Corr«tly, th« E»A ia
tiatiag witfc th« Florida Inatitut* of Pho«pteata *a«a*rc(h (loeatad
ia lartov, Florida) to conduct th« atvdy aa a joint effort.
At th« pr«aant ti»«* KPA ia not regulating phoaphata vaataa
aa hasardoua vftataa. Th* Etat* of Florida, hovcvar, haa regula-
tory r*quiraa»«xrti for phoaphate vaataa. Th*a« raquircmanta
inclodc groundvatar aonitoring of gypaun pilaa and vill, in the
near future, include groandvater Monitoring of other phosphate
waste disposal practices.
As you atentioned in year letter, vastes frea the gas proces-
sing industry are frequently hazardous under EPA's hazardous vaate
characteristics (40 CFF 261). If wastes fail a characteristic or
are listed as hazardous, the full standards for hazardous vast*
treaxatent, storage, or disposal facilities (40 CFR 264-2€S) apply.
niere are no special requirenenta for gaa processing wastes.
Too »ay obtain a copy of up-to-date regulations frost the U.S.
GovernsMtnt Printing Office at (202) 655-4000.
If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Penelope
Bansen of my staff at (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely,
Joha B. fkiaaer
director
Office of Solid Waste (Wl-362)
-------
9443.1983(05)
REs WCBHA340r
Mr. Leroy J. wilder, Jr.
Ray-O-Vae
630 Forward Drive
Madison, HI S3711
tear Mr. wilders
I a* writing in response to your July 14, If83 request for
clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRM
hazardous waste identification regulations as they apply to waste
batteries and cells.
A* we discussed in our telephone conversation on July 1, 1983,
most common batteries and cells rapidly degrade when placed in a
landfill. Thus, when testing such products to determine if they
exhibit the Extraction Procedure Toxicity characteristic (40 CFR
261.24) the batteries and cells should be cut up into email pieces
(i.e., to pass 1 cm sieve). If, after such preparation, none of
the concentrations listed in 40 CFR 261.24 Table 1 are exceeded
the batteries are not hasardous wastes and may be disposed of in
a sanitary landfill. Batteries that yield extracts exceeding one
or more thresholds are hazardous wastes and Bust be disposed of
in a RCRA permitted facility.
Certain batteries and cells, however, are manufactured in
such a manner as to prevent disintegration after disposalo Such
products way be tested without being cut up. At this tine,
we have not developed, testing thresholds for identifying such abuse
resistant products* Pending development of such tests you may
evaluate the corrosion resistance of your products using a salt
water solution* If after subversion for 1 month in a salt water
solution no leakage occurs, the product can be considered to
be corrosion resistant* It the package is also structurally
resistant to crushingr it can be evaluated in the IP Toxicity
test without being out op.
X trust that this explanation assists you in evaluating your
wastes. I would like to also bring to your attention the fact
-------
that we have a toll free hotline (1-800-424-9346), iff you ever
need assistance with any aspect of the RCRA regulations.
Sincerely yours,
David Priedvan
Manager
Waste Analysis
WH-565B/DFRJEDMAN:NA:S2481X24770:7/26/83:DISK:NA3408
-------
9443.1984(03)
June 4, 1984
Tooele Army Depot
Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch, (WH-562B)
Jon P. Yeagley, Chief
State Program Section (8AW-WM)
We have reviewed your submissions related to the Chemical
Agents Munitions Disposal System facility. Our preliminary
assessment of the properties of agents GB (isoproplyl methyl
phosphonofluoridate) VX (Ethyl-S-diisopropyl aminoethyl methyl
phosphonothidoate), and HD (Bis-2-chloroethyl sulfide) lead us to
conclude that the wastes should be considered hazardous due to
their reactive nature. While the wastes are not specifically
listed at this time, we believe them to be reactive according to
the definition of §261.23 (a) (4) — namely, when mixed with
water, they generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity
sufficient to present a danger to human health or the
environment. The gases of concern in each case are as follows:
for GB, emissions of hydrogen fluoride which has a TLV of 3 ppm
in air; for HD, emissions of hydrogen chloride which has a TLV of
5 ppm; and for VX, emissions of diethyl methyl phosphonate, bis-
ethyl methyl phosphonic acid and bis-S-(diisopropyl amino ethyl)
methyl phosphonodithiolate. In the case of VX, the emitted gases
are indicated as toxic decomposition products that would be
emitted upon addition of VX to water. (The reference for these
anticipated emissions is the Army's field manual on military
chemistry.) Sufficient quantities of any of these chemical
agents, when mixed with water, would be expected to emit gases at
levels of concern and, thus, exhibit the characteristic of
reactivity. In addition, mustard gas could meet the criteria in
§261.23(a)(5), due to emissions of sulfides.
With respect to our ultimate plans vis-a-vis these wastes,
we do expect to develop listings for all three agents. These
listings would probably be developed under the criteria of
§261.11(a)(2) and result in the designation of the wastes as
Acute Hazardous Waste. Unfortunately, other priorities and a
general dearth of available information will hinder our efforts
and may result in the passage of considerable time before these
listings are finalized. We are not overly concerned about this
delay, however, since the State's letter suggests that these
wastes are being managed in a manner consistent with their
extreme toxicity. In addition, as we have stated above, the
wastes are currently regulated. Nevertheless, it would be useful
to our efforts if your group or the State agency could submit
information on the wastes and the corresponding treatment and
disposal options under discussion.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Do not hesitate to call Ed Abrams (382-4775) of my staff if
you require further information.
cc: Julia Bussey (T-2-2) Region IX
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9443.1984(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 84
Hotline
July 1984 Report
Page 3
5. a. How does one perform the EP toxicity test on oily wastes?
The waste in question does not pass through the filter and is
inroiscible in water.
b. Is there another extraction procedure test for such wastes?
a. The EP toxicity test is conducted using the filtrate
from filtering a sanple. Solid or oily material that do not
pass through the filter are subject to the EP extraction and
the resulting extract analyzed to determine if ths waste is
b. There is a variation of the EP toxicity test specifically
for oily wastes which is used in the de list ing program. It
is not regulatory, however, under 261.24. A copy of this
procedure may be obtained for use in experiments froa Tbdd
fiimrtl USEPA OSW by calling (202) 382-4795.
Sources Dave Friedman
Research: Ken Jennings
-------
9443.1984(05)
11 SEP 19
l«- „"
MEMORANDUM
t* u
n a
O K
SUBJECT: Status of Blasting Caps as Reactive Waste?
z 2
FROM: John skinner, Director ? *
Office of Solid Waste (Vm-552) o-
w E
TO: David Wagoner, Director f c
Air and Waste Management Division §£
Region VII <*<
This is in response to your recent memorandum requesting
clarification of the definition of a reactive waste as it applies
to out-dated blasting caps. According to 40 CFR 261.23, a wasta
which is capable of detonation or explosive reaction, if subjected
to neat or a strong initiating force, is a reactive hazardous
waste. Blasting caps clearly fall within that definition.
As you brought to our attention. Section 2.1.3 of "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste* (SW-846) appears, however,
to suggest otherwise. A note in the manual states that blasting
caps in quantities of less than 1000 are not a hazardous waste.
This is a mistake. SW-846 is a compilation of sampling and
analytical methods that may be used to test for the presence of
Appendix VII or VIII constituents. It is not, however, the
basis on which the identification or* listing of a particular
material as a hazardous waste is made. Thus, Note 5 in Section
2.1.3 of SW-846, should be disregarded.
A package of revisions and updates to SW-846 is currently in
preparation; as part of this update, Note 5 will be deleted to
prevent future misunderstanaings, we appreciate your bringing
this problea to our attention, if you have any questions, please
contact Florence Richardson of ay staff. She can be reached at
FTS 382-4801.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMHARY
AUGUST 84
9443.1984(06}
An aqueous waste containing small amounts of an organic
compound flashes in a Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.
Is this waste RCRA ignitable or is it excluded- from that
definition because it "contains less than 24Valcohol?"
The waste has no alcohol in 1t.
If an aqueous waste contains no alcohol, it is not excluded
from the definition of ignitable as 1$ wine or latex paint.
Hence, if the flashpoint is less than 140*r, the aqueous
waste 1s deemed ignitable, EPA is working on developing
a test for such wastes to determine if they would sustain
coRDustion or only flash in the Closed Cup Tester.
Source: Florence Richardson
Research: Oenise Wright
-------
9443.1984(08)
NO/ 23 -S4 |<
O y.
NJ i)
O
a
>v
3
Mr. Donald Dean %
Environmental Manager ^
Imperial Manufacturing Company n
Underwood Avenue £
P.O. Box 280 ^
Plattsburgh, N.Y. 12901 5
cr
Dear Mr. Dean: £
>^
This letter responds to your inquiry of November 9, 1934, <~
regarding the correct designation for waste ink and solvent £
mixtures generated from printing facilities. l
£
First, waste inks containing solvents are not listed hazardous
waste; however, these inks are considered hazardous wastes if they
exhibit one or niore of the characteristics of hazardous waste
(i.e., ignitability, reactivity, EP toxicity and corrosivity).
In your particular case, waste ink containing HER, MIBK, toluene,
xylene, and acetone will probably exhibit ignitability. Should
this be the case, these wastes arc doomed hazardous waste and,
as such, should be designated as EPA Hazardous Waste Number 0001.
Solvent mixtures frota the cleaning of pumps, lines and
tanks, as described in your letter, are not currently covered by
the solvent listings in 40 CPR 261.31. Therefore, they are
hazardous waste only if they also exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, within the next few months,
the Agency will propose to amend the listing to include certain
solvent mixtures. Thus, many of these solvents will be brought
under Subtitle C control.
If your waste management activities occur in a state that
has been authorized under RCRA, then the state rules, rather than
the Federal rules, apply.
Me recommend that you consult with the appropriate states
to determine whetheY they interpret their listing as covering
solvent mixtures. Agency data indicate that New York Stato
-------
interprets their listing as applying.to solvent mixtures as well
as single solvents. In addition, it is within the authorized
State's discretion to determine the appropriate classification
for wastes that are both listed and exhibit a characteristic.
Should you have questions, or require additional information,
please contact Jacqueline Sales, of ray staff, at (202) 3R2-4807."
Sincerely,
Eileen Claussen
Characterization and Assessment Division
Office of solid wast*
-------
9443.1984(09)
:IL Baroici
NL Industries, Inc.
Mr. W. a. Yancey
P.O. Box 1675
Houston, TX 77251
Dear Mr. Yancey:
I an glad to clarify the issues of hazardous waste
identification you raised in your letter dated November IS, 1934.
First, you .asked if physically solid forms of sodium hydroxide
and potassium hydroxide (granular or pellets) are currently
regulated as RCRA corrosive hazardous waste. The answer is no.
Title 40 CFR $261.22(a) defines corrosivity for aqueous solutions
within given pH ranges and for liquids that corrode steel faster
than a quarter of an inch per year under specified test conditions.
The May 19, 1980, preamble, 45 PR 33109 states:
"...there is no demonstrated need to address corrosive
solids at this tine. EPA will, however, continue to
seek, information on the dangers presented by these wastes
and will consider specific regulatory measures if the
need for more control becomes apparent."
At this time, the Agency is developing a test protocol to
evaluate the leachability of solid-phase corrosives. Further-
more, the new RCRA amendments direct EPA to minimize effects
of hazardous waste on human health and the environment. So
you can see that the status of corrosive solids may be subject
to change in the future.
Second, you wondered if products that contain preservatives
*OB. listed in 40 CFR S261.33(£) are subject to regulation as
RCRA hazardous waste, in particular, you asked abou£_pia£A£o__
search that haa been treated wi^h f~—«-'|4?hy'1'». JTh<> conunent
after 40 CFR §261.33(d) explains that commercial chemical products
are manufactured For commercial use and are commercially pure or
technical grades or formulations in which the chemical is the
sole active ingredient. The comment also says that a waste that
contains a chemical listed in $C261.33(e) or (f) is only a RCRA
waste if the waste is listed in $5261.31 or 261.32 or if the
-------
waste does not specify
the amount of cyanides or sulfides that would identify a waste
as reactive. Presently, EPA is in the process of developing
test protocols to quantify the reactive characteristic for
cyanides and sulfi'des. in the meantime, the enclosed regulatory
interpretive letter, RIL #2, outlines the Agency*a suggested
guidelines, fee low 10 ppm, the waste will not be considered
reactive, and above 200 ppn, it will be considered reactive
unless the generator can show why it is not. Between 10 and 200
ppm, the decision will be based on the potential releasibility
of f*2S or HCN on a case-by-case basis.
All but about seven states and three territories have programs
that operate in lieu of the Federal RCRA program, 'and eight of
these programs have received full "authorisation.' When a State
has been granted authority to operate.the RCRA program, you are
subject to the State regulations which nay be slightly different.
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)424-9346 can send you a'copy
of the State hazardous waste agency addresses and phone'numbers
if you need it.
If you wish to discuss those questions further, please do
not hesitate to call me at (202)382-4804.
Sincerely yours,
Irene s. Horner
Studies and Methods Branch
Attachment
-------
9443.1984(10)
3 0 NOV 1984
(J
c
•lEMORANDU'l r
ii m 11 i •»••...... • • X.
SUIJJSCT: Classification of S*tall Arms Ammunition I
With Respect to Reactivity E
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director £
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) *
IX.
TO: David Wagoner, Director £
Air & Wasto Management Division f
Region VIIr *
Recently, a question arose as to the status under ^C^A of -
off-specification small arms ammunition (ball or sporting ^
ammunition of calibers up to and including 0.50) intend**d for V
disposal. The issue concerned whether such wastes are "reactive **
wastes" within the meaning of 40 CFR 2fil.23(a)(<>) and, thorefor<», i
subject to RCRA hazardous waste requirclients. Because the £
ammunition contains an ignition source that may be shock and heat ^
sensitive and is designed to generate high pressure during use, it .-
had been our opinion that it is probably "reactive." However, on £
the basis of information that was received from the Remington ^
Arms Company and the Army, we now conclude that such materials' s,
are not "reactive" within the neaning of 40 CFR 261.23 (a) (6V. §
Section 261.23 (a) (6) of Title 40 provides thit a solid 'o
waste which is "capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it *
is subjected to a strong initiating source or if heated under »
confinement* is "reactive.* A3 discussed in the May 19, 1<»SO,
preamble to 40 CFR 261.23, shock and thermal instability are
important elements of this definition, while presently there is
no Agency guidance regarding these criteria, the Remington Arms
Company of Independence, Missouri, and the U.S. Army have provided
information which addresses both of these factors.
Anas Company submitted- details on the effects of
heat and impact to small arms ammunition. There was no explosion
when a box of awmin^tion was set afire. Small ar*»s, when subjected
to the SAA'-II (Sporting Am.s ah-1 Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute)
Impact Test, shoved no evidence of mass propagation or explosion.
-------
-2-
The Department of the Array has a rigorous safety and hazard
testing program on .all munition items. The tests/ which include,
drop tests from 5, 7, and 40 feet to simulate handling errors
and ."heating under confinement," 160*F for 4% hours, also
showed no evidence of detonation or explosion with respect to
small arras ammunition. The tests were performed on both the
individual munition and a package containing a prescribed number
of items.
As noted above, we fe«l that results from these tests show
that off-specification small caliber ammunition up to and including
0.50 Is not "reactive" within the meaning of 40 CFR «2*1.23 («H*T
He, therefore, believe that the disposal of such ammunition is not
subject to Subtitle C hazardous wants requirements.
We appreciate your cooperation. If you have any questions
regarding the matter/ please call David Friedman or Florence Richardson
at FTS 382-4770.
cc: Air & Waste Management Divisions Directors,
Regions I-VI and VTII-X
-------
3443.1985(01)
FEB 2 I !985
3
1
c
Mr. R. B. Morris, Jr.
IBM
44 South Broadway
Whit* Plain*r NY 10601-4495
Dear Mr. Morris:
This is in response to your letter of January 7, 1985,
which questions the proper management of excavated construction
•oil that contains detectable quantities of volatile organic
compounds. RCRA regulates the characteristic wastes discussed
in 40 CFR Sub part C and listed wastes designated in 40 CPR
Subpart D.
To qualify as a characteristic waste, the soil rould have
to be ignitable { S261.21 ( a) (2) ) , or contain a liquid phase
that is corrosive ($261.22), or exhibit any of the reactivity
criteria ($261.23), or be above the EP toxic levels (§361.24)*
In order to be a listed waste, the soil would have to
contain known listed waste that ares
1) commercially unused S261.33(e) or (f) chemical* or
off-specification species, formulations containing
them as sole active ingredients, and container
residues or spilled material of the above i
2) specific industrial waste streams specified in
$261.32; or
3) non-specific waste streams listed in $261.31.
As you stated, in many cases, the exact source of th«* volatile
orrjanics cannot be determined.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Re«non««,
and Liability Act, hazardous substances are currently only
those specified under th<* Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act,
the Toxic Substances Control Act, and HCRA listed and character
istic waste. Therefore, disnosal of aoil contaminated with
hazardous substances must follow CEPCLA guidance also.
-------
You should be in touch with the State* because they »ay
regulate soils that contain volatile organic compounds in a
different manner. Please feel free to contact *e or Alan Gorson
of By staff again if you hare any other questions*
Cordially yours,
Eileen B. Claussen
Division Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
cc Patrick Aurrichio
-------
9443.1985(02)
FEB 2
u
c
fs
Mr. Kevin J. Walter <
Bureau of Technical Services \
Division of environmental fffiforeement
Department of Environmental Conservation
State of New York [
50 Wolf Road j
Albany, New York 12233-0001 <.
Dear Mr. Waltevi
I aa writing in response to your recent letter requesting [
clarification of the definition of the characteristic of iqnit-
ability for hazardous waste*.
Your understanding that the word* "it is a liquid, other
than an aqueous solution containing less than 24 percent alcohol
by volune" were intended to exclude alcoholic beverages, such »<*
wine, and non-liquid materials is correct. However, while the
Agency's intent was that this exemption apply to potable beverages
only, because the term "alcohol" was used instead of "ethanol,3
all aqueous wastes which are iqni table only because they contain
alcohols (here using tne tern alcohol to mean any chemical containing
the hydroxyl l-OHj functional group) are excluded from
While the Agency completes the process of officially adoptina
a method for identifying "free liquids," for use in the 'land
disposal regulations, it is our current practice to employ method
9095 (see "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-'US") for
such purposes* Any material passing through the paint filter is
deemed to be a liquid.
With respect to what constitutes an "aqueous solution."
such a solution is one in which water is the prirmry component.
This means that water constitutes at least ^0 percent hy
weight of the sample. Although, we have not officially approved
any test methods for determining a waste's water content, *nv
competent laboratory should be able to make such a determination
using standard techniques (e.g., Karl Pisher titration, GO.
We share your concern over the ambiguities in the current
ignitability definition and have a prog ran underway to correct
the characteristic's shortcomings. Specifically, changes are
under development to replace the alcoholic solution exclusion
-------
- 2 -
with a generic exclusion for those wastes which, while possessing
a flash point below 60*C, neither continue to burn nor, if they
do burn, release enough energy to cause a major fire. In addition,
steps are being taken to expand the ignitability characteristic
to include wastes which are physical solids. Both of these
changes will involve proposal arrl promulgation of specific
definitional test methods and thresholds.
I hope this information clears up any questions you way
have about the ignitability characteristic. If you have any
further questions concerning any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, please contact David Friedman, of *ty staff, at
202-382-4770.
Sincerely yours.
tsl
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid waste
bcc: G. A. Lucero, v«-527
A. Corson
^t/affol" waste Branch Chief,
Hotline
-------
9443.1985(04)
July 16, 1985
Mr. Terry L. Thoem
Manager, Environmental Conservation
Conoco Incorporated
P.O. Box 2197
Houston, Texas 77252
Dear Mr. Thoem:
I am writing to clarify several aspects of the sulfide
reactivity characteristic that you asked about in your letter of
June 24, 1985.
At present, there is no approved test method for determining
whether a waste exhibits the characteristic of reactivity. I
have enclosed a draft of a test method for determining Total
Available Sulfide. Work currently being done on the agitation
and waste introduction steps may result in significant changes in
the subsequent proposed test. However, pending the conclusion of
our investigations, we recommend, and will accept, use of this
draft procedure. While threshold concentrations have not yet
been promulgated by the Agency, we have adopted 500 mg/kg Total
Available Sulfide as an interim action level. We consider any
waste that yields sulfide values at or above the action level,
using the draft procedure, to be hazardous.
The 500 mg/Kg action threshold was arrived at by considering
a scenario in which a truckload of waste is discharged into a pit
containing (non-hazardous) acidic waste. As a result of the
reaction of the waste with the acid, a rapid, high level release
of toxic gas ensues. The objective of the characteristic is to
identify those wastes which, if such an activity were to take
place, pose a hazard to those persons in the general vicinity of
the disposal site. While we have considered dispersion in
arriving at the action threshold, the specific dispersion model
that will be used in the upcoming proposal is still under
development.
Ground water monitoring of all wastewater treatment lagoons
containing hazardous wastes, is required including those
containing only reactive wastes. The only exemption from ground
water monitoring that is defined by the RCRA regulations is in
the case of neutralization ponds receiving wastes hazardous only
by reason of corrosivity (§265.90(e)).
This monitoring is necessary because the Agency is not aware
of any mechanism which can assure that such wastes will not also
have toxic chemicals which pose a hazard to ground water. The
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
fact that a waste is not listed or does not exhibit the
characteristic of Extraction Procedure Toxicity does not insure
the absence of leachable toxic species in the waste.
If you have further questions concerning the reactivity
characteristic please contact David Friedman (202/382-4770) of
the Methods Program. For information on the regulatory
requirements pertaining to ground water monitoring, contact
Robert April (202/475-8860) in the Ground Water Program.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: Claussen
Lehman
Weddle
Corson
Shuster
Friedman
April
Hotline
Region VI
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNITED SV? ES ENVIRONMENTAL PRC
9443.1985(05)
JUL22S85
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Regulation Interpretation for Pesticide
Applicator Washing Rinsts Water
John fl. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562A)
William Hathaway, Acting Director
Air and Waste Management Division (6AW)
Region VI
This is in response to the memorandum from Allyn Davis
dated April 22, 1985, regarding the regulatory status of
washwaters that are generated by washing the exterior of a
pesticide aerial applicator's airplane. As we stated in a
previous memorandum to Region VII (dated June 16, 1982),
the airplane washing rinsewater is a hasardous waste via
the mixture rule (S261.3(c)) if the pesticide residue on
the aircraft is listed in 40 CFR 261.33(e) or (f) (see
attachment). This regulatory interpretation has created
some concern, especially regarding the excessive impacts
the hazardous waste rules will have on pesticide applicators
and regulatory agencies. Consequently, we have been asked
to reconsider our position on this issue.
Upon reconsideration, we now believe that we have
misinterpreted the rules and that the airplane washing
rinsewater is not hazardous via the mixture rule. In
particular, the mixture rule states that when a hazardous
waste is mixed with a non-hazardous waste, the entire
mixture is hasardous, unless the waste does not exhibit any
of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity) or, in the case of a listed waste, the mixed
waste is delisted pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. In
the case of the airplane washing rinsewater, the mixture
would have to be one of water and commercial chemical
product—namely, the pesticide. The Agency does not believe
that the pesticide residue left on the aircraft is a discarded
commercial chemical product. The residue does not qualify
as material discarded or intended to be discarded, see
Generally 45 Federal Register 33115, May 19, 1980. in
CONCURRENCES
EPA Form 1320-1 (12-70)
FFICIAL FILE COPY
•V.S. GK : 1965-4*7-853
-------
listing commercial chemical products, EPA intended to
cover those products which, for various reasons, are thrown
away. Id, The Agency did not intend to cover those cases,
as here, when the chemical is released into the environment
as a result of use. Unless we take such a position, one
could argue that the pesticide that is sprayed that does
not fall directly on the crop (but falls on the ground next
to the crop) would be disposal of an unused commercial
chemical product; such an interpretation is a distortion of
the commercial chemical product rule.
Consequently, w« are withdrawing our previous interpretation
that airplane washing rinsawater is a hazardous waste via the
mixture rule.I/ Rather, this rinsewater would be defined as
hazardous only if it exhibits one or laore of the characteristics
identified in Subpart C of Part 261.
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter,
please contact Matthew A. Straus of my staff on (202) 475-8551.
cc: Air & water Management Division Directors (I to V and VII to X)
Air 6 Waste Management Branch Chief (I-X)
S. Schatzow
P. Gray
R. Ehardt
B. Weddle
J. Lehman
I/ It should be noted that the remainder of the regulatory
interpretations discussed in the June 16, 1982 memorandum
are still appropriate and should be considered valid.
WH-562B/HFRIBUSH/ecm/475-8551/7-8-8S Disk HF#l-32
-------
9443.1985(07)
September 18, 1985
Mr. John Polich, P.E.
Gabriel and Associates
1814 North Marshfield
Chicago, Illinois 60622
Dear Mr. Polich:
I am responding to your letter of July 18, 1985 requesting
clarification of the RCRA permit requirements that apply to a
specific wastewater stream, which is a mixture of methanol and
water, and which possesses the following characteristics:
Volume (30,000-50,000 gpd)
5-day BOD (25,000 mg/L)
Suspended solids (300 mg/L)
Methanol (20,000 mg/L)
This wastewater stream is a listed RCRA hazardous waste (EPA
No. F003) under 40 CFR §261.21. Since the waste is listed for
the characteristic of ignitability and because it is a mixture of
a solid and hazardous waste (§261.3(a)(2)(iii)), it can only be
exempted from all RCRA requirements if you can demonstrate that
the waste is not ignitable. To make this demonstration, you must
follow the procedures in §261.21 using a representative sample of
the wastewater stream. If your waste is not ignitable, as a
result of analysis according to these test methods, you should
notify Mr. Horst Witschonke, Chief of the Illinois RCRA Unit, U.S
EPA Region V at (312) 886-0987. He will evaluate the test data
and consider exempting the waste from RCRA regulations.
Another option is to seek approval from the local POTW,
which has an NPDES permit, and which meets all the other
requirements of 40 CFR §270.60(c) for a RCRA permit-by-rule, to
accept your hazardous waste. The POTW could allow you to pipe
the wastewater stream directly into a sewer, pipe, or other
similar conveyance at the point of generation, or to discharge
the waste at the POTW. In the latter case, the hazardous waste
must continue to be manifested and transported according to the
RCRA requirements of 40 CFR Part 262.
Finally, you should be aware of a new RCRA requirement
(Section 3005(h)) mandated by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 requiring the owner or operator of an on-site
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
RCRA facility to certify that he has a program in place to reduce
the volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste generated.
(See 50 FR 28733-34, July 15, 1985.) To comply with this
requirement, I recommend that you consider reclaiming or
recycling the spent methanol in the wastewater (see 50 FR 616-
668, January 4, 1985 for the definition of hazardous waste
recycling activities).
If you have any additional questions on these permitting
issues, please call Nancy Pomerlean at (202) 382-4500.
Sincerely,
Peter Guerrero, Chief
Permits Branch
cc: Art Glazer
Bob Scarberry (WH-562B)
Horst Witschonke, Region V
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9443.1985(08)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 85
EP Toxicity for Oily Wastes
1. With regard to the EP toxicity test specified in 5261.24, there was a :nethcd
1330 for oily wastes proposed to be added to SW-846, "Test Methods for Evalua-
ting Solid Wastes," which appeared in the October 1, 1984 Federal Register
(49 FR 38804). At what oil concentration should one use this modified E? ~toxi-
city test for oily wastes?
Method 1330 "Oily Waste Extraction Procedure' was developed for wastes
containing oil or grease in concentrations of II or greater. This method
has seen used by EPA for generators petitioning EPA to exclude their oily
hazardous wastes fron the hazardous waste listings (i.e., "delisting").
Currently/ when determining if a non-listed waste is hazardous with respect
to EP toxicity, a generator must follow the procedure specified in 40 CFR 261
Appendix II, not method 1330. Method 1330 should be used only when requested
by EPA for the purpose of delisting a hazardous wast*.
Source: Jim Poppiti (202) 382-4665
-------
9443.1985(09)
OCT 3 1985
Mr. Donald A. Robbins
Departnent of Environmental Sciences
ASARCO Incorporated
3422 South 700 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119-4191
Dear Mr. Robbins:
Thank you for your recent letter and suggestions on approaches
to the difficult problem of regulating the management of those
mining wastes which pose a hazard if improperly managed. He share
your concerns both with respect to the suitability of using the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to identify
which mining wastes warrant RCRA regulatory control and the need
for tailored management standards for hazardous mining wastes*
The TCLP was developed primarily to simulate the leachability
of an industrial waste co-disposed with sanitary refuse or other
putrescible materials* Mining wastes, because of the relatively
large volumes of material involved, are not likely to encounter
such disposal conditions even if not regulated. However, although
mining wastes are generally not acidic, many mining wastes contain
pyritic minerals which generate an acidic leachate upon exposure
to air. Thus, the acidic environment modeled by the EP/TCLP may
be appropriate for mining wastes even if the model environment
used to develop the TCLP is not. In fact, the leachate generated
by raining wastes can often be more acidic than the refuse derived
leachate. Thus, a different leach procedure (which, for some
mining wastes, could be more aggressive than the TCLP) might be
appropriate.
No decision has yet been made as to what type of test
procedure to use in identifying which mining wastes require
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. A decision tree process is
one approach that is being considered. Any such decision tree
will require a method for determining the waste's acid generation
potential. While we do not presently have any work ongoing to
develop test methods for determining a waste's acid generating
potential, we welcome your thoughts on this problem. We would
also be willing to work with you and other interested parties in
a cooperative effort to develop such a test.
-------
As to your rec'iest for tailored management standards, we
agree wfth the need to develop tailored oanaqenent standards
for raining wastes before subjecting the* to Subtitle C control
and will indicate same in the 1986 Report to Congress*
I appreciate ASARCO's offer of assistance in developing
protocols to assess the leaching potential of mining wastes.
I would suggest that you contact Alan Corson or David Friedman
(202/382-4770) to follow up on developing a cooperative
program in this area.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia E.
Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: E. Claussen
A. Corson
D. Friedman
J. Lehman
w. Porter
T. Kiimoell
-------
9443.1985(10)
OCT 2 I 1985
Mr. Robert B. Carroll
P.O. Box 442
Laramie, Wyoming 82070
Dear Mr. Carroll:
I am writing in response to your petition requesting a change
in the extraction medium employed in the Extraction Procedure (EP)
from mild acetic acid to the tetra sodium salt of diethylene triamine
pentaacetic acid (DTPA). We apologize for the delay in responding
to your petition, but your original letter was lost.
The EP is designed to model waste leachability under a
specified mismanagement scenario. This scenario assumes disposal
of the waste with municipal refuse. The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act charges EPA with identifying, as hazardous,
those wastes which may pose a danger to human health if mismanaged.
The codisposal scenario was chosen because we believe that it
accurately represents a reasonably aggressive mismanagement
scenario (i.e., it is unlikely that wastes which are not regulated
as hazardous will be exposed to leaching conditions more aggressive
than those modelled by this scenario). While the EP is an accurate
simulation of this disposal environment, it is possible that oil
shale management constitutes a more aggressive leaching situation
than the codisposal scenario. How poorly the EP procedure simulates
the leachability of the oil shale waste under commonly occurring
oil shale mismanagement appears to be the question?
In your petition you cite the study by Esmaili, et.al.,
to show that the EP "does not work for retorted oil shale waste."
While DTPA may, admittedly, be a more aggressive extraction
medium than the mild acetic acid employed in the EP, we are not
aware of any data which indicates that DTP A more closely simulate
"real world" leachate generation than the EP does. The fact
that DTPA is more aggressive does not, in and of itself, make it
more accurate.
-------
Siaco the LP does not modal the specific environment dn-.
countered duriu^ tn* disposal of oil shale waste, it way fail to
iuentify such & disposal situation as hazardous. The kC«A listing
process could be used, however, to bring such maaageraant under
regulatory control, if the waste c&n ba shown to present & significant
uctR^er to nur.vaa Uua.lt h or tne onvironaent. aite and waste specific
leaching ^rocedures can be used in nafcing such a demonstration.
If you have specific data with which we can assess the accuracy
of this procedure or other candidate leaching procedures under
tno disposal c^^ditions encountered during oil shale management,
it mi^nt uelp speed up tha davelopoeat of such procedures.
Since, in th« c&*« of petitions, the bur don of proving the value
of a proposed test falls on the petitioners, unless we receive
additional data to support the need for the change you have
requested (e.g., a couparison between actual leachate from retorted
oil shalo waste disposal facilities and EP and DTP A leashing
data) we will not b* able to proceed any farther with the petitions.
You had also requested that we publish your petition in the
Feaeral Kejister. It is our policy only to publish a notice of
receipt of petitions ani not the conplete petition. He anticipate
publishing such a notice in the near future. If you would like
to discuss tue specific information needed to proceed with this
petition, please 'contact Javid Fried/aan, of ay staff (202-382-4770).
Sincerely yours,
Harcia £• Williatas
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9443.1985(11)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 85
A. RCRA
1. Solvent Mixture Rule
A product contains two active ingredients, toluene and benzene. This unused
product is spilled on the ground. How is the spill and spill residue regulated
under RCRA? Will the proposed solvent mixture rule in the April 30, 1985
Federal Register (50 PR 18378) affect this?
Currently, if a product with more than one active ingredient is spilled, it
will not be classified a* a •?• or *U" spill residue per 5261.33 since the
product contains more than one active ingredient. Th«? proposed solvent
mixture rule (50 PR 18378) does not change the answae since the proposed
rule only addresses spent solvent mixtures.
If the soil mixed with the spilled product meets a characteristic of hazar-
dous MMt* in Part 261 Subpart C, then the soil is & HCRA waste. If the
soil Mixture does not meet a characteristic of hazardous waste, RCRA is
not applicable. CEPCLA reporting may be required if the reportable quantity
is exceeded since benzene and toluene are hazardous substances.
Sources Jackie Sales (202) 382-4770
Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7703
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1986(02)
WN I 7
Mr. Jack Corpuz
Indiana State Board of Health
133 J West Michigan St.
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Dear Mr. Corpuz:
This is a follow up to our conversation of January 14,
concerning spent iron sponge. A spent iron sponqe material which
evolves nore than 500 mq/kg i^S is considered reactive by our
current reactivity ttethod. The Department of Transportation
(DOT) requires a ten day oeriod of exposure to the atmosphere*
as a staoilization time prior to shipment (40 CFR J73.174). The
facility performing this stabilization requires a permit from
the EPA to operate (40 CFR 270.10), and if they can show that
the waste is nonreactive after treatment, then the vasfre's dis-
posal can be requlated as a non-reactive material.
Enclosed is a copy of an iron sponge reoort which nay be nf
interest to you. If you have any further questions e please qive
me a call (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours,
C&
Gail Ann Hansen
Environmental Health Scientist
Methods Program (\JH-562Q)
Enclosure
-------
2 1 &** 9443.1986(04)
Mr. Randall P.
Industrial and Agricultural Chesicals, Inc.
Route 2
Box 521-C
Red Springs, N.C. 28377
Dear Mr. Andrewst
This is in response to your letter of December 27, 1985,
concerning the regulatory status of the copper plating solution
that you receive at your plant site. As I understand your
situation, you obtain from a copper plating operation a copper
sulfate bath (which exhibits the characteristic of eorrosivity)
at your plant site and react it with a chelating agent to
produce a material that is registered with the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture as a commercial fertiliser. This
•aterial no longer exhibits the eorrosivity characteristic.
This material is then sold to farmers for use as a fertiliser
or is sold to fertilixer companies for inclusion into fertiliser
for resale.
under this scenario, the copper sulfate bath that you
receive at your plant site is a solid and hazardous waste and
is subject to the transportation and storage requirements
under the hazardous waste regulations. The material that is
produced at your plant site (i.e., the commercial fertiliser),
however, is no longer subject to regulation under the harazrdoua
waste rules and may be managed as such. The basis for this
decision is as followsi On January 4, 1985, EPA promulgated
its final rules which deal with the question of which metarials
are solid and hazardous wastes when they are recycled. Among
other things, these rules state that all hazardous secondary
materials that are placed on the land for benefical use or
incorporated into products (referred to as waste-derived
products) that are placed on the land for benefical use are
solid and hazardous wastes. (See enclosed copy of regulations.)
in the Agency's view, these practicss are virually the equivalent
of unsuperrised land disposal, a,situation RCRA is designed
to prevent. The many damage incidents resulting from wastes
being placmd on the land for benefical use bear out the
Agency's concern. This type of recycling activity has also
-------
been a particular concern of Congress. in particular, in a
number of Congressional reports, they describe various damage
incidents involving wastes that are placed on the land for
benefical use. These reports reflect not only Congress*
concern but its intent that EPA regulate this type of activity.
Therefore, we believe that this type of recycliiig activity
constitues waste management and need be subject to regulatory
control.
By asserting jurisdiction over waste-derived products
that are placed on the land, we are also asserting Jurisdication
(and regulating) the materials that go into these products,
provided these materials are hazardous (i.e., exhibit one or
more of the hazardous waste characteristics or are specifically
listed). Therefore, since the copper plating solution is
corrosive, it is subject to regulation. More specifically,
the generator and transporter of this material is subject to
the appropriate generator and transporter standards, including
the hazardous waste manifest, while you (being the recycler)
would be subject to the appropriate storage standards. (See
40 CPR 261.6(b) arid (c) for specific regulatory requirements.)
As indicated earlier, however/ the material that is produced
at your facility — the commerical fertiliser — is no longer
subject to regulation since this material is no longer defined
as hazardous.
Since this regulation has gone through formal rulemafcing,
your only alternative (at this time) is to submit a rulemaklng
petition under 40 CFR Part 260.20 (See enclosure for specific
information requirements). 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 (WH-562B)
-------
9443.1986(05)
MONTHS SWMARy
JANUARY 86
1. spent Solvent Mixtures
In the December 31, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 53315), EPA attended the listing
of hazardous wastes in §261.31 to include certain spent solvent mixtures. In
this final rule, spent solvent listings F001, F002, F004, and F005 were redefined
to include mixtures containing ten percent or more total listed solvent (by
volume). However, the ten percent threshold for solvent mixtures was not applied
to the F003 solvents listed solely for ignitability because the tejency determined
that these solvents may not be ignitable at such low concentrations. Additionally
the Agency did not remove these ignitable spent solvents from the list of hazar-
dous waste since the solvents have not been evaluated for their toxicity. How
then are mixtures of ignitable solvents regulated?
If a spent, non-halogenated solvent has been listed only for showing the
ignitability characteristic (i.e., listed as F003), then mixtures or olends
of such solvents will remain listed as F003 wastes as long as the mixture
or blend consists only of F003 listed solvents. For example, a blend of
80% ethyl acetate and 20% xylene would be classified as F003 while a blend
of 80% ethyl acetate and 20% petroleum solvents would not be F003. However,
the ethyl acetate and petroleum solvent would probably exhibit the iynita-
bility characteristic and be classified as D001. Finally if a solvent blend
consists of a solvent listed under F003 plus 10% or more of any solvent
listed under F001, F002, F004, F005, then the resultant spent mixture will
be listed as F003 and the other spent solvents (i.e., F001, F002, F004, or
F005) respectively.
Source: Jacqui Sales (202) 382-4807
-------
1986(06)
MAR t 2 1986
Paul Agid
Dames i Moor*
1S5 N.E. 100th Street
Suit* 500
Seattle, Washington 98125
Dear Mr. Agidi
in our telephone conversation of March 11, 1986, ve
discussed the detection limit for the BP leachate concentration
of selenium «0.2 ppm) cited in the del lit ing petition (1*20)
filed for the residual vast a/contaminated soil pit at the Boeing
Commercial Airplane Company - Fabrication Division facility in
Auburn, Washington. I Indicated that, if the detection limit wee
used as a maximum BP leachate value in the TOS ground water »odel
analysis, the predicted cceipliance point concentration would
exceed the Agency's regulatory standard of o.Ol ppm. Further
analysis is necessary in order to produce lover detection limits,
e.g. <0.1 ppm, that vould not produce a negative VH8 finding.
It should be possible, if the Maples are archived, to re-test
the existing samples using a method permitting finer detection
limits. Other vise, additional representative samples must b«
tested to achieve lover detection limits for selenium.
I have recently assumed responsibility for the review of
Boeing*s petition. Please forward this data to me as soon as
possible, so that the timely review of the petition may be
assured. If you have any questions, please call me at (202)
382-4783.
Sincerely,
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Solid waste (WH-562B)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ^^^^ 1986(09)
30 886
Mr. Ritchey Vaughn
Quicksilver Products, Inc.
200 Valley Drive, Suite 1
Brisbane, California 94005
Dear Mr. Vaughnt
I am writing in response to your request for a definitive
opinion on whether discarded fluorescent and mercury vapor lamps
would be classified as a hazardous waste under Section 261.24 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.
With only the data you submitted, it is not possible for me
to give you a definitive answer to your question. For example,
using the data presented on the GE HVR1000/VBU lann as a worst
case, the amount of mercury that is potentially available is
223 rag/kg of waste. If all the mercury was extracted into the
Extraction Procedure (EP) extract during the test, this would
yield an extract concentration of 11.3 mg/1. However, mercury
is a relatively inert metal, with respect to reactivity toward
nonoxidizing acids such as the acetic acid used as the extraction
medium in the EP. In addition, while mercury has a relatively
high solubility in water (as compared to most metals), it solubility
is only .02 mg/1 which is substantially below the regulatory
threshold of 0.2 mg/1.
While I do not believe that either fluorescent or mercury
vapor lamps would b« hazardous waste under the RCRA regulations,
actual EP testing would have to be conducted before any definite
conclusion could be drawn. You should keep in mind, however, that
RCRA is •> State administered program in those States that have
applied for and received authorization. In such States it is the
State program which must be adhered to. Some States have more
stringent regulations than those of the Federal program. Thus,
it is possible that a State may elect to regulate a waste as a
hazardous waste based on its total mercury content and not on
leachable mercury. California may be one such State. I recommend
you contact the California Department of Health Services for
State-specified regulations.
-------
-2-
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call
me at (202) 382-4770 or you may call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at
(800) 424-9346.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman
Manager
Methods Prooran
bcc: E. Claussen
A. Corson
Weil
trauss
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1986(10)
- 5 \986
Mr. Dave Alff
Analytical Testing and
Consulting Services
1947 BrooX Lane
Jamison, Pennsylvania 18929
Dear Mr. Alfft
This letter is to confirm our conversations regarding
your intent to market equipment used to run the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). As we discussed,
your designs for the rotary apparatus indicate that the device
meets the requirement for end-over-end agitation at approximately
30 rpm. I will be adding your device to the list of suitable
rotary agitation equipment.
You also presented designs for a zero-headspace extractor
(ZHE). Unfortunately, it is not possible to make a decision
regarding suitability without data comparing the performance of
your device to the other equipment. To reduce potential
variability, it is necessary to insure that all devices are
capabable of producing similar results.
As I suggested, you should consider evaluating your device
for comparability in two steps. First, to insure that you are
in the right ballpark, you should initiate experimental work to
determine recoveries of spiked volatiles from water (or from
TCLP extraction fluid) that has been run through the ZHE. We
have done this work through one of our contractors with the
other two ZHE devices* and comparable results would provide
evidence that your ZHE should be suitable. Please call Dr.
David Taylor of S-Cubed at (619) 587-8369 for information
regarding identity of the volatiles we used, the spike levels,
the spiking method, and the expected recoveries. I have alerted
Dr. Taylor to expect your call.
-------
-2-
Assuming that your recoveries are acceptable, testing of
actual wastes, and comparison to results obtained with the
other ZHE-devices, would be the next step. Since you
understandably wish to avoid having to buy other devices in
order to make these comparisons, participation in our
collaborative study, also being managed by S-Cubed, would be
advisable. Please contact Dr. Taylor if you wish to participate.
Another alternative would be for you to initiate comparative
work through a laboratory that has already obtained these devices.
This alternative has several distinct advantages. For one,
it would eliminate several variables that always exist in
collaborative studies, such as analytical variability. A more
distinct advantage to you would be time. You indicated that
you wished for your ZHE to be listed with the other ZHE devices
when the proposed TCLP becomes published in the third edition of
SW-846 (our solid waste testing manual), even if it was listed
with the caveat that it was still undergoing evaluation. I
have talked this over with my management, and the decision was
made that the manual should only indicate that equipment which
has been shown to be acceptable. For time reasons then, you may
wish to elect this other alternative. Of course if you choose
this alternative you are still welcome to participate in our
collaborative effort.
The time factor may be the deciding factor for you since
we will have to make a decision on equivalency by the end of
June to include your equipment in the 3rd edition of SW-846.
I recognize that this leaves you with less than two months
to initiate and complete the necessary comparative work. If you
choose this route, however, I would be glad to provide you with
more assistance.
I am sorry for having to present you with these hard choices.
You have obviously put a lot of effort into your development
work, and your design seems feasible. I wish you had contacted
me much sooner with your intent. We could have probably avoided
the time factor. Good luck and please call me at (202)382-4795
if I can be of more help*
Sincerely,
Todd A. Kiraraell
Environmental Scientist
Studies and Methods Branch (WH-562B)
ccs David Friedman (OSW)
David Taylor (S-Cubed)
-------
9443.1986(11)
Mr. William R. Blackburn
Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
Deertield, Illinois 60U15
Dear Mr. Blackburn:
This is in response to the letters you have submitted
to the Agency in which you raise a number of questions tor
our consideration. First, let me apologize for tne 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's plant in Cleveland, Mississippi is not a
waste. Based on the information provided,!./ 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 first
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 be 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 DI acid has always been benefically
I/ See fetters dated: November 14, 1985, from William R.
Blackburn to Jack Lehman? December 5, 1985, trom Michael bmith
to Robert Tonetti; January 13, 1986, from Michael Smith
to Matthew Straus; February 6, 1985, from William R. Blackburn
to clatthew Strausj and April 17, 1986, from 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 Office 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 Homer. 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
rurther Questions.
Sincerely*. . \
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid*Waste
-------
UNITED S e- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION At CT
9443.1986(12)
MAY 23
Mr. Frank Neiderko£ler
Supply Service (95)
Veterans Administration
810 Vermont Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20420
Dear Mr. Neiderkofler
As we discussed last Friday, the National Association
of Photographic Manufacturers (NAPM) provided data to the
Agency to indicate that used x-ray films/ in and of them-
selves, do not appear to be hazardous under RCRA. Therefore,
used x-ray films are probably not subject to the Federal
hazardous waste management regulations (see enclosure.)
You should be aware, however, that each generator is still
responsible for making this determination.A/ In addition,
wastes not hazardous under EPA's regulations may be hazardous
under authorized State programs* You, therefore, need to
contact the States to determine the regulatory status of
these films under their program.
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
Branch Chief
Haste and Identification Branch
WH-562B/MSTRAUS/ecm/475-8551/5-19-86 Disk 8601-27
I/ If the generator determines that these films are hazardous,
the only requirements under the Federal regulatins imposed
upon the generator would bo to get an identification number
and to comply with the uniform hazardous waste manifest.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443. 1986(13
=^l = Patrick J. Leahy
m Minority ^-vber
HUD-Indeoendent Agencies
Aporopriations Subcommittee
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington, O.C. 20510
Dear Senator Leahyi
Thank you for your letter of May 7, 1986, regarding an
inquiry from your constituents in Bristol, Vermont. You
requested information regarding residues from municipal waste
resource recovery facilities and any federal laws that apply
to the disposal of these residues.
Solid residues froa municipal waste combustion (MUC)
processes consist of fly ash and scrubber sludge recovered from
air pollution control equipment, and bottom ash. Disposal of
these residues is. accomplished by landfilling. Ply ash as well
as other residues from MWC processes sometimes exhibit the
characteristics of hazardous waste and, therefore, are regulated
under the applicable disposal standards in 40 CFR Parts 260 through
2€5. Other than those occasions when the wastes meet the definition
of hazardous waste* the Federal regulations that apply to the
landfillinq of any nonhasardous solid wastes, including most
residues from MWC processes, are the 'Criteria for Classification
of Solid Haste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR Part
257), which were promulgated on September 13, 197t, under authority
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Criteria
include general performance standards that are used to determine
which solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable
probability of having no adverse effects on human health and the
environment* a, copy of these standards is enclosed for your
information*-
The Iff4 Hazardous and Solid Haste Amendments (HSWA) to
RCRA require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
complete several new efforts with regard to solid waste disposal,
By November 8, 1917, EPA must complete a study and report to
Congress on nonhasardous waste land disposal facilities and
practices to determine whether the current Federal Criteria
-------
are adequate to protect human health and the environment. . In
addition, by March 31, 1988, EPA must revise the current Criteria
(40 CFR Part 257) for disposal facilities, including municipal
waste landfills, that receive household hazardous waste and
small quantity generator hazardous waste. HSWA also requires
the Agency to develop a report to Congress and guidelines on
dioxin emissions from municipal waste incinerators or resource
recovery facilities.
In response to these HSWA mandates, we have recently
initiated several projects in an effort to address problems per-
tinent to your inquiry. EPA is currently developtaf a technical
information document for use by State and local government* in
evaluating municipal waste combustion projects. We anticipate
that this document will be available in February 1987. The EPA
contact for this effort is Stephen Greene, (202) 382-4608.
We are also currently engaged in a comprehensive study to
determine the characteristics of ash from MWC processes and to
assess the potential health and environmental impacts from the
disposal of these residues. The results of this study will
be incorporated into the February 1987 information document
mentioned above. The Agency contact for this ash study is
Gerri Dorian, (202) 382-4688.
Your letter presented several questions regarding this
matter* I have specifically addressed each of then below.
1. Has EPA tested the wastes from municipal waste
resource recovery facilities to determine the
characteristicsof such wastes? If so, whatdid
those tests find? Have such wastes ever been
characterized as hazardous?
Various agencies, domestic and foreign, have performed a
range of analyses on these residues. A list of technical papers
available to the public is enclosed for your information. EPA
will not complete its full evaluation of this until February
1987. However, it is Known that ash residues (predominantly fly
ash) sometimes exhibit the characteristic of EP toxicity as
determined using the RCRA Extraction Procedures (EP) for toxicity
(40 CFR Parts 260.20 and 260.21), because of the presence of
certain inetals, such as lead and cadmium. If a waste is charac-
terized as L'P 'ioxic, it. is a TICRA hazardous waste. Additionally,
recent testin.j of fly ash an;: flue gas fronv municipal wnste
coni>ustion processes ha-?, i:i sc::e cases, der.,onstrate-3 the --irc^ence
of ;>olychloriuatsc diLeiizc-p-dicxins, polychlorinated cibenzofurins
r..4<- i.cl..T;.lci.-ri;i«:te-:i bi;ji':enyls in both medic in relativfrly s'-al.1.
L-.-.'vt.- -L" .r..: i:. c,, ::: '-i c.ut::.ti: ••.;!:-.. u ha^tif: '-:* nr. landfill*'- •
-------
2. Do EPA's tests for toxicity of the waste include
a full range of organic chemicals"?
The EP toxicity test (40 CFR Part 261.24) addresses eight
inorganics and only six organic constituents. These organics
include: Endrin, Lindane, Methoxychlor, Toxaphene, 2,4-D, and
Silvex. EPA is currently developing a new toxicity characteristic
and associated leaching procedure (TCLP) that will result in the
evaluation of a broader range of organics. For further information
on the TCLP, your constituents should contact Todd Kimrael at
(202) 382-4795.
3. If the waste were determined to be a hazardous waste/
what requirements would apply to a landfill in which
the waste is disposed?
Owners and operators of hazardous waste landfills must
comply with all applicable requirements in 40 CFR Parts 260
through 265.
You should be aware that certain States have more stringent
or specific standards for the disposal of MWC ash, whether or not
the ash is classified as a RCRA hazardous waste. The State of
Vermont has proposed regulations that address the disposal of
MWC ash. For further information on the State of Vermont regula-
tions (existing and proposed), your constituents should contact:
Mr. John Malter, Director
Waste Management Division
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(802) 828-3395
4. Under the Clean Air Act, are there any authorities
for controlling the blowing dust particles that
may result from the disposal of these wastes?
Under the Clean Air Act, the Agency has the general authority
to investigate and regulate emissions, including particulate
emissions, from various sources that may pose a threat to human
health or the environment. The Agency also has authority under
RCRA to control dust. For your general information, the State
of Delaware has experienced some dust control concerns regarding
municipal waste combustor residues. For more detailed information
on the approach Delaware has used, your constituents may wish to
con", act:
-------
Mr. William Razor, Supervisor
Solid Waste Management Branch
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 736-4781
5. Under the Clean Water Act or any other water*-
related federal statutes, are there any authorities
for controlling leaking ground water from a landfill
in which such waste is deposited?
The Clean Water Act does provide EPA some authority for
ensuring ground-water protection, but these authorities are
less specific to this purpose than those delegated under RCRA.
EPA's primary authority for ground-water protection at active
landfills is derived from RCRA. For more detailed information
regarding these Federal authorities, your constituents should
contact our Office of General Counsel, either Dov Weitman at
(202) 382-7703 or Ken Gray at (202) 382-7706.
I hope this information is useful to you and your constituents,
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate
to contact us again.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Malter
Mr. William Razor
bcc: M. Williams
J. Lehman
K. Shuster
M. Flynn
G. Dorian
-------
9443 .1986(15)
Mr. Peter R. Drew
PME Pty. Ltd. ,;, 2g g-,
17A Nortolk Court "J c ° rac"
Coburg 3058
MflDourne, Australia
Dear Mr. Drew:
This letter is in response to yours dated June 12, 1986
which torwarded information concerning your company's
electrolytic silver recovery eouipment.
The high recovery rates attributed to your equipment are
indeed impressive. I wish you success in marketing this
equipment.
Regarding your request tor information about CPA
limitations on silver discharges to sower systems, I am
unable to comply. I believe you may have some misunderstanding
ot EPA regulations concerning silver, which I will attempt
to remedy.
As you are probably aware, the EPA has established a
limit of 0.05 mg/1 of silver in public drinking water supplies.
Drinking water containing concentrations of silver above this
limit are considered to be unsafe.
Under EPA's hazardous waste program, pursuant to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), materials
which have a silver concentration of 5 rag/1 or hiqher in
the liquid phase or in an extract from the solid phase
are considered hazardous waste and are subject to handling
and disposal regulations. However, these regulations do not
restrict th« discharge of hazardous waste to the sewer.
Discharge of materials to the sewer is regulated by the
Cl«an Water Act (CWA) through £PA's Effluent Guidelines
Program. Generally, EPA Effluent Guideline regulations are
industry and process specific. In the case of photo-finishing,
the Agency has not, as yet, issued a regulation to limit the
discharge of used photographic fixers to the sewer. The
decision to delay issuance of such regulations is based, in
part, on the Agency's belief that current silver recovery
practices greatly reduce silver discharges to the sewer.
-------
There are EPA regulations limiting silver discharges to
the sewer fro» metal finishing and electroplating operations.
These silver concentration limits are below 1 rag/1.
If you desire additional information of EPA effluent
guidelines, I suggest that you contact Marvin B. Rubin
(mail code WH-552) in EPA's Office of Water Regulations and
Standards.
Also for your information, in case you don't already
know, there is a trade association of photographic equipment
manufacturers, in tho United States. You can contact this
association at:
National Association of Photographies
Manufacturers, Inc.
(Attention: Thomas Dutficy)
600 Mamaroneck Avenue
Harrison, NY 10528
Respectfully,
Bernard J. StoLl
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9443.1986(16 )
MSMOHANDUM
SUBJECT i How Typical ara tha Charactaristie Hazardous Wastaa
Gansratad at Primary Matal Smalting and Rafining Sitss?
ntOMi Frank A. Smith, Economist
Economic Analysis Staff (WH-56S)
TOi John Lahman* Diraetor
Waata Haaagamant Division
Thia name addraaaas tha quaation of whathar tha oharaetarivtio
vaataa prodooad by primary aoafarrooa matal aaaltia^ and rafining
plant* ara diffarant ia quantity and loeatioaal aapaeta froa tha
characteristic waataa ganaratad by othar maaufaetaria^ sactora.
Thraa basic cooparisona vara coaduetad to answar thia quastioat
(1) waata quant ititaa produoad at individual sitaa,
raaidant hmaan populatiops rasiding within ona
and liva aiia radii fro« tha plants, and
(3) populations sarvad by public yatar supply aystsma
looatad naar (oaa and fiva ailss) tha ganaratin?
sit as.
Tha quaatioa of Whathar thaaa wastas ara toora or Isss hazardous
in tarns of conatituant conoantrationa will ba addrsaasd in a
saparats aano ragardia? tozioity scoring of smalting/rsfining
waatas va. othar similar wastaa* Hazardous saalting and rafining
plant vaataa ara typically hazardous dua to prasanca of ZP toxic
matals and/or oorrosiTity larals.
Tha baals) for comparison in tha following summnary of rssulta
ia "all manufacturing aactora* (SIC 2000*3999) as raprssantad
by raapooaaa from SPA'S 1982*83 mail qvaationnairs survaya of
Oaaarators and on-aita TSO Oanaral waata handlar*. Data for
smalting and rafining ara from OSV's 1984-85 survays of salacted
•malting and rafining sactors, including t aluminum* laad« zinc
and sine oxida, ferroalloy* , titanium aatal and titanium dioxida
-------
(T1O2). For the tsoet part* these are the largest generators in
the primary nocferrous metal sectors sine* they represent mostly
the large volume metals oroduc«r».
Results
1. Quantity of Waste Generated
Table 1 conpares the salient statistics for six primary
nonferrous Smelting and Refining (S*R) sectors (1984) against
the OSW 1982 TSD General Survey for manufacturing facilities.
In tens of average vast* per generator, the SfrR's other than
have a significantly lower mean (6,200 vs. 62,5OO wetric tons
per year per facility) than that for all manufacturing. On the
other hand, S&R's also exhibit a substantially higher median
(3,800 vs. 300 tons), indicating that they typically fall above
the median sixe among generators. However, 90 percent of these
S&R's generate less than 25,000 tons per year, which is about on
a par with the manufacturing sectors as a whole. Excluding Ti02»
the largest individual generators within these six SfcR sectors
produce characteristic wastes in the 30,OOO to 36,OOO too per
year range, cojspared with several million too* per year for the
largest individual generators in soae other sectors. Statistical
estimates based on the TSD general survey indicate that there
were about 250 manufacturing facilities in other sectors generating
in excess of 36,000 tons per year in 1981*
In summary, two conclusions can be state-It
(1) Most primary nonferrous S&R facilities that
generate characteristic hasardous waste
produce larger quantities than do a majority
of facilities in other sectors, but
(2) SfcR generation rates are not extremely large in
comparison to the larger waste generators in
other sectors*
Titanltta dioxide would constitute .an exception to these
findings* Mates of characteristic hazardous waste generation
for the generators in this sector are equivalent to the 35th to
99th percentiles of all waste generators.
What if all hasardous waste except for aluminum potliners is
considered characteristic waste? The table below provides a
brief cooperison with the addition of copper to the list of
sectors.
-------
Tabla 1
Individual Facility Characteristic Hacardous
Waata Generation Ratea
(Metric tona par yaar)
Haaardoua 1983
Haata T8D
Statiatioa aurvay
Mean
Median
Niniawua
Haxiawui
Total HW
62,545
269
<1
> 10, 000, 000
234,784,000
Six
a actor a
5,791
3,800
40
39,870
341,670
Primary
Hon-rarroua Smalt ing and Rafininq Sactora*
Aluminum Zinc
4,325
1,920
140
29,030
103,800
10,150
8,380
2,670
19.400
30.450
Zinc
Qi
23,595
23,595
7,320
39, 870
47,190
Laad
11.246
9,710
3,790
25,280
56,230
Parro-
alloya
4,900
5,300
40
32,400
93,000
f itantium
Matal
1,850
1,500
150
4,600
11,000
Nu«b«r of
facllitiaa
3750
59
24
19
-------
Number of facilities
Total H.W.
Mean H.W.
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Six Sectors
Per NPR
59
341,670
5,791
3,800
40
39,370
Seven Sector*
74
750,500
10,140
4,600
40
91,930
All Mfgr.
Sector*
3,754
234,784,000
G2,545
1G9
less than 1
over 10 million
Essentially, the transfer of proposed listed wastes to the
"characteristics* category does not change the conclusions. It
adds a sector with substantial waste quantities (copper) and adds
additional characteristic wastes to several facilities in the
lead and sine sectors. However, it only increases by four the
number of facilities with wastes in excess of 30,OOO tons per year.
Figure 1 provides a cumulative frequency distribution of
facility hazardous wasts quantities to illustrate the relation
between the 74 S4R facilities and other manufacturing*
2' 'fhat if "Large Volume" isdefined in ter^s of Sectors (industry
groups) instead ofin^£vidual facllilties?
The 1982 TSD Generator Survey was analyzed in terns of
individual four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
industry hazardous waste management quantities. Coniparisons were
then drawn between the 194 manufacturing sectors represented in
the survey and seven of the larger nonferrous metal smelting and
refining (S&R) sectors studied in the reinterpretation.
Sector Totals
The largest hazardous waste generating Sfctl sector was cooper
with 360*000 metric tons oer year. Thirty-two (32) other individual
manfacturing sectors (16 percent of all sectors) in the Office of
Solid Waste 1983 Mail Survey reported larger hazardous waste
quantities than copper. The second largest S&R sector in our
sample of seven was aluminum with 104,000 metric tons oer year
(excluding potliners). Forty-eight (48) other manufacturing
sectors* or 23 percent of all sectors, exceeded 104,000 tons per
year of total haardous waste. The average sector total for all
seven 3&R sectors was also about 104.000 tons per y«ar.
-------
The smallest StR sector among the seven in terms of estimated
hazardous wast.* was titanium metal with 11/000 tons per year.
This was exceeded by 109 (56 percent) other manufacturing sectors
and, in turn, was larger than 85 (44 percent) of the other non
S&R sectors.
On the basis of these data, we conclude that the smelting
and refining waste quantities when viewed as sector totals are
well within the "normal" range of sector hazardous waste quantities
for all manufacturing categories.
3. Population and Proximity to Public Water Supplies
Smelting and refinery facility locations were compared to
locations of other generators based on the 1982 generator survey
(HWDMS). Two types of comparisons were perfornedt
' Population density in the vacinity of the
facility (one and five mile radius)
Population served by public water supply intakes
located within one and five ail* ra
uppl
dii.
Non ferrous smelting and refining sites are sonewhat more
rurally located than other generators. Aver* je population living
within one mile for SbR's was 4,500 vs. 11,800 for other generators;
and within five miles average population was 51,000 vs. 198,000.
The conclusion is not warranted, however, that S6R's are mainly
located in remote areas) 75 percent of S&R'a have a population
of at least 7,500 within a mile, compared with 15,000 for other
generators.
Regarding distance to public water supply intakes, 59 percent
of S&R's showed a public water supply intake within one mile,
vs. only 40 percent of all generators in the OSW generator survey.
Both SfcR's and all generators showed a public water supply intake
within fiv« Miles for every facility in the respective samples.
On average, the water supply systems near S&R's served somewhat
smaller popalations (2,500 vs. 5,000 for systems with intakes located
within a avila of the facilities).
ccs Mark Greenwood
Meg Silver
Eileen Claussen
Matt Straus
Jeff Denit
-------
9443.1926(17)
UNIT STATES ENVIROMMENTAL PROTtLTI'
Mr. David J. Alff,
Analytical Testino and
Consulting Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 537
Harrington, PA 18976-0537
Dear Mr. Alff:
I enjoyed meeting you and getting the chance to discuss your
company's xero-headspace extractor (ZHE) during the OSW symposium.
The EPA has tentatively decided to add your ZHE to the list
of extractors deemed suitable for conducting evaluations of
volatiles. He would like to remind you that your device, as well
as others, is in a proposed status as the rules that specify use
of the TCLP have not yet been finalized. If we encounter any
information which leads us to change our evaluation, we will let
you know. Otherwise, you can expect that your extractor will
receive formal approval when the TCLP is finalized later this year,
If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Ann Hanson
Environmental Health Scientist
Methods Section (WH-562B)
cc: David Friedman
Peter Guerrero
Todd Kimmell
a Wstklna, ATC5
-------
UNITED STATES EfHraoiUlgHT^L PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1986(18)
4 1985
Honorable Alan Cranston
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Cranston:
Thank you for your August 4, 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent, Mr. Martin Schlaegel, concerning the disoosal
of dry cell batteries containing mercury and the potential
damage they may cause to the environment.
We, like Mr. Schlaegel, are concerned with the toxic
effects of mercury on the environment. As you may know,
regarding dry cell batteries, the Aaency's hazardous waste
rules define hazardous as any waste where the leachate exceeds
0.2 mg/l of mercury. Wastes are also defined as hazardous
if they are specifically listed by the Agency. At this
time, mercury dry cell batteries are not listed as hazardous
by the Agency. Although we have no data indicating whether
disposed mercury dry cell batteries are hazardous wastes
under our rules, we reguire generator's of such waste tc
make this determination. To the extent that these batteries
are hazardous (i.e., the leachate from the dry cell battery
would contain greater than 0.2 mg/l of mercury), they must
be managed at a hazardous waste management facility.
There are two exceptions to the reguirement that hazardous
waste from these batteries be managed at a hazardous waste
management facility. First, if the batteries are discarded
by a householder, they are not subject to the hazardous waste
rules. Second, if the hazardous waste from these batteries is
generated in small quantities (defined as less than 100 kg
per month)* they also are not reguired to be managed at a
hazardous waste management facility. In these cases, the
batteries generally would go to a municipal sanitary landfill.
Municipal landfills are non-hazardous waste facilities.
Because the Agency is concerned that discarding this type of
waste in municipal landfills could be a problem we are re-eval-
uating our non-hazardous waste criteria. After we complete
our review of the criteria, we will revise the regulations
for non-hazardous waste facilities, including municipal
landfills. Me will issue these regulations in March of 1988.
-------
If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
UNI
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT AGENCY
9443.1986(19)
* ftts
Ms. Jaccju^j. ino Daitch
Marketing Manager
Miliipore Corporation
80 Ashfoy Road
Bedf-ord. MA 01730
Dear Jacquier
As per our phone conversation of September 4, 1986 con-
cerning your glass fiber filters, both David and Todd will
not reconsider the ERCO study results. They still feel
that your filters do not have the durability required for
the rigors of the TCLP. These filters have a tendency to
become frayed around the edges while undergoing the pressures
of the test. This could contribute to irreproducibilityand
may cause confusion amoung analysts.
We therefore cannot add your filters to the list of the
ones deemed suitable for TCLP purposes. If you have any
questions about this decision, please call me at (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours/
Gail Ann Hansen
Environmental Health Scientist
Methods Section (WH-562B)
cc; Peter Guerrero
David Friedman
Todd KianeU
-------
9443.1987(01)
January 6, 1987
Mr. Thomas Dufficy
Executive Vice President
National Association of
Photographic Manufacturers, Inc
600 Mamaronech 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 cartridges (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, corrosivity, 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).
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
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
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9443. 1987 (02)
"
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
- !387
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Les Aspin
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Aspin:
Thank you for your December 18, 1986, letter requesting
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make a determi-
nation as to whether lithium thionyl chloride (SOCL2) batteries
are hazardous wastes.
As you may know, wastes are considered hazardous under
regulations issued pursuant to the .Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) if they are either specifically listed as
hazardous wastes or if they exhibit one of four characteristics
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or Extraction
Procedure Toxicity). Lithium batteries are not listed hazar-
dous wastes at this time and the Agency is not currently
planning to list them as hazardous.
With respect to the characteristics of hazardous waste,
determinations as to whether a particular material exhibits a
characteristic is, by regulation (40 CFR §262.11(c)), the
responsibility of individual generators. Although th'e Agency
rendered an opinion in March of 1984 with respect to lithium
sulfur dioxide (LI/SOj) batteries, we did so only after
repeated requests from the Army and because there had already
been considerable work done on LiSO2 systems which allowed
the Agency to render an opinion without extensive additional
study. Further work on other lithium battery systems is not
currently underway and other priorities established by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) will
preclude us from initiating such a study any time in the
immediate future* Consequently, we .suggest that the Depart-
ment of Defense, perhaps in cooperation with the battery
manufacturers, evaluate these other lithium systems against
the characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261.
If I can be of any further assistance in this matter,
please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9443.1987(04)
EN V'*ONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 204<0
MAR ! I 1987
OFP'CE Qf
Mr. Lawrence D. Aniballi souo WASTE A*° EMERGENC
Research Products International Corporation
410 North Business Center Drive
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Dear Mr. Aniballi:
This is in response to your letter of December 16, 1986,
in which you requested an interpretation of the regulatory
status of your liquid scintillation counting cocktail, Bio-Safe II,
under the Federal hazardous waste regulations.
Based on telephone conversations you had with
Miss Filooena Chau, of my staff, and your letter of January 12, 1987,
Bio-Safe XI contains less than 0.05 microcuries of radioactive
tritium (hydrogen- 3) and carbon 14; in addition, this material
contains the following scintillators: primary scintillator of
PPO: 2,5diphenyloxazole; secondary scintillator of Butyl PBD:
2-(4'-tbutylphenyl)-5-4"biphenyl)-l,3,4 oxadiazole.
The waste/ as you described, does not seem to be subject to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations under 10 CFR 20.306(a),
since your waste contains less than 0.05 microcuries of hydrogen-3
and carbon- 14 per gram of medium. However, your waste appears
to be subject to 10 CFR 20.306(d), which states that the generator
is not relieved from complying with other applicable Federal,
State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous
property of these materials. EPA's hazardous waste management
regulations would be an example of such "applicable regulations."
Thus, you must compare the characteristics of your waste against
the criteria outlined in 40 CFR Part 261 (see enclosure) to deter-
mine whether or not your waste is hazardous. Specifically, you
must determine whether your waste exhibits any of the characteris-
tics of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, "Character-
istics of Hazardous Waste"), or whether your waste is a listed
hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261, Subpart D, "Lists of Hazardous
Waste").
-------
- 2 -
With respect to the hazardous waste characteristics, you
must determine whether your liquid scintillation counting cocktail
is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Liquid ignitable
wastes are defined under §261.21 as those with a flash point of
less than 140*F. Corrosive wastes are defined under §261.22 as
those having a pH of less than or equal to 2 or greater than or
equal to 12.5 or is able to corrade steel at a rate greater than
6.35 mm (0.250 inches per year at a test temperature of 55*C (130*P)).
Reactive wastes are defined under §261.23 as those exhibiting
any of eight properties (see the attached regulations). Section
261.24 defines the characteristic of extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity and indicates the test methods to be used to identify
the presence of this characteristic for any contaminants listed
in Table I of the Section.
Your letter stated that your waste has a flashpoint of
greater than 300*F, greater than the highest flash point of
regulatory concern, 140*F. The ingredients of Bio-Safe II, as
you described, are not any of the contaminants listed in Table I
of §261.24; thus Bio-Safe II does not seem to be EP toxic. Your
letter did not address whether Bio-Safe II was corrosive or
reactive. In addition, neither liquid scintillation cojcktails
nor laboratory wastes, as a general category, are presently
listed as hazardous wastes under §261.30-.33. Therefore, provided
the liquid scintillation cocktail is not corrosive or reactive, it
does not appear to be a hazardous waste.
However, each generator is still responsible for determining
whether or not their waste is hazardous. See 40 CFR 262.11. In
addition, you will need to check with your State or local authorities
to determine whether this waste is regulated under their authority.
If you have any further questions, please contact
Miss Filomena Chau (202-382-4795) of my staff.
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
cct Michael Bandrowski (ANR-460)
Paul Friedman (WH-562B)
Filomena Chau (WH-562B)
-------
9443.1987(05)
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MAR 1 8 SSS7
Mr. Carl Bcrger, Director
Power Sources Division
U.S. Army Laboratory Command
Electronics Technology and Devices Laboratory
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 07703-5302
Dear Mr. Berger:
I am responding to your letter of August 18, 1986, in which
you request an Agency opinion that Lithium/Sulphur Dioxide (Li/SO2)
batteries that have been fully discharged to zero volts no longer
exhibit the characteristic of reactivity. Based on information
supplied by the US Army Electronics Technology and Devices Labor-
atory (LABCOM), we generally agree that such batteries are unlikely
to be reactive.
Under the hazardous waste regulations, each generator of a
waste is responsible for making a hazardous waste determination
under 40 CFR 262.11. If the waste exhibits one of the four
characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C of Part
261 or is a waste listed in Subpart D of Part 261, it must be
managed in accordance with the hazardous waste regulations. As
you know, on March 7, 1984, in response to requests from the De-
partment of the Army, EPA rendered an opinion that spent or discar-
ded Li/S02 bateries appeared to exhibit the characteristic of
reactivity* a* defined in 40 CFR 261.23. The Agency further
noted that 264.312 and 265.312 of the hazardous waste regulations
prohibit the placement of reactive (or ignitable) hazardous waste
into a landfill unless the waste, or waste mixture, is treated,
rendered, or mixed before, or immediately after, placement in a
landfill such that the waste or waste mixture no longer exhibits
the characteristic. Thus, the prohibition would no longer apply
if the waste no longer exhibited the characteristic of reactivity
(or ignitability).
-------
-2-
The Agency continues to believe that fully charged and duty-
cycle Li/S02 batteries are reactive hazardous wastes and should
be managed as such. However, information provided by LABCOM
during the Augtsk 5 meeting with members of my staff and in your
follow-up submission of August 18th indicates that a Li/S02
battery that has been fully discharged to zero volts would contain
substantially reduced quantities of reactive materials such that
the battery is not likely to exhibit any of the properties of the
reactivity characteristic. We assume that by fully discharged,
LABCOM means that each cell within each battery will have been
discharged.
It is our understanding that the mechanism by which the Army
intends to effect discharge of all Li/SO2 batteries to zero volts
would be through a battery redesign that would incorporate an
additional resistor circuit that would be activated by an external,
manual switch. While such an approach would appear to.be capable
of producing the desired results, it remains the responsibility
of the generator or the disposer to ensure that all batteries so
discharged have in fact reached a fully discharged state and, thus,
are no longer reactive.
In conclusion, the Agency agrees that a Li/S02 battery which
has been fully discharged is unlikely to exhibit the characteristic
of reactivity. However, the responsibility for determining whether
a waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste either before
or after treatment still remains with the generator and treatment
or disposal facility.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Di rector
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
944 3.1987(06
APR 8 1967
Honorable Robert Walker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, O.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Walker:
Thank you for your March 5, 1987 letter regarding your
constituents' Carol and Richard Kushner concern about incinera-
tion. Generally speaking, EPA considers combustion to be a
viable alternative to direct landfilling as a means of managing
municipal waste. We recognize, however, that concerns have
been raised about certain aspects of combustion facilities,
including the disposal of residual £siu
The solid residues from municipal waste combustion consist
of bottom ash, fly ash from air pollution control equipment,
and miscellaneous debris from uncombustible materials. Because
these residues can contain potentially toxic metals, proper
disposal practices are important.
The presence of large amounts of such metals could cause
ash to be classified as a hazardous waste. One way to determine
whether a waste must be managed as a hazardous waste is to
perform what is referred to as the 'extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity test", which determines the concentrations of metals
that are likely to leach out of the waste when placed in the
type of weakly acidic environment typical of a landfill accept-
ing (unincinerated) municipal garbage.
In 1986, EPA performed a search for published reports of
the results of EP tests on ash to see what the results of those
tests typically showed. These tests had not been scientifically
reviewed, and some of the results were several years old.
The results indicated that fly ash may exhibit the EP toxicity
hazardous waste characteristic, however, when combined fly
and bottom ash was tested. This combined ash frequently did not
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic. EPA recently ini-
tiated a study of the characteristics and leachability of ash
from municipal waste combustion to address these issues in a
more complete and careful fashion. Following EPA's evaluation
of ash characteristics, the Agency will be in a position to
evaluate what types of management practices are most appropriate
-------
If ash residues are found to routinely contain sufficient
amounts of metals to be of concern, there are a number of
technical measures that may be appropriate for their disposal.
First, basic housekeeping practices can be used to cut down on
the wind dispersal of ash. Second, the common approach of
mixing the acidic fly ash with the alkaline bottom ash to
achieve a buffering effect will decrease the tendency of the
ash to leach metals. (Acidic conditions tend to enhance the
leachability of metals). Third, some design and location
practices can reduce the tendency of ash to leach or limit the
extent to which leachate would affect groundwater. Monofilling,
which is the disposal of ash in a landfill that accepts nothing
else, can keep the ash: segregated from acids or materials
which produce mild acids when they decay. Also, covers can be
designed to minimize rainwater infiltration and proper siting
of ash landfills can limit contact of the landfill with ground-
water.
EPA is also evaluating other aspects of municipal solid
waste management. Later this spring, EPA will submit to Congress
a report on air emissions from municipal waste combustion
facilities. Additionally, EPA is reviewing its program in the
general area of solid waste disposal, and will be proposing
rules, sometime in 1988 to improve disposal of solid waste at
municipal landfills to protect health and the environment.
If I can be of any further assistance, pleas* let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
^ 9443.1987(07)
APR 1 6
Mr* David L. Buiaganaer
Kemron
200 Putnam Street
Marietta, OH 45750
Dear Mr. Bumgaraert
This bri«f not* will respond to your latter of inquiry to
David Friedman regarding the interpretation of the Characteristic
of Ignitability, 40 CF* Part 261.21.
Your queetiona are repeated below with the appropriate
responsei
o We have observed apparent flashes on solvent mixtures
whose composition would imply they are nonflammable,
i.e., 99% Preon 113 mixtures containing t?ece levels of
cyclohexane. The flashes occur at low temperature (20*
- 40*C) and are usually not reproducible on the same
aliquot. Should these initial flashes be reported as
true Flash Points for RCXA characterisation?
Yes, according to the present regulations.
o Many solvent mixtures, including Preon 113* boil at
temperatures below 60*C and cannot be properly evaluated
by Pensky-Martens. Row should such RCRA data be reported
to agencies and other clients?
Only those liquids that flash are considered ignitable.
o Many clients request Plash Point data for soils and
other solid materials* They indicate that waste haulers
or state or Federal agencies are requiring such data.
Does EPA have a standard policy on this matter?
Current teet methods (40 CPU Part 2*1.21) are designed
for liquids only. At the preeent time there are no
suitable, validated procedures for determining the
ignitability characteristic of solid (non-liquid)
wastes.
We hope these answers are sufficient for your use. If you
have additional questions please feel free to call us.
Sincerely,
Florence M. Richardson
Chemist, Methods Section
-------
9443.1987(08)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 87
2. Solvent Drippings front Decreasing Operations
A Dall-bearing rrenufacturer dips metal paxts in a degreasing tank of
pure 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Once the parts nave been dipped, they
are ground. The cooling system (either oil or water is used as the
fluid) picks ups the grinding sand, metal flakes, and traces of
solvent left on the part. The fluid is then filtered for reuse, and
the sand-metal-solvent mixture is discarded. Are the traces of
solvent left on the parts after degreasing classified as F001? Is
the sand-metal-solvent mixture regulated as a hazardous waste when
discarded?
The small amount of solvent retraining on the part after it has
been dipped will not be regulated as FOOl. If the sand-metal-
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: Matt Straus 475-8851
Steve Silverman 382-7706
Research: Becky Cuthbertson 382-3112
-------
9443.1987C 09)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEI*
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY MES
Mr. John Whitehead
Assistant Product Manager May 13, 1987
Madison Chemical Industries, Inc.
490 McGeachie Drive
Milton, Ontario L9T 3Y5
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
I am responding to your letter of May 4, 1987, to Mr. Alan
Cor son requesting confirmation of your interpretation concerning
the regulation, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) , of containers that packaged urethane coating chemicals.
Specifically, you stated that since none of the chemicals
used in your two-part urethane coating system are currently
listed as "Pn or "U" wastes in 40 CFR 261.33, th« residues in the
containers are not hazardous wastes and, therefore, you- vould not
need to determine whether the containers are empty in accordance
with 40 CFR 261.7.
Your interpretation is partially correct. Pert 261c7 deals
with any hazardous waste residues left in containers, not just
the commercial chemical products listed in Part 261.33 (or those
hazardous wastes listed in Parts 261.31 and 261.32). Therefore,
it also will be necessary to demonstrate that the container
residues do not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
extraction procedure (EP) toxicity) before stating that the
residues are not hazardous. If the residues, in fact, are
hazardous (i.e. . they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic)
then Part 261.7 should be used to determine whether the container
is empty.
If you require additional information, please contact Ed
Abraas at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Scarberry r
Chief, Listing Section
cc: Alan Corson, EPA/OSW
-------
UN, J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT,~A AGENCY
9443.1987(11}
8 567
Mr. Adolfo Valdes
Environmental Labs Inc.
67 Concordia Street
Ponce, Puerto Rico 00731
Dear Mr. Valdes
Thank you for your telephone call on June 5, 1987 concerning
the Agency position on regulating chromium. The Agency under
CFR part 261 is currently regulating chromium as total
chromium. Until the Agency decides to change its position,
continue to analyze for total chromium.
Sincerely,
Martin Meyers
-------
UNIT 3TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIU. *GENCY
9443.1987(12)
JUH23B8T
Ms. Karen Eglinton
Free-Coil Laboratories
P.O. Box 557, Cotton Rd.
Meadville, PA 16335-0557
Dear Ms. Eglinton:
The Third Edition of SW-846 requires that the method of
standard editions be used whenever the percent recovery of a
matrix spike is outside of the range 75% to 125%. The method
of standard additions consists of "spikes" of three different
levels of analyte into three aliquots of the sample to correct
for interferences. This requirement applies to analysis.by
both atomic absorbtion and ICP.
However, it should also be pointed out that the method
of standard additions is required, in all cases, when analyz-
ing Extraction Procedure toxicity extracts (see 40 CFR 261,
Appendix II).
Thank you for your kind remarks about the Third Edition
of SW-846. We welcome any suggestions that you might have
for further improvements. I hope this aleviates your concerns
If you have further questions, please feel free to call me at
(202) 382-7458.
Best Regards,
Denise A. Zabinski, Chemist
Methods Program
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1987(14)
AJG I! BBT
*r. Prian Monson
state of North Dakota
Dent. Of Fiealth
1200 Missouri Ave.
P.O. 3ox 5520
£i«iT»ark, NO 58502-5520
Dear *!r. tfonson:
As you requested, durino our recent tclenhone conversation,
I air writincj to review the reoulatory status of Nethod 1310
(Extraction Procedure) and Method 1330 (Extraction Procedure
for Oily Waste.
when testinn a waste to determined if it exhibits the
characteristic of Extraction Procedure Toxicicy one employe
Method 1310. This is so even if the waste would be conridered
to be an "Oily Waste". The Agency proposed the Extraction
Procedure for Oily Waste on October 1» 19«4 (49 Federal Register
3S, 766 and to replace Method 1310 with th<» new Toxicity Charac-
teristic Leachino Procedure, see January 14, 1986 (51 Federal
Pcnist?r 1602) and June 13, 1986 (51 Federal Register 21, 642).
This chana*4 has not yet been promulgated. Method 1310 remains
the designated acceptable procedure (see 40 CFR 261.24).
The Aoency however has been concerned that Method 131C
moat not adcouately n«or!el the potential leachability of toxic
species fror certain listed oily wastes. Method 1330, therefore,
was developed as a worst ease estimation of potential toxicant
release. For deli*tino petition evaluation purposes, it serves
as a conservative indication of the mobile rnetal fraction. The
nohila metal concentration (MHC) values are compared with de-
listing thresholds developed using a specially developed fate
and transport rnodcl.
Ke aore<» that the formula for calculating MMC in th
-------
In summary, under the RCRA requlatory program, Method 1310
is the only method currently approved for use in identifying
wastes that exhibit the characteristic of Extraction Procedure
Toxicity. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused
you and trust this clarifies the status of Methods 1310 and
1330.
Should you have any additional Questions in regard to this
matter, please contact me at (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely,
David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section
cc: Suzanne Rudzinski
Myles Morse
Martin R. Schock (ND)
Ken Kary (ND)
Larry Wapensky (Reg. VIII)
-------
%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9 4 43 . 19 87 ( 16 )
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
AUG I 3
Mr. Martin Lueck
Material Engineer
Nelson Division
Exhaust and Filtration Systems
Highway 51 West, P.O. Box 428
Stoughton, WI 53589
Dear Mr. Lueck:
This is in response to your July 13, 1987, letter requesting
an interpretation of whether and how the EPA hazardous waste reg-
ulations apply to vehicle filters contaminated with pesticides.
For the use you describe, i.e./ in farm equipment, it would seem
most likely that the filters would become contaminated with pest-
icides via contact with ambient air near application areas. As
such, the filters do not really contain waste pesticide. Rather,
the spent filters are themselves a waste that may contain pesticide
ingredients as constituents. The generator of any waste must deter-
mine whether his waste is hazardous waste, and if it is, must com-
ply with applicable regulations. Most likely, these fiters would
only be hazardous if they exhibit the characteristic of E.P.
toxicity. (See 40 CFR S261.24. I have photocopied and enclosed
the relevant pages of the regulations for your information.)
You should also note that generators of less than 100 kilo-
grams (about 220 Ibs.) of hazardous waste per month are condition-
ally exempt from regulation. (See 40 CFR S261.5.) Many farms,
if the filters are hazardous waste at all, may be eligible for
this conditional exemption. You might advise customers to deter-
mine the apount of hazardous waste they generate each month inclu-
ding the filters in the amount, if the farmer's monthly total is
below 100 kilograms, the waste may be sent to a municipal landfill.
If the total exceeds 100 kilograms, the farmer may then want to
have the filters analyzed to determine if they exhibit E.P. tox-
icity.
-------
-2-
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike
Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-6676.
Sincerely, ' • ,
/ ir ' , -'
.^(' I l~) jf. . Ax. «• ^
Garcia E. Williams, Director
Office .of Solid Waste
Enclosures
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1987(17)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG 181937
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Kevin T. Rookstool
Mineral By-Products, Inc.
240 West Elmwood Drive
Suite 2011
Dayton, OH 45459
Dear Mr. Rook stool:
This is in response to your letter of May 20, 1987, in which
you asked whether the characteristic of corrosivity, as discussed
in 40 CFR 261.22, applies only to those wastes which are 'aqueous
and or liquid. Section 261.22 presently applies only to aqueous
and liquid wastes, unless and until EPA promulgates a definition
of corrosivity for solids. The Agency has no plans to do this at
the present time.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
cc: David Friedman
Filomena Chau
-------
UNITED STATES EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENOl * *
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
AUS I 91987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Dr. Harold Edelstein
Director, Technical Development
Fisher Scientific Company
Chemical Division
1 Reagent Lane
Fair Lawn, NJ 07410
Dear Dr. Edelstein:
This is in response to your letter of May 1, 1987, in
which you requested an interpretation of the regulatory status
under the Federal hazardous waste regulations of your liquid
scintillation cocktail, Scintiverse BD, if disposed.
Under 40 CFR Part 261, a waste can be determined to be
hazardous in one of two ways. Specifically, as defined in
Subpart D, a waste could be a RCRA listed waste, or a waste,
according to Subpart C, could exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste (ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, or toxicity).
It is clear from the information you provided that your
material is not a RCRA listed waste. See 40 CFR Part 261,
Subpart D. However, the data did not provide the Agency with
enough information to determine if the material would or
would not exhibit one or more of the characteristics of a
hazardous waste. It must be pointed out that, under 40 CFR
S262.ll, waste generators are responsible for determining
whether or not their wastes exhibit one or more of the hazardous
waste characteristics.
With respect to the hazardous waste characteristics, you
must deteraine whether your liquid scintillation cocktail is
ignitable, corrosive, reactive^ or toxic. Liquid ignitable
wastes are defined under S261.21 as those with a flash point of
less than 140*P. Corrosive wastes are defined under S261.22 as
those having a pH of less than or equal to 2 or greater than or
eaual to 12.5, or that are able to corrode steel at a rate greater
-------
- 2 -
than 6.35 mm (0.250 inches) per year at a test temperature
of 55°C (130°F). Reactive wastes are defined under S261.23 as
those exhibiting any of eight properties (see the enclosed
regulations). Section 261.24 defines the characteristic of
extraction procedure (EP) toxicity and indicates the test methods
to be used to identify this characteristic.
You should also note that the Agency has proposed a new
leach procedure, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(51 FR 21648, June 13, 1986). When this proposal is finalized,
waste generators will be responsible for determining whether
their wastes meet this characteristic. In addition, you will
need to check with your State or local authorities to determine
whether this waste is regulated under their authority.
If you have any further questions, please contact Filomena
Chau of my staff at (202) 382-4795.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
-------
9443.1987(19)
4 1967
Mr. Stuart J. Gock
Environmental Coordinator
Printing Developments, Inc.
2010 Indiana Street
Racine, wi 53405
Dear Mr. Gock:
The following information is being provided in response to
your letter of April 6, 1987, regarding the definition of aqueous
as used in the Corrosivity Characteristic/ 40 CFR Part 261.22UX 1),
As you are aware, the corroaivity characteristic docs not
o specifically define what constitutes an aqueous waste. However,
£ we have developed guidance in defining the ter» 'aqueous.* In
i particular, we consider a waste to be aqueous if it ha* a lictuid
% phase containing more than 50 percent water.' (See attached letter
*^ from Dr. John Skinner, Director of the Office of Solid Waste, on
oc February 26, 1995.) This position is currently in effect and you
^ should use the 50 percent water cut-off as a basis for evaluating
™ whether or not to test your wastes for corrosivity.
I should point out that we are considering reviewing this
position, as well as the need for a regulatory definition of
aaueous waste. Therefore, you should be aware that a regulatory
definition of aqueous may be proposed at some point in the
future.
If you have any additional Questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert scarberry, Acting Chief
waste Characterization Branch
Attachment
-------
9443.1987(20)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 87
6. SW-846 Test Method 3060
Why was Method 3060, for alkaline digestion to
hexavalent chromium, dropped from the third edition of
EPA'a "Test Method for Evaluating Solid Waste?" Is
there a replacement method?
The SW-846 Test Method #3060 is used to determine
the total concentration of hexavalent chromium in
solid waste. It uses a basic digestion of the
waste sample to solubiiize both water-insoluble and
water-soluble hexavalent chromium compounds.
Method 3060 was dropped from the third edition of
the SW-846 Manual because it yielded inconsistent
results from sample to sample within the same
matrix and from matrix to matrix. The method also
provides the analyst with no way of distinguishing
when it would or would not work.
An evaluation study of Method 3060 indicates that
not only is it possible to oxidize Cr*3 to Cr**,
but that Cr*" can be reduced to Cr*3 during
digestion. In fact, there is more likelihood that
Cr** is reduced than Cr*3 oxidized. A",so during
the digestion, precipitates are formed which can
present problems.
It may be appropriate to continue using Method
3060, provided the user can demonstrate that it
works by doing spike recoveries. At this time EPA
does not have a current or expected replacement
method for Method 3060.
Source: Denise Zabinski (202) 382-7458
Research: Joe Nixon
-------
9443.1987(23)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 87
4. Natural Gas Pipeline Condensate and EnergyRecovery
Is natural gas pipeline condensate that exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability and that is going to be
burned for energy recovery a hazardous waste?
According to the January 4, 1985 FR page 630, off-spec
fuels burned for energy recovery are not by-products,
thus are not considered wastes. This includes natural
gas pipeline condensate. The condensate contains many
of the same hydrocarbons found in liquified natural gas
and certain higher hydrocarbons that have energy value.
It is generated in the pipeline transmission of natural
gas and is not considered to be a by-product nor a
waste when burned for energy.
By-products that exhibit any characteristics of
hazardous wastes are, however, hazardous waste when
burned for energy recovery.
Source: Ed Abrams (202) 382-4787
Research: Kate Anderson
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
HUfff » STATES EMVIRONtfEMTAL
9443.1987(24)
5 B87
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Appropriate leaching test to use in evaluating soils
contaminated with lead.
DATE: October 30, 1987
FROM: David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WH-562B)
THRU: Alec McBride, Chief
Technical Assessment Branch (WH-562B)
TO: Thomas Spittler, Chief
Laboratory Branch, Region I
As you requested, I am writing to review the regulatory
status of the various leaching tests that have been developed
for use in the hazardous waste program with respect to the
problem of assessing the regulatory status of contaminated
soils.
When evaluating a soil, or other waste, to determine
whether it is a hazardous waste by reason of the toxicity
characteristic one should use Method 1310, the Extraction
Procedure. While, sometime in the future, we expect to replace
Method 1310 with the new Toxicity Characteristic leaching
Procedure (TCLP) , the TCLP has not yet been promulgated for such
use.
As I indicated at the recent meeting in Annapolis of the
Regional laboratory chiefs, OSW has recently developed Method
1312 for use in evaluating the leaching potential of in-place
soils and debris. This test, which is a modification of the
TCLP, employs regional specific simulated acid precipitation as
the extraction medium. As you recently noted in your work on
neutral soils contaminated with lead, the high acetate
concentration of the TCLP relative to the EP means that the TCLP
is significantly more aggressive than the EP for such materials.
For this, and other reasons, OSW feels that use of the TCLP for
the greund water GQ&kni9&ion of soils ^
ayii
:i
thai are Lo i remain in place ip arMl"a|yiicatioia of fefro i
Drllcedure. in upcoming.. guld^fflfce..H!anMaAS..pn.^
-------
closure getenninations, and on facility investigations, the
Agency wfel approve Method 1312 for use as the leaching
estimation tool for those situations. For your convenience, I
have enclosed a draft copy of Method 1312.
I hope I have clarified the use of the different methods
for you. I want to thank you for calling my attention to the
problem you faced when the TCLP was applied to the contaminated
soils in your area. I am sorry that I did not get a chance to
see you in Annapolis last week.
cc: All Regional Laboratory Chiefs
All Regional ESD Directors
All Regional Solid Waste Branch Chiefs
Enclosure
-------
PROTECTS ^EHCY 9443.1987(25)
NOV 41967
Bernard E. Cox Jr., Chief
Hazardous Waste Branch
Land Division
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Dear Mr. cox:
This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1987, to
Matthew Straus concerning previous correspondence from my office on
recycling of zinc oxide baghouse dust. In your letter you request
that the Agency clarify whether a sludge (zinc oxide) is subject to
subtitle c when used to maxe fertilizer. I apologize if Matt and
my previous letters to you and Mr. Tate were not entirely clear.
The rule that applies in this situation is that the determina-
tion of whether a material is a solid waste depends on the ultimate
management of the material. (See 50 EB 634; January 4, 1985.)
Certain ultimate management methods, including incorporation of
waste into products that are to be placed on the land, result in
designation of the material as solid waste. Therefore, if zinc
sulfate is recovered from the zinc oxide and then used to produce
fertilizer, the zinc oxide is a solid waste.
The dust in question has not been listed as a hazardous waste;
therefore, it would be hazardous only if it exhibits one of the
characteristics at 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. It is the gene-
rator's responsibility to use his knowledge of the waste or to
perform the tests described in sections 261.22-24 to determine
whether the waste exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste. The solution that you propose (i.e. , to regulate the
process until the metals are removed) is allowable; but the issue
is not when the material ceases to be a solid waste, it is rather
when does it cease to exhibit a characteristic.
Finally, you should note that a facility which treats a
hazardous sludge to recover a material (i.e.f zinc sulfate) that is
used to produce fertilizer is subject to 40 CFR section 261.6(c),
the requirements for hazardous waste recycling facilities.
»A f IK
-------
9443.1987(26}
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV I 2 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Pulverizing Waste Prior to EP Test
FROM: Scott Maid
Variances Section
TO: Carolyn Bosserman
SAIC
Linda Cessar and I discussed the "pulverizing" issue you raised
concerning Eli Lilly (#564A) and we reached a consensus that the metal
rings and lids should be included in the ash samples. Our justification
for this is that these materials are contained within the volume of
hazardous waste, and should be evaluated as such. HSWA requires such an
evaluation of other constituents and factors in our evaluation of
hazardous waste. Also, the EP toxicity test procedure in 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix II explicitly requires that solid wastes shall be evaluated
for particle size, and large pieces of waste should be ground up,
crushed, or cut until the waste will pass through a 9.5 nun sieve. This
regulatory requirement is quite important since it does not allow for the
waste in question to be separated into different sized particles prior to
testing.
The 9.5 mm sieve will still allow pieces of metal over 1\3"
square to pass through it, which are really pretty large chunks. The
connotation of "pulverizing" implies reducing the metal chunks to povder,
which we agree is inconsistent with the requirements of the EP toxicity
test procedure. If the paragraph about the sampling of ash were
re-worded to specify that the waste ash (including metal rings and lids)
should be crushed to a uniform particle size in accordance with the EP
test requirements, then it may not be perceived to be a problem by Eli
Lilly.
Call me if you have questions.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
NOV 201987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Lead-3ased Paint Residues and Lead Contaminated
Residential Soils in Private/Public Housing units
FROM: Jeffery Denit, Deputy Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Walter Kovalick, Deputy Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548)
The following information is being provided in response to
your draft memorandum requesting classification of lead-based
paint residues.
BACKGROUND
As you are aware, the question of lea :-based paint dis-
posal has been of concern for a long time. AS early as 1904, it
was recognized that ingestion of paint and paint chips poses a
serious health hazard to children. Many buildings, both individual
residences and public housing units, especially those built
before 1950, contain lead-based paints on interior and exterior
walls, window sills, and other surfaces accessible to young
children. In addition to paint, some plasters and putties have
also been found to contain high levels of lead. Some older
primers have been found to contain from 30,000 to 600,000 mg
lead per kg of primer. Soils adjacent to residences also have
been found to contain high levels of lead due to the leaching of
the lead as a result of the weathering of the painted surface.
For instance, in a study of lead contamination in urbana,
Illinois, lead was found in concentrations up to 12,000 ppm in
soil. Many other cities throughout 'the United States have similar
problems.
-------
-2-
Numerous state and Federal agencies have been aware of
and concerned about the problem for some time and are pursuing
orogratns to identify lead poisoning and to remove lead-based
paint from residences. The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Preven-
tion Act, as amended, provides the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) with authority to eliminate the hazards
of lead-based paint poisoning in HUD-financed and other public
residential housing. Unfortunately, the program has been hindered
by the lack of a determination of whether or'not lead-based
paint residues (paint chips, peelings, etc.) should be managed
and disposed of as a hazardous waste.
ISSUES
Currently, the question of whether or not lead paint
wastes are hazardous is confused by Section 261.4 "Exclusions"
of 40 CFR Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous
waste. If these wastes are generated at a commercial facili y
and exceed the EP toxicity limit of 5 ppm for lead, then they
will be hazardous wastes. However, when the paint residues
are generated at private and public residential units-, the
question arises as to whether the household waste exclusion
applies (See 40 CFR 261.4 (b)). This provision excludes
household wastes from regulation as solid wastes, and therefore,
as hazardous wastes. Household wastes are -defined as "any
material (including garbage) trash, and sanitary wastes (in
septic tanks) derived from households (including single and
multiple res idences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger
stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day
recreation areas.)"
In the preamble to the Federal Register notice addressing
hazardous waste identification and listing (vol. 49, No. 220,
November 13, 1984, page 44998), EPA states that "there is no
basis for extending the household waste exclusion to waste
such as debris produced during building construction, renovation,
or demolition in houses or other residences, as EPA does not
consider wastes from these sources to be similiar to those
generated by a consumer in a home in the course of daily living."
Furthermore, in the preamble to the Final Hazardous Waste
Rules, Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 98, May 19, 1980, EPA
noted that wastes generated by Federal agencies are not subject
to the household exemption since they cannot qualify as households,
-------
-3-
Paint wastes are exempted from regulation as a hazardous
waste if they are generated at individual households by the
houseowner doing his own removal. On the other hand, if the
removal at an individual residence is done by a contractor,
the residues are solid wastes and must be evaluated with respect
to their hazardousness (EP Toxicity) and must be disposed of'
according to hazardous waste regulations if found to"be hazardous,
In cases where paint residues are regulated under Sub-
title C, then commercial contractors who are performing the
renovation work and who generate less than 100 kg per month of
paint residues (which we believe is likely), will be a condition-
ally exempt generator (Section 261.5) and their waste will not
be subject to regulation under Sections 262 through 266 of
RCRA. we believe that only large renovation projects will
exceed the 100 kg per month limitations.
While paint residues may not be regulated as hazardous
wastes, especially at private individual households or small
housing units, information should be made available tt> homeowners
warning them of the hazards associated with improper disposal
of paint residues. Directions should be provided regarding
the proper disposal of these wastes.
In the case of a larger commercial contractor whose activi-
ties result in the generation of more than 100 kg per month of
waste, for instance, at a public housing renovation project,
then the "hazardousness" of the waste must be determined.
In the case of lead-paint wastes, the EP Leachate Test should
be performed. If the leachate lead concentration exceeds 5
ppm, then the paint waste is a hazardous waste. If the residues
are indeed hazardous, then the generator (removal contractor)
must comply with all appropriate regulations, (e.g., Parts 262
Standards ApplicabletoGenerators of HazardousWastes and
Part 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous
waste), and must send the waste to a facility that is permitted
or operating under RCRA interim status.
-------
-4-
PROCESSES THAT MAY GENERATS HAZARDOUS WASTE
There are several methods available for removing lead-based
paints; however, the conventional lead paint removal techniques
currently available are not totally effective and may exacerbate
the lead problem by dispersing lead-containing particles
throughout the residence. Newer, more effective abatement methods
which may be used for lead removal include:
* Peel Away - This consists of a caustic paste that
is covered with a plastic film (calcium, magnesium,
and sodium hydroxide). This paint removal
system can be used on wood, metal, stone and
brick, flat and irregular surfaces. It should
be noted that in a demonstration project conducted
in Baltimore, waste water from the peel away
process was found to have a lead content greater
than 66 ppm, which was well in excess of the EP
toxicity limit of 5 ppm.
* Off-Site Dipping - Wood trim, ..oodwork, and doors
are stripped of paint in enclosed chemical tanks
containing methylene chloride. When used for
this purpose, spent methylene cnloride is a
listed hazardous waste.
• Hi^h Efficiency Particle Accumulator (HEPA) Sander -
This is a power disk sander that attaches to a
HEPA vacuum to trap debris. It is used on flat
surfaces only. This method would generate a
dust which could, depending upon the lead content,
fail the EP Toxicity Test.
• Replacement - Removal and replacement of wood trim
and old windows with new materials. All of the
painted wood products from the residence should
be sampled and the EP performed on the wood
samples.
In any of the above methods, if the extractable lead
exceeds 5 ppm in the waste, then it is a hazardous waste. If
the household waste exclusion does not apply then the wastes
must be handled and disposed of in accordance with the requirements
of 40 CFR Parts 262, 263, and 264, 265 and 270 as appropriate.
-------
-5-
CONTAHINATSD SOILS
In addition to painted surfaces, the soils immediately
adjacent to residences may have high concentrations of lead,
due to the lead being leached from the exterior of the structure
as the paint weathers and ages. For example, in a study of lead
concentration in Urbana, Illinois, concentrations of the lead
in the soil were found to range from 132 to 11,760 ppm adjacent
to and 240 to 6,640 ppm away from the houses.
Whether or not "contaminated" soils are considered
hazardous wastes depends upon whether or not they are 1) removed
and transported off-site or left in place, and 2) exceed the lead
toxicity limit of 5 ppm.
If the contaminated soil is removed for off-site disposal,
it must be evaluated against the characteristics to determine
whether or not the soils are hazardous. If the soils fail the
existing SP toxicity characteristic, then they must be taken
to a RCRA Subtitle C facility. In the case of CERCLA sites
such soils must be taken to a RCRA facility which is in
compliance with CERCLA requirements for off-site disposal.
(See OSWER Directive number 9834.11 "Revised Procedures for
Planning and Implementing off-site Response Actions;
November 13, 1987.)
The reouirements for on-site treatment of lead-contaminated
residential soils, which may seldom be practical, differs for
CERCLA and RCRA sites. For CERCLA sites, such on-site treatment
can be performed without a permit being required. However,
for on-site treatment at RCRA sites, a permit is required
unless treatment is performed in tanks or containers in compli-
ance with Section 262.34. It should be noted that any on-site
treatment must consider the requirements of the individual
states in question, which may be more stringent that Federal
requirements.
In the case of soil left on site, the property owner
will not normally be required to determine whether the soil is
a hazardous waste. For soils that are left in place, EPA or
the appropriate state agency should set clean-up levels that
will ensure that the site will not pose a hazard when returned
to normal residential use. I know that the CERCLA program often
makes such determinations. For your information, described below
is the procedure OSW plans to provide in the RCRA Clean Closure
and RFl"Guidance Manuals for determining when contaminated
soils may safely be left in place and the site returned to
residential use. We have had a.number of discussions with your
staff and we think that there is a general agreement on this
approach.
-------
-6-
There are two approaches which should be used in making a
determination if further soil removal is required. The first
is to look at health-based concentration limits in surface
soils; the second is an acid precipitation leach test (method
1312 in SW-846).
The health-based limits should be used to determine how
much contaminated soil will have to be removed. The RCRA Clean
Closure and RFI guidance Manuals provide direction on the appropri'
ate health-based levels to use. Excavation would terminate at
the point where soil no longer exceeds the health-based concen-
tration limits.
At that point, method 1312 should be run on soil samples
to determine the threat, if any, that might be posed by
remaining residual contaminants leaching into ground water.
For testing for lead, a pH of 4.2 should be used. In the
absence of better numbers, the 5 ppm threshold used for the EP
should be the limit for method 1312 as well. Since method 1312
is new, no data on its use is available. Once such data are
available, the ppm limit may be revised.
The removed soil should be tested againsr. the EP after
removal to see if it fails the 5 ppm limit. if so, it must be
sent to a Subtitle C facility. If it does not fail, it can be
sent to a Subtitle D facility.
If you have any questions pertaining to the above, please
do not hesitate to contact Jerry Coalgate of my staff.
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1987(29)
KV 18 B87
Mr. Pat O'Brien
Rashid Geotechnical and
Materials Engineers
P.O. BOX 10476
Jubail Industrial City 31961
Kingdom of Saudia Arabia
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
In response to your request of October 24, 1987 for an
updated copy of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) I have enclosed copies of the two Federal Registers where
it has appeared.
The TCLP was actually created for two separate EPA rule-
makings. The first rule, the Land Disposal Restrictions
Program, was finalized on November 7, 1986. The TCLP was to be
used in this rule to determine if a waste could be land disposal
by testing it for solvents and dioxins. The second rule, the
Toxicity Characteristic, was designed to determine if a waste is
hazardous based on its chemical toxicity. This rule was
proposed on June 13, 1986 but has not yet been promulgated and
will not be finalized until late 1988. At that time, it win
replace the current Extraction Procedure (EP) and wastes win
then have to be tested for not only the 14 EP constituents, but
for an additional 38 organic constituents as well.
If you have any further questions about either of these
two rulemafcings, or the TCLP, please give me a call at (202)
475-6722 or write me at the following address:
Ms. Gail Hansen
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562B)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
United States of America
Sincerely,
tjail Ann ttansen
Environmental..HBadth Scientist
Methods Section
-------
OT
9443.1987(30)
* ?£** \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*>& J WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
»«. „,*>/
301967
OPe:C£ 3*
SOLID WASTE AND £Mc«G£NCv
Mr. Phillip C. McGuire
Associate Director, Law Enforcement
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226
Dear Mr. McGuire:
Than* you for your October 14, 1987, letter regarding the
disposal of explosive materials under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act {RCRA). We have reviewed the information you
provided concerning the detonation of seized explosives that you
believe would not fall under the RCRA Subtitle C program. We
think, however, that the seized explosives may indeed be a solid
waste from the moment a decision is made that the explosives
must be destroyed and not returned to the original owners.
The basis for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
opinion is that the explosives are not being used for their
originally-intended purpose (e.g. , demolition of a building,
military use, etc.), but rather are being detonated to discard
the materials. The explosives, therefore, would meet the
definition of a solid waste as defined in 40 C£E Section
261.2(a) and (b). If these explosives exhibit the
characteristic of reactivity as defined in 40 CZS 261.23, they
would be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations for
storage, treatment and disposal. For example, detonation of
reactive waste is considered a form of thermal treatment that is
subject to Section 265.382, and shipments to the disposal site
are subject to 40 CIS Parts 262 and 263.
We recognize the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(BATF) has considerable experience in handling explosives. Your
internal procedures appear to be comparable to EPA's rules in
many respects. There are, however, some differences that may
need to be examined. For example, you state that the detonation
areas must be at least 1,000 feet from buildings, woods, etc.
EPA's regulations (Section 265.382) require farther distances
for quantities in excess of 100 Ibs.
-------
I would like to suggest that EPA staff meet with your staff
to discuss how to reconcile the RCRA rules as they apply to BATF
detonation activities. Rulemaking efforts may be required of
both agencies to resolve any inconsistencies. In order to
schedule a meeting that will be mutually convenient, please
contact Mike Petruska, of my staff, on 475-8551. we believe
that this meeting will provide the opportunity to discuss
several points including what rulemakings may have to be
undertaken by either agency, and what exemptions may be
possible.
If I can be of any further assistance-, please let me know.
Sincerely,
\i
Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9443.1987(31)
r
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f WASHINGTON, O.C. 20466
*&*?
DEC 7)987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Status-of Surface Impoundments at Rockwell
International, Ashtabula Plant ^ -, J ~^—-
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, DirectorMit\C^^
Office of Solid Waste (
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Chief
Solid Waste Branch (5HS-13)
Region V
This memorandum is in response to your August 6, 1987 inquiry,
and subsequent communications between France Norling and the
Characteristics Section staff, regarding the RCRA status of the
surface impoundments at Rockwell International's Ashtabula plant.
Specifically, you requested assistance in determining whether the
wastes managed in the impoundments exhibit the hazardous waste
characteristic of reactivity.
As you are aware, the reactivity characteristic promulgated in
the regulations is a narrative definition. In particular, the
regulations define a sulfide bearing waste as reactive when it is
exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5 and can generate toxic
gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a
danger to human health or the environment. To assist the Regions
and the regulated community in interpreting this rule, the Charac-
terization and Assessment Division provided interim guidance which
indicated that wastes releasing more than 500 mg H2S/Kg waste
should be considered hazardous (see enclosure), in addition to the
level, a testing method was also provided. We are evaluating the
reactivity of the waste in question based on this interim guid-
ance. However, you should note that any final decision as to the
hazardousness of the waste (i.a.,. reactivity) must be based on the
regulation. See 40 CFR 261.23.
-------
Based upon the analytical data provided by Region V, the
average concentration of sulfide in all the lagoons is below our
guidance level of 500 mg/kg; therefore, the wastes are likely not
reactive under the hazardous waste rules. The upper bound of the
90% confidence limit, however, is above the guidance level for two
of the lagoons in question (lagoons 1 and 3). This suggests that
the true concentration of the waste in the impoundments might be
above the guidance level. Therefore, before a definitive decision
can be made on the true concentration of sulfide in the sludge in
lagoons 1 and 3, additional sampling and analysis is recommended.
Should you, or Rockwell, require assistance related to the
analytical methods or—sample handling procedures, please contact
ds Section at FTS 475-6722. Questions
ty characteristic in general and its
directed to David Topping of the
at FTS 382-4798.
Gail Hansen of th
regarding the rea<
applicability sho
Characteristics Sect
on
Enclosures
cc: Gail Hansen
David Topping
-------
9443.1987(32
DEC 1 6 . :•:
Ms. Barbara £. Pace
Megan & Hartson
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Dear Ms. Pace:
This is in response to your letter of August 19, 1987, in
which you requested an interpretation of 40 CFR Section 261.31 as
it applies to the iron cake waste generated during the production
of methyldopa at a Merck and Company facility. Based on the
information provided in your letter, the Agency has determined that
the iron filter cake generated during the production of methyldopa
does not meet the listing description of a spent solvent waste
(l..tef , EPA hazardous waste No. F005). The basis for our decision
is discussed below.
Our understanding of the process is that the iron cake is
generated when iron is filtered from the product; toluene is being
used for its solvent properties because it is acting as a carrier
for the product. Next, the toluene is reclaimed for reuse in the
same process.
With regard to the iron filter cake, the preamble and the
background document to the rule state that the Agency did not
intend to include within the scope of this regulation process
wastes that are contaminated with solvent (see Hazardous Waste
Listing BD, p. 81 May 1980; letter from Steve Silverman to Michael
Rodbury, December 16, 1982). The iron filter cake resulting from
the production of methyldopa at the Merck facility is a process
residual that is contaminated with the toluene solvent. The filter
cake, therefore, would not be EPA hazardous waste No. F005.
Please advise your client of our interpretation and make them
aware that as a generator of this type waste, they are responsible
for determining whether the filter cake exhibits any RCRA hazardous
characteristics fe.o. r corrosivity, toxicity, reactivity, or
ignitability [see 40 CFR 261.21-24]). Also, you should investigate
whether this waste is regulated by the state, which may have more
CTEBfT-*
-------
Our determination is based on the information provided in
your letter and any deviations to the described process could
result in different interpretation. If you wish to discuss this
matter in further detail, please call Yvonne Garbe at (202)
475-6679.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9443.1987(33)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DEC 3! ;:-..:
Ms. Joanna Co3e
4460 Singleton Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75212
Dear Hs. Col*»t
As mentioned in our telephone conversation of December
16, 1987 regardina the difficulty of analyzing for chlorinated
compounds in the leachate from your waste samples, X would
suaoest that you do the following.
Perform a total constituent analysis of the waste itself
usinq SW-846 methods and assume that all of the compounds
leach from the waste. If the guidance levels of the compounds
are not exceeded assuming lOOt leaching, then no further-
analysis or testing is required. To determine 100% leachabllity,
the following calculation may be performed on the compounds
found in tho total analysis:
maximum theoretical concentration of compound
extract concentration « in waste (mq/kg)
-------
9443.1988(01)
January 4, 1988
Ms. Teresa Fort
Vice President
Environmental Options, Inc.
Post Office Box 4132
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Ms. Fort:
This letter responds to your inquiry of November 23, 1987, requesting
a written statement clarifying the regulatory status of waste generated
by skimming off a toluene-containing paint product floating on water
which is the overspray trapped by a waterfall when wood pieces are
painted. The waste has a flashpoint below 140°F.
The spent solvent listings (i.e., EPA Hazardous Waste No. F001, F002,
F003, F004, and F005) cover wastes generated from solvents which were
used for their "solvent" properties, namely, to solubilize or mobilize other
constituents, and which cannot be reused unless regenerated, reclaimed,
or otherwise reprocessed. The listings do not cover manufacturing
process wastes contaminated with solvents that were used as reactants or
ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical products. Hence,
waste solvent-based paints are not within the scope of the F001-F005
spent solvent listings because the solvents are ingredients in the paints.
Therefore, your ignitable hazardous waste, having EPA Hazardous Waste
No. D001, is not subject to the requirements of the land disposal
restrictions final rule (51 FR 40572), November 7, 1986) which is
applicable to the spent solvent listings.
If you have any further questions, you can call me at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
RETYPED FROM THE ORIGINAL
7190E-AL
-------
9443.1988(02)
Dr. Stephen W. Wunderly
Senior Chemist
Bectanan Instruments, Inc
Fullerton, CA 92634-3100
Dear Dr. Wunderly:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 4, 1987,
requesting an interpretation of the regulatory status of your
liquid scintillation coclctail solution product, Ready Safe, under
the hazardous waste regulations.
Under EPA's hazardous waste regulations, a waste is considered
to be hazardous if it is listed specifically under 40 CFR Part 261,
subpart D, or if it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic under
Part 261, Subpart C. The four hazardous waste characteristics are
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity for certain metals and pesticides. Section 261.33
contains a list of products that become hazardous wastes when
discarded.
Based on the information you provided, the product you describe
does not meet any of the listings under Part 261 Subpart D or to
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics under Part 261
Subpart C. Radioactivity is not presently included under the RCRA
hazardous waste characteristics or listing criteria. Therefore,
your liquid scintillation cocXtail product when discarded (or
intended for discard) does not appear to meet the definition of a
RCRA hazardous waste.
Some State and local authorities, however, do regulate
radioactive materials as hazardous wastes. Therefore, your
customers should contact their State and local authorities for
further information on proper disposal of radioactive materials.
-------
9443.1988(03)
2 2 1988
Steve Simpson
Chief Process Engineer
Associated Technologies, Incorporated
212 South Tyron Street, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28281
Dear Mr. Simpson:
This letter is in response to your January 25 letter to
Marcia Williams regarding the regulatory status of asphalt
materials used at Associated Technologies, Incorporated.
Specifically, you requested a determination as to whether the
asphalt is a hazardous waste.
If the asphalt were to be used as a commodity, e.g., for paving
roads, then it would not be regulated under the hazardous waste
regulations. However, since the asphalt is disposed (buried in a
trench) it is a solid waste. In the RCRA program, wastes are
defined as hazardous if they: (1) are included on the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 or are
derived from, or are mixtures containing, such wastes; or (2)
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics described in
Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261 (i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity). The
descriptions and analytical data you provided for the asphalt
materials (AC-20 and Type I) indicates that they do not appear to
be hazardous wastes.
However, the descriptions and analytical data you provided
appear to relate to the asphalt materials only, rather than the
mixture of the asphalt materials and the concentrate from the film
evaporator. Thus, if any of the wastes that contribute to the
concentrate are listed wastes, or if the asphalt/concentrate
mixture exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics,
the mixture would be a hazardous waste.
-------
- 2 -
Please note that the interpretation is based upon the
information contained in your January 25 letter and reflects
current Federal regulations. Since State and local regulations may
differ, you are encouraged to contact these authorities to ensure
that you are aware of all applicable regulations. Should you have
any questions regarding this interpretation, please contact David
Topping of the Waste Characterization Branch at (202) 382-7737.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of solid Waste
cc: Emily Roth
David Topping
Dr. Malcolm Knapp
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-------
9443.1988(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
March 14, 1988 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Dr. Jeffrey Mirsky, President
National Diagnostics
1013-1017 Kennedy Boulevard
Manville, NJ 09935
Dear Mr. Mirsky:
This is in response to your letter to Mr. Matthew Straus
dated February 4, 1988, in which you request an interpretation
of the regulatory status of Ecoscint A and Ecoscint O under the
Federal ha2ardous waste rules. My staff has reviewed the data
on the two Ecoscint formulations that you enclosed with your
letter dated February 4, 1988. Neither Ecoscint A nor Ecoscint -
O is listed under 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32, or 261.33.
However, a waste may still be hazardous if it exhibits one
or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity) as described in 40 CFR 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, or
261.24. The data you enclosed indicates that neither product is
EP toxic and, based on their flashpoints, neither product is
ignitable. There is, however, insufficient data provided to
make a determination on whether the products are corrosive or
reactive. Therefore, if you wish to dispose of these
formulations as non-hazardous wastes, you must first determine
that they do not satisfy any of the criteria for corrosivity
(see section 261.22) or reactivity (see section 261.23).
In addition, any State in which you generate, transport,
treat, store, or dispose of these formulations may have
regulations that are more stringent than the Federal hazardous
waste rules,,. You, therefore, should check with the state
agencies to^determine what regulations, if any, apply to
handling vajit£ Ecoscint A and Ecoscint 0.
-------
- 2 -
If you have any further questions, please contact Wanda
LeBleu-Biswas at (202) 382-7392.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9443.1988(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENs. ..L PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY -2
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. G. R. Boulden
Ladish Co., Inc.
Kentucky Plant
Cynthiana, KY 41031
Dear Mr. Boulden:
This letter is in response to your telephone conversation
with, and March 1, 1988 letter to, David Topping of my staff.
Specifically, you have requested an interpretation as to the
applicability of certain hazardous waste definitions and
regulations.
As you are aware, wastes are considered hazardous if they
either (1) are listed in the lists of hazardous wastes described
in Sections 261.31 through 261.33; or (2) exhibit any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste described in Sections 261.21
through 261.24. For purposes of clarity, it should be noted that
the wastes you describe do not meet the first criterion. That
is, since the plant's SIC code is not 331 or 332, the wastes do
not meet the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062, which
appears to be the only listing that applies to pickling
operations. Therefore, the wastes would only be considered
hazardous if they exhibit one of the characteristics or are mixed
with another waste that is listed.
The responses to your specific questions follow:
1. Is the spent pickle liquor a hazardous waste if
it corrodes 1020 steel at a rate of >. 0.25
inches/year?
Yes. This is the definition of a corrosive liquid
waste as described at Section 261.22(a)(2).
2. Is the sludge from the bottom of the pickle tank a
hazardous waste if its pH <. 2?
Yes. This is the definition of a corrosive aqueous
waste as described at section 261.22(a)(1).
-------
- 2 -
3. Does paragraph 264.314 apply to the dewatered lime
neutralized pickle sludge that is taken to the local
landfill?
No. Part 264 applies to hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal units. To the extent that the
"local landfill" is not a hazardous waste facility,
Section 264.314 is not applicable.
4. In regards to the wastes discussed above, what if
any, regulatory requirements does the EPA have?
Since it is not clear whether the wastestreams of the
Kentucky Plant do or do not exhibit the
characteristics described above, a general answer to
this question cannot be provided. It is suggested
that you direct this question to our Regional Office
at the following address:
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 courtland street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Attn: James H. Scarbrough
Residuals Management Branch
Also, please note that state regulations may differ from
Federal regulations. Since the Regional EPA offices deal more
directly with the States, they are better able to provide the
information you desire.
Should you have any questions regarding this response, feel
free to contact David Topping of my staff at (202) 382-7737.
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
9443.1988(06)
May 31, 1988
Mr. R. Wade Knight
U.S. E.P.A. Region IV
College Statiorr- Road
Athens, Georgia 30613
Dear Wade:
We have reviewed the data package submitted by Joseph
Stewart of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in support of his
petition to use the 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, we believe that ORNL has
demonstrated the equivalency of the Soxhlet and SOXTEC
extraction procedures for generating PCB data, and their
petition to use the SOXTEC extraction system for preparation of
PCB samples in place of the Soxhlet method (Method 3540) should
be granted. 'Furthermore, we in the RCRA program, with support
•from Superfund, are in the process of using this ORNL data to
develop a general extraction procedure for SW-846 using the
SOXTEC apparatus.
-------
-2-
We are in process of assembling samples to be split for a
multilaboratory validation study of the SOXTEC extraction
procedure for PCB's. This will be followed by a program to
expand the utility of this technique into a general SW-846
method with a scope equivalent to that of Method 3540.
If we can be of any further assistance to you, please call
Barry Lesnik at FTS 382-4761.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman, Chief
OSW-Methods Section (WH-562B)
cc: Barry Lesnik
-------
9443.1988(07)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20480
~ ~^o OFFICE OF
-w.i C. .~-O SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY R6SPONS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Discarded Class C Explosives
FROM: Sonya M. Stelmack, Acting Chief
Alternative Technology and Support Section
TO: Incinerator Permit Writers' Workgroup
Our section has recently received several inquiries
regarding whether Class C explosives intended for disposal
are classified as Subtitle C hazardous wastes, since it is
apparent that confusion exists, I would like to clarify this
issue.
To date, only those Class C explosives identified as
off-specification small arms ball ammunition up to and
including 0.50 caliber have been demonstrated not; to be
subject to the Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements. The
Office of Solid Waste concluded that these materials are not
"reactive" within the meaning of 40 CFR 26l.23(a}(6) based
on information provided by Remington Arms Company and the
Army (see attached memorandum) . Furthermore, in a letter
from Marcia Williams to J. Carricato of DOD (also attached)
it was emphazised that the OSW determination only applied to
the ball ammunitions since other ammunition types of similar
caliber may be subject to RCRA. For the remaining Class C
explosive wastes, as for any other solid waste not listed in
40 CFR 261 Subpart D, the generator must determine whether
his particular waste exhibits the reactivity or other
characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C.
We will be working with the Army on the Class C
explosive* issue as it relates to popping furnaces. If you
have any questions on the Class C explosives issue, please
contact Lionel Vega at FTS 475-8988.
Attachments'
cc: Bruce Weddle
Elizabeth Cotsworth
Lionel Vega
David Friedman
Major Jessie Cabellon
-------
9443.1988(07)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
n -^3 OFFICE OF
-~.' C. . w-C SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Discarded Class C Explosives
FROM: Sonya M. Stelmack, Acting Chief
Alternative Technology and Support
TO: Incinerator Permit Writers' Workgroup
Our section has recently received several inquiries
regarding whether Class C explosives intended for disposal
are classified as Subtitle C hazardous wastes. Since it is
apparent that confusion exists, I would like to clarify this
issue.
To date, only those Class C explosives identified as
off-specification small arms ball ammunition up to and
including 0.50 caliber have been demonstrated not to be
subject to the Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements. The
Office of Solid Waste concluded that these materials are not
"reactive" within the meaning of 40 CFR 261.23 (a) (6) bas^d
on information provided by Remington Arms Company and the
Army (see attached memorandum). Furthermore, in a letter
from Marcia Williams to J. Carricato of DOD (also attached)
it was emphazised that the OSW determination only applied to
the ball ammunitions since other ammunition types of similar
caliber may be subject to RCRA. For the remaining Class C
explosive wastes, as for any other solid waste not listed in
40 CFR 261 Subpart D, the generator must determine whether
his particular waste exhibits the reactivity or other
characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C,
We will be working with the Army on the Class C
explosive* issue as it relates to popping furnaces. If you
have any questions on the Class C explosives issue, please
contact Lionel Vega at FTS 475-8988.
Attachments
cc: Bruce Weddle
Elizabeth Cotsworth
Lionel Vega
David Friedman
Major Jessie Cabellon
-------
9443.1988(08)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ignitability Characteristic
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS-300)
TO: William E. Muno, Acting Associate Director
Waste Management Division (5HS-13)
I am responding to your request for clarification of the
phrase "under standard temperature and pressure" as used in the
ignitability characteristic (40 CFR 261.21). The phrase refers
to the conditions used to determine whether the waste is a
liquid or a solid. Wastes are evaluated at standard temperature
(20 C/68 F) and pressure (1 atxn) and, if not a liquid und<>.r
these conditions are not subject to the flash point criteria
of 261.21(a)(1).
Based on the information in your memorandum, Chevron's
polystyrene production distillation still bottom tar wou3d.
not be a liquid within the meaning of the ignitability
characteristic and therefore only evaluated against the
criteria of 261.21(a)(2).
If you have any further questions, please contact David
Friedman of my staff at (PTS) 382-4761.
-------
9443.1988(09)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Use of the LD50 in the Office of Solid Waste
FROM: Priseilla Halloran
Health Assessment Section (OS-331)
THRU: Stephanie Irene, Chief
Health Assessment Section (OS-331)
TO: Caret Lahvis
Science Applications International Corporation
In response to your inquiry about the Office of Solid
Waste's use of the LD50, these values are used as one of the
criteria for listing hazardous wastes. Specifically, it is used
to designate any Acutely Hazardous Waste. The LD50 value is
used unchanged, i.e. there is no extrapolation to humans.
"...in the absence of data on human toxicity,
it has been shown in studies to have an oral
LD50 toxicity (rat) of less than 50 milligrams
per kilogram, an inhalation LC50 toxicity (rat)
of less than 2 milligrams per liter, or a
dermal LD50 toxicity (rabbit) of less than 200
milligrams per kilogram...(Waste listed in
accordance with these criteria will be
designated Acute Hazardous Waste)."
CFR 40"Part 261.11 (a)(2)
The Office.of Solid Waste generally evaluates the chronic
hazards, systemic and/or carcinogenic, of the constituents of
concern in its various regulatory activities.
-------
9443.1988(10)
SEP 131988
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 8, 1988
SUBJECT: Definition of Reactive Waste - Explosivity
FROM: David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section, (OS-331)
TO: Sonya Stelmack,
Assistance Branch, (OS-343)
As you requested, I have reviewed the testing protocols and
classification criteria used by the Department of Defense in
evaluating the explosivity of material (Army TB 700-2, Navy
NAVSEAINST 8020.8, Air Force TO 11A-1-47, DLA DLAR 8220.1).
It is my judgement that the only materials that would
exhibit the reactivity characteristic (40 CFR 261.23), due to
their potential explosivity, are those that fall into
Department of Defense Hazard Classes 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3.
Materials rated as Class 1.4 would, therefore, not be an
explosive within the meaning of the reactivity characteristic.
cc: Suzanne Rudzinski
Reva Rubenstein
Robert Bellinger
-------
9443.1988(11}
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DEC 6
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 T\emorandum is in response to your request for
determination of tlie regulatory status of aquaous 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 EB 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
11 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 of 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 sol vent-contaminated water is not a spent
oolvcnfc.
-------
-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,
methanol, 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 tne disposal of solvent-contaminated
wastestreaas.
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)
-------
9443.1989(01)
FILE COPY
JAN 2 7 1989
Ms. Karen Heyob
Environmental Engineer
0 M Scott & Sons
Marysville, OH 43041
Dear Ms. Heyob:
This letter will clarify our telephone conversation, and
your follow up letter, with respect to use of total
concentration to demonstrate that a waste does not exhibit the
characteristic of Extraction Procedure Toxicity.
The evaluation to be performed is as follows:
l. Determine the concentration of the analyte of concern in
the waste expressed in g/lOOg (A).
2. Determine the waste's percent liquid (B) .
3. Calculate the maximum theoretical extract concentration,
in mg/L, (MTEC) using the formula.
MTEC - (AJ
[B + (20)(100-B)]
4. If MTEC is below the Extraction Procedure Toxicity
characteristic regulatory level, then the waste does not
exhibit the characteristic. If MTEC is above the regulatory
level, then one would have to run the test to show that the
waste is non-hazardous.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman
Chief, Methods Section
cc: Gary Daugherty
Manager, Environmental Engineering
0 M Scott & Sons
Rebecca Strom
EPA, Region V
-------
UHtTfD STAT!5 ENVIRONMENTAL PHOTCCTIOM AGEMCT 9443.1989(02}
\21989
Mr. John P. Stockli
White, Osterman, and Hanna
One commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12260
Dear Mr. Stockli:
This is in response to your letter of March 27, 1989, in
which you asked about the regulatory status of waste solvent-
based glue. Specifically, you wished to know whether or not the
F-listings (40 CFR 261.31) apply to characterization of waste
dried or non-solidified glue.
The spent solvent waste codes (F001 - F005) apply only to *
solvents that are used for their solvent properties. See £
50 FR 53316 (December 31, 1985). These listings do not apply ta|
solvent-containing products that may become wastes if the
solvents are ingredients, such as for paint or glue. However,
the waste glue could meet one of the hazardous waste
characteristics, especially if it is in the non-solidified form.
(See 40 CFR 261.20 - 261.24.) The generator is responsible for
ascertaining whether the waste exhibits one or more of thes^
hazardous characteristics. In addition, the generator should
review state regulations, which may be more stringent than
Federal regulations.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at
(202)475-6715.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9443.1989(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
APR 2 0 1939
SOLID WAS'E AMD EME»GENCV
Ms. Lenore H. Schupak
Director, Environmental Technology
American Standard, Inc.
40 West 40th St.
New York, NY 10018
Dear Ms. Schupak:
This letter is in response to your March 7, 1989, letter
regarding the proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for
barium in drinking water. In addition to your support for the
proposed MCLG, you suggested that the EP Toxicity level for
barium (Table 1 in 40 CFR 261.24) be revised immediately upon
any change to the MCL.
The EP Toxicity levels are based upon the constituents'
expected fate and transport as well as their MCLs. Currently,
the estimated fate and transport processes are represented by a
factor of 100. That is, the EP Toxicity levels are equal to 100
times the MCLs. The Agency is currently re-evaluating the fate
and transport of the EP constituents to determine whether the
100 factor is an appropriate estimate of these processes. Since
this factor may change, it is not presently clear whether a
change in the regulatory level (which depends upon both this
factor and the MCL) would be appropriate. Therefore, needed
changes to the EP regulatory levels (resulting from changes in
either or both of these values) will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis and any warranted changes to the regulatory
levels will be proposed as modifications to 40 CFR 261.24.
Should you have any further questions on this issue, feel
free to contact Reva Rubenstein, Chief of the Characteristics
Section, at (202) 382-4798.
Sincerel
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
ffice of Solid Waste
-------
9443.1989(04)
trnmo STATES EMVIRGMMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen
United States Senator
961 Federal Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Senator Bentsen:
Thank you for your April 24, 1989, letter regarding
Hoi1is E. Ervin's concerns about the March 14, 1989, court
opinion supporting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
interpretation of the regulatory status of contaminated
environmental media (such as soil and ground water).
EPA believes that a hazardous waste does not necessarily
lose its hazardous characteristic when it is combined with an
environmental medium, and that, unless demonstrated otherwise,
the contaminated medium should be managed as a hazardous waste
because it contains t hazardous wastfc. (The environmental
medium itself is not & hazardous waste.) To consider
contaminated media as uewly generated wastes for purposes of
determining whether they are hazardous could be an incentive
for the purposeful contamination of environmental media with
hazardous waste in an effort to avoid regulations otherwise
applicable.
EPA has established a process under which persons
may petition the Agency to have their waste removed from
regulatory control on a case-by-case basis (sometimes called
"delisting"). Under this process, EPA evaluates the waste in
question and determines whether it needs to be regulated as a
hazardous waste. In addition, EPA is currently examining ways
to streamline this process - e.g., setting deminimis levels of
contaminants which, when met, would allow for the management of
wastes outside the structure of the hazardous waste
regulations,
As found by the D.C. Court of Appeals, the "contained in"
rule has been a consistent and reasonable interpretation since
the promulgation of the applicable regulations in 1980. To
change an established regulatory interpretation, the Agency is
required to provide notice and an opportunity for public
comment (i.e., regulatory interpretations cannot be changed at
the "whim" of EPA).
-------
UNITIO STATES EKVUtONMEMTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Thank jHffor your interest in the hazardous waste
program. 9Tl can be of further assistance to you, please feel
free to call me, or have your staff contact Bob Dellinger at
(202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
OS305/DELLINGER/T. MCMANUS - 382-4646/CSH/5-16-89/
CONTROL IAL892146/DUE DATE:5-19-89/DISK |23/NAME:BENTSEN
-------
Mil 10 STXIB tHf UUMttKTlt: FtUI EU JUftU 9443.1989(07)
JUL 101989
Laura Belden
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
USPCI
Suite 400 South
2000 Classen Center Building
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73106
Dear Ms. Belden:
This is in response to your letter of May 12, 1989 to Joshua
Sarnoff of the Office of General Counsel. You requested that EPA
clarify an April 1987 Hotline report on 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(TCA) contained in a sand-metal-solvent mixture, created froai
degreasing metal parts in TCA, grinding the parts, and filtering
the cooling fluids. EPA continues to believe that this waste
stream does not meet the F001 listing description.
The sand-metal-solvent mixture is a process waste stream
contaminated with solvent, not a spent solvent waste or ?• mixture
of wastes with spent solvents. The Agency clarified the scope of
the spent solvent listings on December 31, 1985 (50 F_B 5^5'.6),
and clearly indicated that listed spent solvent wastes do not
include such process wastes. Further, unless these process
wastes are characteristically hazardous (see 40 CFR 26.1.20 -
261.24), the waste minimization certification of SCR& section
3002(b) does not apply. Please be aware that states may have
more stringent hazardous waste regulations.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions, please contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at
(800)424-9346.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9443.1989(08)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
| I 1989
O^lCE OF
SOLID WftSTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of RCRA Authorities Regarding U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Dredgey1 S#diments
f
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Direc^
Office of Solid Waste (OS-
L * * *
TO: Basil G. Constantelos, Director
Waste Management Division
Region V
This memorandum responds to your May 30, 1989, request for
clarification concerning RCKA authorities to regulate dredged
sediments that exhibit one of more characteristics of a
hazardous vaste. As you stated, EPA's policy regarding such
materials is defined in the January 23, 1986, memorandum from
Marcia Williams to David Stringham. However, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE) published a Federal Register
notice on April 26, 1988 (53 FR 14902), in which USACOE
concluded that dredged materials are not solid waste and,
therefore, not subject to RCRA. These contradictory statutory
interpretations and policies .have caused confusion in properly
implementing RCRA authorities over dredged sediments.
The Agency's policy regarding the applicability of RCRA to
dredged sediments remains unchanged from the January 23, 1986,
memorandum. The pertinent points of this policy are: 1) point
source discharges subject to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) are exempt from RCRA, 2) hazardous wastes dumped into
surface water in a manner that does not trigger Section 402 of
the CWA are subject to RCRA regulation, as well as any sediments
that are contaminated by such discharges (under the contained-in
rule), and 3) in cases where the pollutants discharged into
surface water are not subject to RCRA, sediments would be
regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA only when they are dredged
from the surface waters and only if they exhibit one or more
characteristics of hazardous wastes.
The Office of Solid Waste and the Office of General Counsel
are currently evaluating the best approach to take in addressing
USACOE's April 26, 1988, Federal Register notice. I agree
that a definitive statement of RCRA authorities over dredge
sediments is needed to clarify the regulatory requirements.
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. Should
you have any questions, your staff should contact Mitch Kidwell,
of my staff, at FTS 475-8551.
-------
UNITED STATES^HYIROHMENTAL PROTECTtON AGENCY
9443.1989(083)
Mr. Travis P. Wagner QCT 5
Labat-Anderson Incorporated
2200 Clarendon Boulevard
Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22201
Dear Mr. Wagner:
I am 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)(1).
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.
COMCUMfMCK
SURNAME |
DATE
f o/tAfAx*
•*«*••••*••**
OS-330
••**•••*••**••*•»•
• *•*•• ••••*•••*•'»*
*•••••**••• •••***
••**•*••**••*****
. •••4..«««««*«««.» >»*«•«•«««•»•.#•••
EPA Form 1320-1 02.70)
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
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 liquid", 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.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9443.1991(02)
RCRA/SUPERFDND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 1991
3. Removal of Toxicity Characteristic
Wastes from a Surface
Impoundment
A generator produced a solid waste and
disposed of his waste in an on-site surface
impoundment. After the September 25,1990,
effective date of the toxicity characteristic (TC) No, not under the following circumstances.
rule, the waste would meet the definition of a The generator may remove the waste from the
newly-identified TC waste (40 CFR §26124). surface impoundment prior to the effective
If he chooses to remove the waste from his date of the TC rule and the unit will not be
surface impoundment and dispose of it off-site, regulated as a subtitle C unit. EPA has also
would his surface impoundment be a regulated clarified that the Agency would not normally
unit under Subtitle C ofRCRA ? consider the one-rime removal of waste from a
unit on or after the TC effective date to bring
the unit into the hazardous waste management
system (e.g., as a storage unit). As stated in
the September 27,1990, Federal RpPster
clarification notice, "EPA does not consider
one-rime removal of waste from a unit on or
after the TC effective date, in and of itself, to
make the unit a storage unit and thus subject to
Subtitle C The Agency does not view one-
rime removal of waste as part of a closure as
changing the status of the unit, as long as there
has not been ongoing management of the waste
in the impoundment" The preamble language
goes on to state that this removal is beneficial
to human health and the environment since it
would eliminate potential sources of
groundwater contamination. (55 ER 39410)
Should the generator choose to remove the
hazardous waste from the unit on a one-time
basis, he may use the impoundment as a non-
Subtitle C unit (provided no other hazardous
wastes are generated, managed, or disposed of
in the unit). On the other hand, if the generator
chooses to leave the waste in place and does
not use the unit for hazardous waste
management after the effective date of the TC
rule (for example, if he intends for the surface
impoundment to be the final disposal site for
the waste), the unit would not be a regulated
Subtitle C surface imnoundment.
-------
9443.1989(09)
V }: .»' .") '-> ") 1) .J -J J .) J' ) ) . ) i 1 O O
UNf, > STATES EHYIROKMEMTAL PROTEC^M AGENCY
NOV I 7 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Waste that Exhibits Two Characteristics
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division
This is in response to the October 23, 1989, letter from
Christine McCulloch to Steve Cochran, and follows up on my memo of
September 28, 1989 to you regarding Fisher Scientific. Apparently
Fisher generates a nitric acid waste that is both an oxidizer
(which makes it ignitable under RCRA rules) and is corrosive. If
this is the case, then this waste is both DO01 and D002. EPA
Federal regulations do not require a generator to place waste
codes on the manifest, but the waste must be managed in compliance
with all special requirements for ignitable (e.g., 264.17) and
corrosive waste.
Please feel free to give me a call at 8-382-4637 if you have
any further question.
MM!!!!!!! mnmnninillMliHlinniMiniMllM Mil!!!!!!!!!
cc: Christine McCulloch, Region II (Fax 264-4359)
bcc: Steve Cochran
Hotline
-------
—"j 9443.1989(10}
I/
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL; PROTECTION AGEKCY'
copy
December 13, 1989
Mr. William Berning
CC Johnson & Malhotra, P.C.
Suite 215
215 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, CO 80228
Dear Mr. Berning:
I am writing in response to your letter requesting
clarification regarding when it is necessary to digest EP (Method
1310) and TCLP (Method 1311) extracts prior to metals analysis.
The Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic (40 CFR
261.24) states that a waste is a hazardous waste if the extract
of the waste contains any of the listed constituents above the
indicated regulatory levels. Method 1310 and 1311 extracts
should be digested prior to metals analysis for several reasons.
The two most important ones being:
1) Extracts often consist of a mixture of phases. Unless
the extract is digested prior to the determinative step
all of the metallic species may not be in a form which
gives an accurate detector response (e.g., TCP or AA).
2) During cold storage of Method 1310 extracts, it has
been reported that precipitation sometimes occurs.
Unless the extracts are digested prior to the
determinative step, any metal that precipitates would
not be counted and this would lead to an
underestimation of extract concentration and a
potentially incorrect hazard classification.
-------
-2-
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations hold the regulated individual responsible for
accurately characterizing the properties of the wastes. Some
wastes may yield extracts which do not require digestion to yield
accurate concentration results. However, persons who analyze
Method 1310 or 1311 extracts without prior digestion of the
extracts, and who therefore incorrectly characterize their waste
would be deemed not to have made a good faith effort to
characterize their waste. In fact, Step 8.14 of Method 1311 (40
CFR 268, Appendix I) specifically states that, "TCLP extracts to
be analyzed for metals, other than mercury, shall be acid
digested."
I hope that the above answers your questions.
Sincerely,
David Friedman
Chief, Methods Section
Office of Solid Waste (OS-331)
-------
9443.1990(01)
UHITED STATE5~EfOTKO*tMENTXi; PROTECTION
James W. Poirier
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
1752 N St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Poirier:
I am writing in response to your letter of December 1, 1989
regarding the ignitability characteristic.
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) currently has two test
protocols for determining the ignitability of a liquid - the
Pensky-Martens Closed Cup (SW-846 Method 1010) and the Setaflash
Closed Cup (SW-846 Method 1020). These methods are for liquids
only and do not establish that a solid possesses the ignitable
characteristic. For solids, there is only a narrative definition
set forth in the regulation itself:
"It is not a liquid and is capable, under standard
temperature and pressure, of causing fire through
friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous
chemical changes and when ignited, burns so vigorously
and persistently that it creates a hazard."
The OSW has been conducting work to develop test methods for
ignitable solids. A method has been developed but has not been
evaluated and no decision has been made on the appropriate
regulatory thresholds. Presently, other priorities have resulted
in the work being put on hold.
If you .have any further questions, please contact Gail
Hansen of my staff at (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours,
Devereaux Barnes
Director,
Characterization and Assessment Division
COPY
cc: Alec McBride
David Friedman
Gail Hansen
Ann Ryan
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1991(01)
6 1991
Ms. DeAnna H. Senegal
AnalytiKEM Inc.
2925 Richmond Avenue
Houston, TX 77098
Dear Ms. Senegal,
I am writing in response to your letter of June 28,
1991 requesting clarification on the determination of the
ignitability characteristic. The characteristic, as
defined in 40 CFR §261.21, is applicable to both solid
and liquid wastes; however, test methods are currently
not available for solid waste. Because standardized,
approved methods are not available, the characteristic
determination for solids (e.g., determining whether
solids will cause vigorous and persistent fires through
friction, absorption of moisture, or spontaneous chemical
changes, as listed in the regulations) has to depend upon
knowledge of the waste stream, as noted in 40 CFR
-S201.1(a)(2)(ii) and §262.11(c)(2). Waste analyses of
solid materials may be helpful for determining if any of
the detectable compounds are known to be ignitable.
Please note that meeting any (not all) of the properties
specified in the definition of ignitability qualifies a
waste as characteristically ignitable.
There are no specific definitions of "liquid" (i.e. .
5%, 10%) in the ASTM method D-93 (Standard Test Method
for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Tester) but the
types of materials that may be tested are specified in
the method as "fuel oils, lube oils, suspensions of
solids, liquids that tend to form a surface film under
test conditions, and other liquids of similar vis-
cosities". You are correct to note that results obtained
from applying the test outside of the specifications
(e.g.. paddle does not turn freely) do not provide proof
for a characteristic determination. However, if you are
assured that the paddle moves freely, then you may accept
the determined flashpoint as reliable.
are nou imeu inctrenan-
-------
ignitability. As stated in the 1990 D-93 method, "flash
point measures tendency of the sample to form a flammable
mixture with air under controlled laboratory conditions.
It is only one of a number of properties which must be
considered in assessing the overall flammability hazard
of a material".
Regarding your question about how the results should
appear to clients if the procedures are not followed as
written, specific notations according to any deviation
from the method should be cited in the client's report.
If you have any further questions, please call me
at (202) 260-4761.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Hansen
Chief,
Methods Section
(OS-331)
cc: Alec McBride
Dave Topping
John Austin
David Bussard
Mark Badalamente, OGC
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
MICE Line
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1992(01)
MAR 9 !992
Charles A. Licht, President
CLEA, Inc.
P.O. Box 315
Olympia Fields, IL 60461
Dear Mr. Licht:
I am writing in response to your letter of February 13, 1992
to Sylvia Lowrance concerning clarification of the corrosivity
characteristic as it applies to solids.
The current characteristic defines a corrosive waste as a
solid waste that: a) is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal
to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5 b) or is a liquid and
corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 mm per year. We have
two methods in SW-846 for measuring the corrosivity of these
liquids. One method is for aqueous liquids (Method 9040, pH
electrometric measurement) and the other method is for non-
aqueous liquids (Method 1110, corrosivity of steel).
We realize that the existing corrosivity characteristic has
two problems: 1) it applies only to liquid wastes, thus
corrosive solids such as lye, solid acids, or in your case,
baghouse dusts, are not covered and 2) the term "aqueous" (as in
aqueous liquid) has not yet been defined, thus, there is a chance
that some users of our method for pH determination will
incorrectly apply the method to certain non-aqueous wastes.
With respect to solids, the Office of Solid Waste has
developed a method that appears to be suitable for determining
their corrosivity. This method, Method 9045 - Soil and Waste pH
(copy attached), mixes a waste sample with water in a 1:1 ratio
and determines the pH of the solution with a pH meter. Method
9045 will be included in the proposal for the second update to
the third edition of SW-846, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods." We anticipate the proposal
appearing in the Federal Register sometime this spring, with
promulgation sometime in 1993.
_ COMCUMiNCtS ,
SURNAME^
DATE
Initiate
CS-&1 \
| OS-33^ |
L£
EPA Fem 1320-1 02-70)
•U.S.CFO:l»l»-6Z*-i8i
OFFICIAL FILE CC»
-------
Promulgation of Method 9045 would not by itself expand the
scope of the corrosivity characteristic. This requires that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft regulatory language
to include corrosive solids and to employ Method 9045 for their
determination. We are not sure at this time when that will
happen. In the interim, we recommend the use of Method 9045 for
the determination of corrosive solids.
If you have any additional questions, please call Ollie
Fordham of my staff at (202) 260-4778 or call the Methods
Information Communications Exchange (MICE) at (703) 821-4789.
MICE calls are recorded on an answering machine and, for the
majority of questions, responses are provided within 24 hours. ]
hope this information has sufficiently addressed your questions.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Hansen
Chief,
Methods Section (OS-331)
Enclosure
cc: Alec McBride
Ollie Fordham
Kim Kirkland
Rafael DeLeon, OGC
-------
9443.1992(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
JULY 1992
3. Alcohol-Content Exclusion for the
IgnltabiHty Characteristic
A generator produces a wastestream with a
flash point of 54 degrees Celsius that contains
the following three components: water (77
percent), alcohol (13 percent), and a non-
alcoholic liquid component (10 percent).
According to the "alcohol exclusion" in 40
CFR §26121(a)(l), the characteristic of
ignitability will not apply to an aqueous
solution that contains less than 24 percent
alcohol and which has a flash point less than
60 degrees Celsius. Does the presence of a
non-alcoholic component cause the aqueous
solution to be regulated as an ignitable waste
(D001)?
No, the additional non-alcoholic liquid
omponcnt will not cause the wastestream to
DC regulated-as a D001 waste. Despite the
presence of the non-alcoholic liquid
component, the wastestream continues to
qualify for the alcohol exclusion in 40 CFR
§261.21(a)(l). According to the May 19, 1980,
Federal Register (45 ER, 33108), EPA
originally intended for the alcohol exclusion to
exempt alcoholic beverages and some types of
latex paints, which exhibit low flash points due
to the alcohol content, but do not sustain
combustion because of the high water content
The alcohol exclusion in 40 CFR
§261.21(a)(l), however, is not limited to those
wastes mentioned in the May 19, 1980, FjsdsraL
Register. It applies to all aqueous solutions
containing less than 24 percent alcohol, even if
additional non-alcoholic components are
present EPA clarified in the June 1, 1990,
(55 ER 22543) that the term
"alcohol" in §261.21(aXl) refers to any alcohol
or combination of alcohols. The Agency notes,
however, that if the alcohol is one of those
aJcohols specified in EPA hazardous waste
codes F001-F005 and has been used for its
solvent properties, the waste must be evaluated
to determine if it should be classified as an F-
listed spent solvent waste.
The alcohol exclusion for the ignitability
characteristic was adopted from the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) defini-
tion of "combustible liquids" in 49 CFR
§173.115(b). The alcohol exclusion in 49 CFR
§ 173.115(b)(2)(ii) applies to aqueous solutions
containing 24 percent or less alcohol by
volume which contain no less than 50 percent
water. Since EPA originally intended to be
consistent with DOT regulations when promul-
gating the alcohol exclusion in §261.21(a)(l),
the 50 percent water stipulation may be applied
to the ignitability characteristic. Therefore, as
clarified in an internal EPA memorandum, for
the purpose of the ignitability characteristic in
§261.21(a)(l), "aqueous" means a solution
containing at least 50 percent water by weight
-------
9443.1992(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
WJG261992
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Larry F. Runyan
American Furniture Manufacturers Association
223 South Wrenn Street
P. O. Box HP-7
High Point, NC 27261
Dear Mr. Runyan:
I am writing in response to your letter of July 1, 1992 to
Mr, William K. Reilly, Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency in which you petition EPA to accept ASTM D4982-
89 (Method B) as an equivalent method of testing for the
ignitability of solid waste.
In order to determine whether a method is equivalent to one
in SW-846, the SW-846 method it is intended to be equivalent to
must already be promulgated and be required for use in a
regulation. In your case, a method for the ignitability of solid
waste has not yet been promulgated. Therefore, equivalency
cannot be demonstrated.
The Office of Solid Waste is currently developing a test to
determine the ignitability of solids. Our procedure is based on
the Department of Transportation burn rate test. As we do not
have a promulgated method to test for the ignitability of solids
at present, we recommend ASTM D4982-89 (Method A) as interim
guidance. This ASTM method is a good qualitative test of
ignitability, but is not quantitative enough to be considered for
a SW-846 promulgated method. It only addresses ignition and does
not provide any quantitative measurement of how vigorously the
material burns. We do not recommend ASTM D4982-89 (Method B) as
it only tests the vapors above the sample and not the solid
sample itself.
We do not require generators to test or to specifically use
the methods listed in SW-846, except under the five circumstances
listed in the following sections of 40 CFR:
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
(1) 260.22(d)(1)(i) - Submission of data in support of
petitions to exclude a waste product at a particular
facility (delisting petitions).
(2) 261.22(a) - Evaluation of wastes against the Corrosivity
Characteristic (corrosivity).
(3) 261.24(a) - Evaluation of wastes against the Toxicity
Characteristic (mobility of toxic species).
(4) 264.314(c) and 265.314(d) - Evaluation of wastes to
determine if free liquid is a component of the waste (free
liquid).
(5) 270.62(b)(2)(i)(C) - Analysis of wastes prior to
conducting a trial burn in support of an application for a
hazardous waste incineration permit (incinerator permit).
SW-846 methods are only intended to serve as a guidance for
the regulated community. If the generator can demonstrate that
his/her method has documented QC and is sensitive enough to meet
the regulatory limits, then the generator may use that method in
place of an SW-846 method.
I hope that this information will be of use to your
analytical program. If you have any questions, please feel free
to call me at (202) 260-4778.
Sincerely,
Oliver M. Fordham, Jr.
Chemist
Methods Section
cc: Alec MeBride, TAB
Gail Hansen, TAB
Dave Topping, WIB
Tom Beisswenger, OGC
-------
9443.1992(05)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
SEPTEMBER 1992
2. "Aqueous" as Applied to the
Corrosivity Characteristic
According to 40 CFR §26122, a solid
waste exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity
if it has either of the following properties:
• It is aqueouj and has a pH less than or
equal to 2.0 or greater than or equal to
12J(§26122(aXl))
• It is a liquid, which corrodes steel at a rate
greater than 635 mm (0250 inch) per
year (§26122(a)(2)).
Mary aqueous wastes are liquids. Must
aqueous liquid wastes be evaluated
for bothpH and rate of steel corrosion?
While nonaqucous liquids need only be
tested using the steel corrosion test, aqueous
liquids must be evaluated for both pH and rate
of steel corrosion. If an aqueous liquid has a
pH less than or equal to 2.0 or greater than or
equal to 12.5, d corrodes steel at a rate greater
than 6.35 mm per year, it is regulated as a
corrosive waste (D002). Therefore even if an
aqueous liquid passes the §261.22(a)(l) pH
test (pH greater than 2.0 and less than 12.5), if
it corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 mm
per year, it exhibits the characteristic of
corrosivity.
According to the background document for
this characteristic, Corrosivity Characteristic:
IdenrificatJon and Listing of Hazardous Waste
Under RCRA Subtitle C. Section 3001. an
aqueous waste with a pH between 2.0 and 12.5
may, under certain conditions, corrode steel at
a rate greater than 6.35 mm per year. Several
factors influence the rate of metal corrosion.
In addition to pH, other important factors
include temperature, metal(s) involved, and
aeration and composition of the corrosive
medium. The background document indicates
that although alkaline solutions, in practice, do
not severely damage steel,"... a corrosive
material with a pH less than 4.0 will cause iron
to dissolve rapidly." In other words, although
an aqueous waste in liquid form that has a pH
between 2.0 and 4.0 (i.e., an acidic solution)
passes the pH test, the v aste may nonetheless
fail the steel corrosion test and be regulated as
a corrosive (D002) hazardous waste.
Although there is no regulatory definition
of the term "aqueous," for purposes of the
corrosivity characteristic an aqueous waste is
defined as a waste for which pH is measurable.
Since not all liquid wastes are in a form
amenable to pH measurement, this operational
definition of aqueous implies that the presence
or absence of measurable dissociated hydrogen
ions divides the universe of liquid wastes into
two mutually exclusive categories: aqueous
and nonaqueous. While all liquid wastes must
be evaluated for rate of steel corrosion, those
liquid wastes classified as aqueous are subject
to both the pH and steel corrosion tests. The
background document explains that those who
generate or manage a waste can best determine
whether it is in a form suitable for pH
measurement, and therefore an aqueous waste
requiring the pH test.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
SEPTEMBER 1992
(CONTINUED)
This working definition of aqueous means
that aqueous wastes can be in nonliquid form.
Suspensions, sols, or gels for which pH is
measurable are examples of aqueous
nonliquids. The background document for the
corrosivity characteristic states that, during a
pH determination, the form of the waste should
be taken into account As nonaqucous liquids
are subject to the steel corrosion test only,
aqueous nonliquids only require evaluation for
pH. Therefore, by definition, an aqueous
nonliquid with a pH greater than 2.0 and less
than 12.5 cannot be regulated as D002, since
§261.22(a)(2) applies only to liquids that
corrode steel.
The operational definition of aqueous for
the characteristic of corrosivity differs from the
meaning of aqueous as the term applies to the
ignitability characteristic. Under §261.21(a)(l),
aqueous solutions containing less than 24
percent alcohol by volume are excluded from
regulation as ignitable liquids. In an internal
Agency memorandum clarifying this exclusion,
an aqueous solution is defined as a solution
which contains at least 50 percent water by
weight Applying this 50 percent water
stipulation to define "aqueous" in the context of
§261.22(a)(l) is inappropriate. Instead, for
purposes of the corrosivity characteristic,
aqueous means in a form amenable to pH
measurement
-------
9443.1992(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
DECEMBER 1992
1. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons Used in
Oegreasing
According to 40 CFR §26131, chlorinated
fluorocarbons (CFCs) used in degreasing are
classified as FOOL EPA included CFCs used
in degreasing in the F001 listing because of
concern for their potential contribution to the
depletion of stratospheric ozone. Are
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) used in
degreasing also regulated as F001 ?
Because the F001 listing description
includes all chlorinated fluorocarbons,
hydrochlorofluorocarbons used in degreasing
operations are also classified as FOOL Of
course, the solvent formulation must meet the
10 percent (by volume) beforc-use criterion in
the F001 listing. Hydrogenated fluorocarbons
(HFCs), however, are not included in the scope
of the F001 listing.
-------
9443.1993(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
January 18,1993 OFF.CEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mssrs. JJL Broadhurst and M.W. Godfrey
General Mining, Metals and Minerals Limited
Process Research
200 Hans Strijdom Drive, Randburg
Private Bag X10C14, Randburg 2125
Republic of South Africa
Dear Sirs,
I have received your letter of 22 December 1992, requesting additional information on three hazardous waste
testing issues, and am pleased to be of service. In your first question, you noted that some people believe •
that atmospheric oxidation of Cr(IH) to Cr(VI) in a landfill containment may pose a risk to the environment
The Agency does not have any data which suggest that Cr(III) will oxidize to Cr(VI) in a landfill, and thai if
managed properly, the wastes indicated in Pan 261.4{b)(6)(i)(A) will not pose a threat to human health and
the environment. The Agency will, however, be pleased to receive and review any such data which you
forward to us.
In your second question, you expressed concern that the TCLP is not a realistic indication of the long-term
stability/mobility of elements in solid wastes, and requested additional information on the choice of
experimental conditions used in the test. The TCLP was developed to model teachability of hazardous
constituents in a specific waste management scenario, e.g., co-disposal of solid waste with municipal waste in
a sanitary landfill. The test is not expected to model other waste management conditions. Data from the
test are useful for comparison against toxitity standards, or against other TCLP data sets, only when the
single specified set of experimental conditions are used. I am including with this letter (as Attachment 1)
additional information that discusses the rationale and process for selection of experimental conditions.
Finally, in your third question, you asked which analytical methods should be used to determine the
concentrations of total cyanide and cyanide amenable to chlorination. I have enclosed the appropriate
methods (Methods 9010 and 9012 from Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical
Method* (SW-846)) to this letter as Attachment 2.
If I may be of tether mitfancc, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ollie Fordnam
National Inorganics Program Manager, RCRA
-------
9443.1993(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
FEBRUARY 1993
1. Mixtures of Used Oil and
Characteristic Hazardous Waste
A manufacturer generates used oil that
exhibits the toxicity characteristic (TC)for lead
(D008). On one occasion, the used oil is mixed
with an unlisted spent solvent that is hazardous
due to the characteristic of ignltability (D001)
and the TCfor benzene (DOJ8). On another
occasion, the used oil is mixed with a spent
solvent that is hazardous solely because it
exhibits the characteristic ofignitability
(D001). After mixing, both wastestreams
exhibit only the TCfor lead and are sent to be
burned for energy recovery in an industrial
boiler. Do both mixtures qualify for regulation
as used oil under 40 CFR Pan 279 standards
for used oil management?
The first mixture must be managed as
hazardous waste (D008) and the second
mixture must be managed as used oil. Section
279.10(b)(2) specifically addresses mixtures of
used oil and characteristic wastes, drawing a
critical distinction between the two mixtures
described above. The first mixture is addressed
in §279.10(b)(2)(i), which states that a mixture
of characteristic hazardous waste and used oil
must be handled as a hazardous waste if it
displays anv. characteristics of hazardous waste.
This section applies to any mixture of used oil
and characteristic hazardous wastes, other than
wastes that are hazardous solely because they
exhibit the characteristic of ignitability. Since
the first mixture contains a characteristic
hazardous waste that is hazardous because of
ignitability ajod toxicity, and the mixture
continues to display the TC for lead, it is
considered hazardous waste. In order to
qualify for classification as used oil, this
mixture must be free of all characteristics,
including those originating from the used oil
(D008) and those stemming from the
hazardous waste (D001 and D018).
Section 279.10(b)(2)(m) addresses the
second mixture and is more specific. It dictates
that a mixture of used oil and a characteristic
hazardous waste, which is hazardous solely
because it displays the characteristic of
ignitability, may continue to be managed as
used oil provided that the resulting mixture is
not ignitable. Since the second used oil/waste
mixture is no longer ignitable, it is classified as
used oil, even though it still displays the TC for
lead (D008).
The difference in these two scenarios is that
used oil that is mixed with a characteristic
hazardous waste (other than a solely ignitable
waste) must be free of all characteristics to
qualify for classification as used oil, whereas
used oil that is mixed with a waste that is
hazardous solely due to ignitability needs only
to be void of the ignitability characteristic to be
considered used oil. The difference in the two
scenarios is critical because used oil often
inherently exhibits a characteristic of
hazardous waste.
The standards in Pan 279, while tailored to
used oil handling, do not negate the
requirements placed on handlers by the
hazardous waste regulations, and mixing an
ignitable waste with used oil to render the
waste nonhazardous constitutes treatment
of hazardous waste and is subject to all
appb'cable hazardous management
standards, including permitting (50 £R 49180;
November 29,1985).
Note that Part 279 standards, other than
those related to burning and marketing, are
effective March 8,1993, in unauthorized states
only and in authorized states they are not
effective until those states amend their
program to incorporate the standards.
Standards regarding the marketing and burning
of used oil for energy recovery are simply
transferred from existing Pan 266 regulations
and remain in effect.
-------
9443.1993(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
MAR 3 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Vanessa J. Schiller
Industrial and Hazardous Waste Division
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78711
Dear Ms. Schiller:
Thank you for your January 25 letter regarding the
availability of criteria and/or guidelines EPA uses in evaluating
the characteristic of reactivity.
EPA currently has a test procedure in place that evaluates
the reactivity of waste which releases hydrogen cyanide or
hydrogen sulfide gas when mixed with a weak acid. EPA has not
proposed a test method for evaluating a waste which releases
hydrogen gas when mixed with water. I have enclosed with this
letter a copy of the Agency's supporting guidance for the
reactivity characteristic. This guidance explains EPA's position
and rationale for developing this characteristic. In addition,
Appendix 3 of this document describes and evaluates available
reactivity testing methods, one of which is for water reactivity.
This may provide you with a guideline for evaluating waste that
may be reactive with water.
EPA attempts to define our hazardous waste characteristics
in terms of specific, numerically quantified properties
measurable by standardized and available testing protocols.
However, in the case of reactive wastes, it is difficult to
construct a numerically quantified definition of reactive wastes
because the term "reactivity" embraces a wide variety of
different (although overlapping) effects, each of which can be
triggered by an equally wide variety of initiating conditions or
forces. Further, the properties embraced by the term reactivity
are relative properties. The determination of whether something
"reacts vigorously with air or water" or is "unstable with
respect to heat or shock" is a relative determination, not an
absolute one. Because the effects being measured proceed along a
continuum, it is difficult to draw the line at any particular
point. EPA is currently looking into procedures for testing
wastes for hazardous characteristics, and determining wastes that
react with water is a part of this research.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
If you have any further questions regarding this subject or
if you find a test procedure that is useful in determining water
reactivity, please contact either Valerie Wilson (202-260-4678)
of the Characteristics Section or Oliver Fordham (202-260-4778)
of the Methods Section.
Sincerely,
St Director
Lee of Solid Haste
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1993(04)
APR-2893
Debra K. White
Chief Inorganic Scientist
Enseco Technology Group
Enseco, Inc.
4955 Yarrow Street
Arvada, CO 80002
Dear Ms. White:
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1993 concerning the
November 24, 1992 Federal Register notice on revisions to the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
In response to your first question regarding the conditions
under which the method of standard additions (MSA) must be run for
metallic contaminants in TCLP samples, both conditions listed in
the FR notice must be met before MSA is required. These criteria
are linked together. Unless both are met, MSA is not required.
The intent here is to lighten the burden on laboratories. If a
waste is clearly hazardous or clearly non-hazardous further testing
is unwarranted. It is those cases where the analyte is'hear the
regulatory limit that additional work is required to prove its
"true" concentration.
Your second question concerns the proper procedure for
administering the method of standard additions, when MSA is
required. You should do the full 4 point procedure as stated in
the Federal Register notice. This overrides the QC procedures for
MSA found in Method 7000 and 6010.
I hope that this information will be of use to your analytical
program. If you have any further questions, please feel free to
call me at (202) 260-4778.
Sincerely,
Oliver Fordham
National Inorganic
Manager for RCRA
Program
SYWLOL k
SURNAME ^
DATE ^
0£-J3l
/WW
*/3-/tt
COHCUIWENC
«
EPA Form 1320-1A (1/90)
Printed on Recycled Paper
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
•U.S. Govwnrmnt Priming Ortc»: 1802 — 820-858/40672
-------
9443.1993(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
APR 23 1993
souo WASTE .^ RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Interpretation of "Aqueous" as Applied to the
Corrosivity Characteristic (40 CFR 261.22)
TO: Joseph R. Franzaathes, Director
Waste Management Division ^ x?
FROM: David Bus sard, Director 'V U2t*^4^e^*'
Characterization and Assessment Division
This memorandum responds to your memorandum to Bruce Diamond
dated March 11, 1993 requesting clarification of the term
•'aqueous11 as it applies to the corrosivity characteristic. Your
memorandum references a September 1992 "Hotline Questions and
Answers" publication produced by the RCRA/ Super fund Hotline
contractors and concurred upon by my Division and by OSW.
The Hotline publication correctly defines "aqueous", for the
purposes of the corrosivity characteristic, to mean in a form
amenable to pH measurement. This interpretation is consistent
with the supporting documentation found in the background
document for the corrosivity characteristic final rulemaking
(Background Document: Section 261.22 - Characteristic of
Corrosivity, May 2, 1980). I have attached the applicable
section for your information.
A more specific interpretation of "aqueous" for the purpose*
of the corrosivity characteristic may be found in the method
referenced in the actual regulatory text for the corrosivity
characteristic at 40 CFR 261.22(a) (1) . The regulation states
that "[t]he EPA test method for pH is specified as Method 5.2 ;n
"Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods" (see attachment). Method 5.2 EH
Electrometric Measurement, which was renumbered to Method 9040,
specifies under scope and application that the method "is ua«d to
measure the pH of aqueous wastes and those wastes where the
aqueous phase constitutes at least 20% of the total volume of ..*»•
waste." Therefore, any waste for which this method is applicaa.e
must contain at least 20% free water by volume. This method i«
also attached for your information.
If you or your staff should have any questions regarding
this memorandum, please call me or have your staff call Al
Collins, of my staff, at 202-260-4791.
Attachments
-------
fuel or fuel addititve could, in fact, constitute a legitimate
type of burning for energy recovery. It is important to note,
however, that energy value is not the sole determinant of whether
the natural gas condensate is being legitmately burned as a fuel.
Additional shain .recycling criteria, identified in the January 8,
1988 Proposed Amendments to the Definition of Solid Waste, are
equally relevant to a regulatory status determination (see 53 FR
at 522; see also 48 FR at 11158 (March 16, 1983)). Of particular
relevance to a determination regarding natural gas pipeline
condensate is whether the condensate contains toxic constituents
not found in normal fuels and if so, whether these constituents
contribute to the recycling objective or are simply being
destroyed. Assuming that burning is for legitimate energy
recovery, high energy value natural gas condensate would not be
considered a RCRA solid or hazardous waste when used as a fuel or
fuel additive. However, the determination would have to be made
case-by-case based on the facts relevant to both the specific
material and the manner in which it is being burned.
It is also important to note that authorized states
generally implement the RCRA hazardous waste regulations and
State regulations may be more stringent than the Federal
regulations. I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If
you have any further questions, please contact Mitch Kidwell or
Becky Daiss of my staff at (202) 260-8551.
Sincerely,
MichaeU Shapiro, Director
Offtcej of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9443.1993(06)
OCT I 2 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Dr. Ed L. Schrader
Associate Professor
Director of Sorbent Laboratory
Millsaps College
1701 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39210-0001
SUBJECT: Paint Filter Liquids Test Technical Guidance
Dear Dr. Schrader:
Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1993, and our
subsequent discussions in which you raised questions about the
applicability of the Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFT, Method 9095)
to the sorbent industry. The test determines if a free liquid
exists for the purposes of the Liquids in Landfills Rule.
Five items in particular seem to be of concern to sorbent
manufacturers, users, and landfill operators in complying with the
Liquids in Landfills Rule: (1) the light bulk density of some
sorbents, which causes them to overflow the filter, (2) the need
for clarifying that sorbents and sorbates are to be uniformly mixed
prior to placement in the paint filter, (3) the size and shape of
sorbent pillows, socks, and pads, which prevents them from fitting
into the paint filter without modification, (4) the need to
standardize filter paper specifications, and (5) the need to test
each sorbate/sorbent combination.
With regard to the first item, if a 100-g sample of sorbent is
of such low density that it would overflow the filter (potentially
causing liquids to flow between the filter and funnel, yielding a
false positive), then two options exist. First, the procedure
specifies a "100-ml or 100-g representative sample," so a 100-ml
rather than a 100-g sample may be used, if the material can be
measured volumet: ^ally (i.e., lacks major air spaces or voids).
Second, the sides .
-------
Page 2 of 3
the sorbent after the sorbent has been placed in the paint filter.
The sorbent and liquid material should be thoroughly and uniformly
mixed and then a representative sample placed in the filter.
Regarding the third item, the PFT does not address how
material such as sorbent pillows, socks, pads, sheets, and rolls
should be placed into the paint filter. How such items are placed
into the filter could result in significant variations in test
results. As this is a gravity test with no external applied
pressure, it is not intended for sorbent pillows, socks, etc. to be
squeezed or compressed to fit into the paint filter.
In order to assure uniformity and standardization of the test,
a 100-g or 100-ml sample of sorbent pad, roll, sheet, or other
material which does not conform to the shape of the paint filter,
should be cut into small pieces and poured into the filter. Sample
size reduction may be accomplished by cutting the sorbent material
with scissors, shears, knife, or other such device so as to
preserve as much of the original integrity of the sorbent fabric as
possible. Sorbents enclosed in a fabric should be mixed with the
resultant fabric pieces. The particles to be tested should be
reduced smaller than 1 cm (i.e., should be capable of passing
through a 9.5 mm (0.375 inch) standard sieve). Grinding sorbent
materials should be avoided as this may destroy the integrity of
the sorbent and produce many "fine particles" which would normally
not be present.
For brittle materials larger than 1 cm that do not conform to
the filter, light crushing to reduce oversize particles is
acceptable if it is not practical to cut the material. Materials
such as clay, silica gel, and some polymers may fall into this
category.
Regarding the fourth item, the PFT specifies "Conical paint
filter; Mesh number 60 (fine meshed size). Available at local
paint stores such as Sherwin-Williams and Glidden for an
approximate cost of $0.07 each [as of September 1986]." EPA
recognizes that most paint filters today are not labelled by actual
mesh size, and that the specified "fine meshed size" available
commercially is actually a mesh size of 60 X 48 threads or
holes/inch. Since this is coarser than a 60 X 60 mesh, it has the
potential to give more conservative test results (i.e., may fail
more samples) and is therefore acceptable to EPA, as would be a 60
X 60 mesh. Mesh sizes greater (i.e., finer) than 60 X 60, however,
would not be acceptable.
Regarding the fifth item, no materials, whether sorbed or not,
may be placed in a hazardous waste landfill if they release free
liquids as determined by the PFT. This should be implemented
through the landfill operator's Waste Analysis Plan (WAP). The WAP
should identify when samples will be tested using the PFT. In
cases of controlled treatment by sorbents, it may not be necessary
-------
Page 3 of 3
to test each treated sample if sufficient data have been obtained
by testing each sorbate/sorbent combination to establish the
loading ratio that assures no free liquids, and the treatment is
done to assure such ratios are not exceeded. Each sorbate/sorbent
combination should be tested because sorbents have different
sorption characteristics and sorption ratios based on the type of
sorbate (e.g., oily vs water-based sorbates) .
As we discussed, this test is not designed to evaluate the
efficiency of a sorbent product relative to other sorbents. It is
designed to determine if a specific sample, be it sorbent or other
material, contains free liquid and thus should not be placed in a
hazardous waste landfill. As discussed under item 5 above, the PFT
may also be used to determine the "saturation" or pass/fail level
of a particular sorbent /sorbate combination. Our testing shows
that at the "saturation" level some failures may occur since the
"saturation" level is more a range than a line, but that at some
lower liquid loading level, that can be determined in the lab,
passing the PFT is consistently achieved. This knowledge is
invaluable to a treater using sorbents to assure successful
treatment (i.e., a high pass rate). It is less valuable when
sorbents are used to control or clean up spills since
sorbate/sorbent ratios are less controlled.
I hope this information will help clarify technical details
about the applicability of the Paint Filter Liquids Test to
sorbents and assist you in your analytical program. EPA plans to
incorporate appropriate parts of this technical guidance into
Method 9095 when we propose a third update to the third edition of
SW-846. Realistically the proposal and promulgation of this update
is several years away, so I hope this technical guidance will serve
your purposes in the interim.
Sincerely,
Oliver M. Fordham, Jr.
National Inorganic Program
Manager for RCRA
cc: David Bussard
Mike Flynn
Alec McBride
Gaii Hansen
Tom Beisswenger
Matt Hale
Ken Shuster
Dave Eberly
RCRA Hotline
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9443.1993(07)
NOV -8 1933 OFFICECF
SOt-ID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Reactive Sulfides in PapermiU Waste
>v^Mt, e^
FROM: BrucrWezraie; Actmg Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Larry Brill, Chief
MA Wasie Management Branch
Region I
I an: writing in response to your October 6, 1993, memorandum asking for
clarification on the level of sulfide for determining if a waste is hazardous under the
reactivity characteristic.
The regulation in 40 CFR 261.23 defines reactive wastes to include "cyanide or
sulfide bearing wastes which, when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can
generate toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human
health or the environment". This definition is intended to identify wastes that, because of
their extreme instability and tendency to react violently or explode, pose a problem at all
stages of the waste management process. The definition is to a large extent a paraphrase of
the narrative definition employed by the National Fire Protection Association. The Agency
chose to rely almost entirely on a descriptive, prose definition of reactivity because most of
the available tests for measuring the variegated class of effects embraced by the reactivity
definition suffer from a number of deficiencies. For determining reactive sulfide content in
particular, one of the deficiencies is poor recovery.
Chapter 7 of SW-846 contains the method for determining total releasable sulfide. It
should be noted that different versions of the test method have existed that yield substantially
different results. In September of 1990, EPA proposed increasing the strength of the sulfuric
acid used in the test from 0.01N to 0.1N. The Agency reevaluated the stronger acid
digestion and concluded that the original acid concentration of 0.01N more accurately
represented the mismanagement scenario the method is designed to emulate (see attachment
1). In 1992, EPA revised the method to include the original sulfuric acid concentration of
0.01N. This version was finalized on August 31, 1993 (58 FR 46040, attachment 2). The
current EPA guidance level is 500 mg/kg for total releasable sulfide. If a waste contains
greater than 500 mg/kg total releasable sulfide, then the waste is usually considered to meet
-------
the narrative definition of a characteristically reactive waste under 40 CFR 261.23. Since
recovery can be as low as 10% under certain circumstances, any test result greater than 500
mg/kg would be deemed a characteristic hazardous waste.
In your letter you included data on slaker grit and green liquor dregs wastestreams
from an International Paper facility. It is unclear which version of the test method was used
to measure total releasable sulfide. If the most recent method (attachment 3) was used, then
the wastestreams have concentrations in excess of 500 mg/kg (684 mg/kg and 1004 mg/kg
respectively), and would therefore be considered a hazardous waste. If there is any question
as to which version of the method was used I recommend having the analysis repeated using
the most recent method. The older proposed method employing 0.1N sulfuric acid would
yield higher levels of releasable sulfide and inaccuiately classify the waste as hazardous. If
you have any further questions on the reactivity characteristic, please contact William
Morrow of my staff at 202-260-3657.
Attachments
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1994(01)
'.AM - 3 -994
Mr. Stephen Siegel
Industrial Hygienist
ENV Services Inc.
1016 West 8th Avenue
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dear Mr. Siegel:
Thank you for your November 16, 1993 letter in which you
requested guidance on whether or not any Federal disposal
guidelines apply to the disposal of metal casings containing spent
powdered metallic oxide catalyst (i.e., manganese dioxide and
copper oxide). Based on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) you
provided, manganese dioxide is a strong oxidizer which reacts
exothermally, may ignite certain organics, and cause lung
irritation or serious central nervous system disorders through
inhalation.
The spent catalyst is not a listed hazardous waste under
Federal regulations. However, the spent material may need to be
tested to determine if it exhibits any of the hazardous waste
characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity). The limited
information provided suggests that the catalyst may exhibit a
hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability or reactivity. Even
if it is not ignitable or reactive, when the spent catalyst is
discarded, its characteristics may be different (e.g., it may be
contaminated with other hazardous constituents). Therefore, you
must determine if the waste contains any of the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) constituents listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 261.24
at levels of regulatory concern.
If the spent catalyst powder is determined to be a hazardous
waste, then it must be handled according to the hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Even if the spent catalyst is not a characteristic
hazardous waste, the nature of the material (a strong oxidizing
agent) may still require special handling. To insure full
compliance with state's solid waste regulations and safe handling
and disposal of the metal casings, you should contact the waste
management authority of the State in which the waste will be
handled, •
El*Fam 1320-1A(1/90) Prhudc*RtncUdPaoe, OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
Should you have any questions or require any additional
clarification regarding this correspondence, please contact
Shen-yi Yang of my staff at (202)-260-1436.
ides, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
cc: Bob Kayser, EPA HQ
Shen-yi Yang, EPA HQ
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9443.1994(02)
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGtNCV HESPONS6
FEB -4 1994
Mr. Kevin Igli
Director, Environmental Management
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
3001 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Dear Mr. Igli:
In EPA'e letter of November 10, 1993, the Agency stated that
mercury batteries, meeting specific criteria, are not considered
debris under the current definition of debris (see 57 FR 20767,
May 15, 1992). In your follow-up letter dated November 23, 1993,
you requested further examination on whether certain mercury
batteries are hazardous debris. In your letter you discussed,
among other things, the fact that debris capacity variances are
based on both the Mold" and current definitions of debris.
The Agency's determination that the battery carcasses
described in your April 30, 1993 letter are containers and not
debris has not changed. In the context of a capacity variance,
you are correct that both the "old" and current definitions
apply. As you point out, the old definition includes containers
as being debris (55 FR 22686, 22650, June 1, 1990). EPA re-
addressed this issue in the "new1* definition, stating that in
many cases debris will be mixed with liquids or sludges, and that
EPA will determine on a case-by-case basis whether all or
portions of such mixtures should be considered debris (55 FR at
22650). However, this does not necessarily mean that the
materials to which you refer are entitled to a capacity variance.
For example, it would not be appropriate to provide such a
variance to a drum (i.e., container) of liquid waste or sludges.
In your specific case, the EPA Regional office has informed
us that the mercury sludge contained in the battery carcass does
not meet the definition of debris, and that the mixture (i.e.,
battery carcass and mercury sludge) also is not debris.
To address other questions regarding battery carcasses
containing hazardous waste sludges or mixtures of debris and
hazardous waste sludges, please contact Mr. Richard Kinch, Chief
-------
of the Waste Treatment Branch at (202) 308-8434. Thank you again
for you letter.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro1
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Bruce Long
Richard Kinch
-------
UMITED STATES ENV1ROKMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEE 24 1995
9443.1995(01)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Debris and Soil Contaminated with Explosive Residues
FROM: James F. Michael, Chief
Disposal Technology Section (5303W)
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Lawrence A. Wapensky, Chief
Utah/North Dakota Section
Region VIII
This responds to your January 20, 1995 memorandum requesting
assistance in answering questions raised by the State of Utah
concerning regulatory issues pertaining to wastes contaminated
with explosive residues.
The first question raises concern with the reference at
40 CFR 261.23(a)(8) to certain Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations concerning explosive classifications, that are cited
as criteria for determining the characteristic of reactivity.
The DOT regulations cited at §261.23(a)(8) have recently been
changed and expanded to conform with Department of Defense hazard
classes, therefore, presenting difficulties in implementing the
Federal regulatory definition of reactivity under RCRA. Until
such time that §261.23(a)(8) is updated, those referenced DOT
regulations can not be used for determining reactivity.'
Reactivity determinations should be made using the remaining
criteria at §261.23(a)(l)-(7).
The second question asks whether and when liquid, solid, or
debris mixed with explosives would be considered reactive.
Wastes, whether themselves explosives, or media contaminated with
explosives would be considered reactive by meeting the definition
of reactivity as described in §261.23(a)(l)-(7). Wastes that do
not meet the criteria in §261.23(a)(l)-(7) would not be
considered reactive.
The third question regards other Federal criteria for
explosivity. If agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms (BATF) have regulations, or protocols, for
determining whether or not a substance is explosive, those
regulations or protocols would not be enforceable under.EPA.
tmronn ,^-,«v,^, rrw«^cycled rape, -us. a*™™ P**, 0** 1992-6*ves6,406-
-------
regulations, unless they became incorporated into our rules.
Specific methods used by agencies such as BATF to determine if a
substance is an explosive could, however, be applied to determine
whether a waste is reactive according to §261.23(a)(6) or (7).
Thank you for the opportunity to address questions related
to the reactivity characteristic as it relates to explosives. If
you have any questions, please call Jeff Gaines at (703) 308-
8655.
cc: Frank McAlister, AB, PSPD, OSW
Jeff Gaines, AB, PSPD, OSW
-------
UNITED ****** ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
ALJ6 24 1996 9443.1995(02)
Off ICE OF
SOLD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Mr. T. L Nebrich, Jr. RESPONSE
Technical Director
Waste Technology Services, Inc.
640 Park Place
Niagara Falls, NY 14301
Dear Mr. Nebrich:
Thank you for your letter of July 31,1995 requesting a clarification of the
difference between the definition for the characteristic of ignitability as it pertains to
solids vs. liquids. As you are aware, there is no officially promulgated or required
method for determining the ignitability of solid samples or sludges at this time. Of the
two flash point methods, Method 1010, Pensky-Martens, has some utility for liquid
samples with non-filterable, suspended solids. If your samples contain filterable solids,
they are not amenable to the Pensky-Martens flash point test Flash point testing is only
appropriate for liquid samples. It should not be applied to solids.
The Office of Solid Waste has developed and proposed a test to determine the
ignitability of solids (SW-S46 Method 1030). Our procedure is based on the Department
of Transportation (DOT) burn rate test listed in 49 CFR §173.124 and Appendix £. You
should separate the solid/liquid phases of your samples and test each phase separately;
liquids by flash point and solids by the DOT procedure.
It is the generator's responsibility to make sure their waste is not hazardous for
the characteristic of ignitability as described in 40 CFR $26121. As we do not have a
promulgated method required by regulations to test for the igmtabflity of solids or
sludges at present, we recommend you use generator knowledge of the waste when
available supplemented by tests appropriate to the waste if necessary. When specified
test methods are not available and generator knowledge is insufficient to make a
hazardous waste determination, it is always wise to check with your state or regional
EPA office for approval of the protocol you wish to follow in malting a hazardous waste
determination.
There have been clarifications to our guidance on how to determine a free liquid
since the 1989 letter to Mr. Travis P. Wagner on the subject In a January 13,1995
Federal Register Notice (60FR3089) in Section IV.C there is a paragraph on "Free
Liquids and Characteristic Tests." A copy is enclosed for your convenience.
-------
I hope that this information will be beneficial to your industry. If you have any
question, please feel free to call Oflie Fordham of my staff at (202) 260-4778.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
iro, Director
Waste
-------
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC.
July 31, 199!
Mr. Michael Shipiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shipiro:
There has been a discussion ragging in our industry
(hazardous waste consulting) for the past few years regarding
a D001 ignitable solid. Some of our clients (generators)
want to identify their solid (non-liquid) wastes as DO01 when
.it's only based oh a flashpoint test as outlined
40CFR261.21(a)(1). They then want to ship the waste as a DOT
Flammable Solid.
We have .tried to point out that non-liquid, solid waste
cannot meet the definition of a RCRA characteristic of
ignilability 40CFR 261.21 unless it is "not a liquid and is
capable, under standard temperature and pressure
[40CFR261.21(a)(2)]. Now with the subcategories for D001 on
a LDR Notification it makes it even more difficult to
identify a D001 solid as ignitable since there is no category
which fits a Flammable Solid in 40CFR261.2l(a)(1).
Could you please clarify the difference Between the
definition for the Characteristic of Ignitability as it
pertains to solids (non-liquids) vs. liquids. Has there been
any change since the 1989 to letter Mr. Travis P. Wagner (see
enclosed).
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Very truly yours,
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES,) XKC.
T. L. Nebrich, Jr., CHMM
Technical Director
TLN/kjl
Enclosure
40 Park Place. Niagara Falls. New York. 14301
Telephone 716-282-4100 • Fax 7l6-282-€986
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1995 (03)
Mr. T. L. Nebrich, Jr.
Technical Director
Waste Technology Services, Inc.
640 Park Place
Niagara Falls, NY 14301
Dear Mr. Nebrich:
Thank you for your follow up letter of August 31, 1995 to
Michael Shapiro requesting further clarification of the
characteristic of ignitability as it pertains to solids versus
liquids.
40 CFR 261.21 (a) (1) is only applicable to liquids as a
definitive test for the characteristics of ignitability. There is
no promulgated definitive test for the ignitability of solids
(i.e., physically a solid with no free liquid) . If a solid flashes
using some modification of the flash point test, this may indicate
there is a potential problem with the sample such as contamination
with ignitable volatiles and further investigation may be in order.
The flash point test alone is not definitive for determining the
ignitability of solids, but may be used with other evidence to
build a case for a waste being classified as an ignitable hazard.
I hope that this information will be beneficial to your
industry. If you have any questions, please feel free to call
Ollie Fordham of my staff at (202) 260-4778.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Hansen
Chief,
Methods Section (5304)
-------
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC.
August 31, 1995
Mr. Michael Shipiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shipiro:
As a follow up to my July 31, 1995 letter and your
response (enclosed) regarding the characteristic of
ignitability as it pertains to solids. vs. liquids, I would
to request a. further clarification.
Is it possible or correct to identify a solid waste (ie.
physically a solid with no free liquid) as RCRA DO 01
(characteristic of ignit lability) according to 40CFR
261. 21 (a) (1) . I realize that you could have a RCRA D001 non-
liquid as defined in 40CFR 261.21(a)(2) or (4). However,
since there are only flash points for liquids, could you have.
a solid waste characterized as a RCRA D001 based solely on- a
flash point?
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Very truly, yours,
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
T. L. Nebrich, Jr., CHMM
Technical Director
!TLN/kjl
Enclosure
640 Patk Place. Niagara Falls. New York 14301 telephone 716-282-410C
-------
Lists Of Hazardous Waste
(Subpart D)
vo
-------
9444.1980(01)
September 4, 1980
Mr. Robert Goodell
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
Betz Laboratories, Inc.
4636 Somerton Road
Trevose, Pennsylvania 19047
Dear Mr. Goodell:
This is in response to your letter of August 1, 1980 in
which you requested confirmation of our previous telephone
conversations related to interpretations of §261.33 of the
hazardous waste regulations promulgated on May 19, 1980. In an
attachment to your letter you described a hypothetical waste
stream which contained several constituents which, as products,
are listed in §§261.33(e) or 261.33(f); you concluded that the
waste stream was non-hazardous.
As noted in the regulations, §§261.33(e) and (f) relate only
to commercial chemical products (or variants thereof) which are
hazardous wastes if and when they are discarded. They are not to
be applied to wastes which incidentally contain substances listed
in these sections. Thus the waste stream you described is not
one of the commercial chemical products listed. (The exception
to this would be those cases where, citing your example, the
product is known by the generic name of and purchased for the
active ingredient, pentachlorophenol.) Also you did properly
indicate an evaluation against the characteristics of hazardous
waste.
A Regulatory Interpretation Memorandum (RIM) on this
specific issue (§261.33) has been prepared and is being revised
within the Agency. It should be published in the Federal
Register in about two weeks. A notice indicating that RIMs would
be prepared and a tentative schedule for a group of RIMs was
published on August 19, 1980 (45 FR 55386) . A copy is attached.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
I have this provides the information you requested. Please
call or write If I may be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Alan S. Corson, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division
Attachment
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1980(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOV 1 3 1980
Mr. John D. P.. Wright
Independent Valley Energy
Company
1100 Milan Building
Suite 3765
Houston, Texas 77002
Dear Mr. Bright:
This is in response to Mr. Finis E. Carieton's lefct-w? to rae
dated October 2B, 1950 (copy attached). In his letter l'lr< Carlet.on
asks for verification of his interpretation of our RCEA Hazardous
v:aate Menagesent Regulations with ressnsct to wastes that will be
Generated by a refinery your firm intends to build in BaHsrsfield,
alifcrnic. Based on the facts presented in his letter, I conclude
that Hr. Carlston has reached correct interpretations of our
regulations.
It appears that the refinery vastewater to be treated is not a
bazar.-5ous waste because it is not listed in §$261.31 or 261.32 of the
regulations, >3ocs net contain (by rcixture) any of the hazardous wastes
listed in <>*-261.31 or 261.32, or does not exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics identified in Scbpart C of Part 261 of the
rcr;ulaticns. As such, this wastewattr would not Ns subject to our
regulations and it would not ba necessary to submit a Part A application
on Xovcnber 19, 1980, or obtain interim status in accordance with
§122.25. I would hasten to point out, however, that if any of the
three hazardous wastes to b« generated by the refinery (KO48, KO49 and
KOS1) ere discharged into^an-i nixed with the refinery wastewater, they
will cause the wastewater to b« a hazardous waste--in accordance with
the mixture rule of §261.3(a) (2) (ii)~and; thereby, subject to our
RCRA regulations.
It appears that on* of the harardous wastes to be generated by
your rcfinery~nasn«ly skiianings from the air floatation unit (KO43}~
will be recycled to the coker after accumulation or storage in the
6loo oil tanX. Although the recycling of this wasts is not now
subject to our regulations (see «261.6(a)), the storage ef this waste
in the slop cil tank is now subject to our regulations because it is
tcrage of a listed hazardous waste (see $261.6
-------
-3-
I hope that I have been helpful in this response. I recjret that
cur regulations are so complicated but believe that this conplexity
is caused by the complexity of th« problem being regulated. If I can
b* of nny further assistance, please call or, prcfarrably, contact:
Arnold Den
Chief* Hazardous Materials Branch
215 rreaont Street
San Pr&ncicco, California 94105
(415) 556-4606
Sincerely yours,
Gary M. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Haste
Enclosure
cc: Finis E. Carleton
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 3444.1980(03)
NOV 1 7 198Q.
Mr. R. E. Hoyle
Manager, Operation*
Koch Fuels, Inc.
P.O. Box 2338
Wichita, Kansas 67201
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
•nils is in response to your letter of September 11, 1980,
requesting clarification of our RCRA hazardous waste management
regulations relative to bottora sediments, water wastes &nd spilled
material and mixtures resulting from storage of petrolewn products.
You ask whether these wastes are hazardous wastes by virtue of
containing any of the constituents, such as benzene, list ted in
Appendix VIII of Part 261 of our regulations.
These wastes would only be hazardous waste if:
1. they are listed as hazardous wastes in §§261.3.* or
261.32 of our regulations; or
2. they are mixtures that contain any of the hazardous
wastes listed in §§261.31 or 261.32 of our
regulations.
3. they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes described in Subpart C of Part 261 of our
regulations.
From the information provided in your letter, it appears that your
wastes do not meet either of the first two criteria. Your letter
does not provide sufficient information to make a judgement based
on the third criterion.
Relative to your questions about Appendix VIII, that Appendix
is only meant to be used by EPA in making judgements about listing
wastes as hazardous wastes. It is not intended that the regulated
community must use Appendix VIII to determine whether e waste is a
hazardous waste. Put in other words, a waste that contains an
Appendix VIII constituent is only a hazardous waste because of this
if EPA has listed the waste for this reason in §§261.31 or §261.32.
-------
-2-
If your wastes contain any of the Appendix VIII constituents but
these wastes are not listed in §§261.31 cr 261.32, this does net
necessarily mean that SPA has nade a determination that these wastes
are non-hazardous. It most liV.ely means that we have not yet nade &
determination with respect to these wastes.
I hope I have clarified our regulations with respect to your
questions. If I can of further assistance, please call ne.
Sincerely yours,
Gary U. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
-------
94-44.1980(05)
1 5 ?S50
"iehael S. Rabren
Technical Director
'J.S. Cylinders
100 Industrial Park
Citcnellc. AJ.2ba.r.a 3P.322
>«;ar '-:r. r.-brer.-.
Thie is to respond to your letter of October 30. 15CO, to
J'.s. Tilcr.er.a Chau asXinc for clarification of our hazardous vaste
-ar.agenier.t rscuiations as they apply tc your ccnpo.r.y1 s waste.
You indicate that your waste is CaC, Sir'2 and asbertcs and
ask if it is a hazardous vaste. w« listed asbestos as a hazardous
waste in §261.33{£) of our regulation, but this cr.ly applies tc
technical grade asbestos if, for acne reason, it is discarded or
intended tc be discarded. This list-ir.g does not causr £ -r.ar.ufacturinc
-recess waste containing asbestos as a ncmel waste constituent to be
a hazardous waste. ?ron =y understanding of your letter, your waste
is such a manufacturing process waste. If this is correct, it is r.ct
s. ':-.»sarucus waste because of its content cf asbestos.
Your waste nay be a hazardous waste because it exhibits any of
the' characteristics of hazardous waste identifies in £ air-art C z.
Fart 2C1. Prcn the infcnr^ticn provided in your 1-tter, I cannot
-a>e a judc«3:r.er.t on this point. You rr.ay var.t to checV: on this. If
you neec! further guidance, I reccrsner.c that you contact:
!S 5Ct
Chief, Hesiduals .".anacenent Branch
345 Courtland Street, S.£.
Atlanta, G«or?i& 303G5
(404) 8P.1-3016
If you should find that your waste is a hazardous waste and you
are a sraall quantity generator, you are allowed to Ji*?os« of your
waste in a facility that is approved by the State for disposal of
municipal or ir.ouutrial waste (not a necessarily hazardous waste
facility) . A sr.itll quantity generator is cno who generates less thv
1000 kilo^rars cf hazardous waste in a calender rsor.th. "cur letter
-------
states that, you dispose of 300 kilograms per nonth of asbestos. Cur
regulation is based on the quantity cf the tctai waste, net -ust the
quantity of the asbestos or any other constituent in the waste.
Therefore, I cannot ~aXc a judgement en whether you are a s-all cuantit*
generator. You nay wish to discuss this with Mr. Scarborough.
I hope I have been helpful. I apologise for the tardiness of this
response but we have been overv-'helned with requests for clarification
cf o\ir regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Gary >:. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Alriir.istrator
for Solid Waste
-------
9444.1980(06)
December 2, 1980
Mr. William English
Vice-President, Operations
The Massillon Steel Casting Company
Massilon, Ohio 44646
Dear Mr. English
This letter will confirm the conversation you had with Mr.
Myles Morse of my staff on October 20, 1980, concerning your
petition to exclude the waste of the Massillon Steel Casting
Company from the K061 hazardous waste listing, (emission control
dust/sludge from the electric furnace production of steel), under
Section 261.32 of the hazardous waste regulations. The Massillon
Steel Casting Company's facility in Massillon, Ohio, as indicated
by your petition dated September 9, 1980, is a steel foundry and
is therefore not affected by this RCRA hazardous waste
classification. This reflects the Agency's finalized listings
(see 45 FR 74890-892 (November 12, 1980)) which clarify that the
listing K061 applies only to the primary production of steel and
not to steel foundries. This change was made since the listing
background document refers throughout only to primary steel
production. We are uncertain whether foundry electric furnace
emission control dusts and sludges are sufficiently similar in
composition to warrant inclusion in the area listing, and
therefore have not included them in this listing. Foundry
industry wastes are being evaluated and may be addressed by
future Agency actions. At present, however, the Agency has
formally terminated further processing of this petition. The
petition will be kept on file with the Agency for future
reference.
Your waste stream, therefore, will not be listed as
hazardous. You are not required to take any action as a result
of the May 19, 1980, interim final listing. You must still
determine, however, whether your waste possesses any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., reactivity,
corrosivity, ignitability or EP toxicity) as provided in §262.11
of the regulations. If your waste does not possess any of these
characteristics, you will be deemed a generator of hazardous
waste, and be required to manage the waste under the hazardous
waste management program. It should be noted that if your waste
meets any of the four characteristics, you should have already
obtained an EPA identification number by August 18, 1980.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Please feel free, to contact Mr. Morse if you have any
questions or problems. Mr. Morse's telephone number is (202)
755-9187.
Sincerely yours,
John P. Lehman
Director
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1981(01)
ray
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
12 MAR REC'Q
•*• OfftCtOf
SOLID WASTI AND EMINQINCY
RE: WCBDF830108
Mr. John D'Aloia, Jr.
Oeuel and Associates, Inc.
7300 Jefferson St, N.E.
Albuqerque, NM 87109
Dear Mr. D'Aloia:
I am responding to your letter of March -2~, 1983 to Alan
Corson requesting a clarification of why-the Agency does not
identify as a hazardous waste any manufacturing waste that
contains any of the compounds ilsted in 40 CPR 261.33.
The commercial chemical products regulated under $261.33
are generally products containing high concentrations of toxic.
chemicals or, in the case of pesticides, products of high
toxic activity. Thus, there is no question that such materials
are likely to meet the criteria for listing, as hazardous wastes.
Manufacturing process wastes, on the other handf generally
contain only low levels of these materials. Thus, expanding
the hazardous waste identification regulations to encompass
all manufacturing wastes containing the S261.33 compounds is
likely to result in many false positives (i.e., wastes identified
as hazardous which do not actually contain hazardous levels
of the toxicants of concern) unless, and until, minimum
concentration theresholds can be established for eacfc compound.
At this time, due to the- lack of data, the Agency is unable
to set* thresholds for all the compounds. As the comment to
$261.33 explains^ where the Agency deems a manufacturing
process waste to be ^ hazardous waste because it contains
low levels of these compounds, such a waste will be listed
in $5261.31 and 261.32.
In summary, $261.33 was not broadened to include all
process wastes due to the problem outlined above and the
technical difficulties in establishing de minimis concentration
thresholds for all the compounds.
-------
-2-
I hop* that I have answered your question. If you need
additional background information on these regulations, r
suggest that reviewing the $261.33 Background Document may be
useful.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman
Manager
Waste Analysis Program
cc: Hotline
-------
9444. 1981(02)
UNITED ST ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C 2046C
oFFicr or SOLID WASTE
i s m,
orrice of WATER
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr. R. E. McNeiil
Occidental Chemical Company
P.O. Box 300
White Springs, FL 32096
Dear Mr. McNeiil:
I am writing in response to your letter of June 9, 1981
to Mr. Alan Corson requesting clarification of the section
261.33 regulations with respect to a sulfuric acid catalyst
you use.
The hazardous waste listing P120 in section 261. 33 (e)
relates to all the oxides of vanadium's +5 oxidation state.
If the Monsanto Catalyst that you employ in the production of
sulfuric acid does not have such an oxide as its sole active
ingredient, then the catalyst is not regulated under section
261.
One must keep in mind however that, even if it. is not
regulated under section 261.33, the waste must still be
evaluated to determine if it exhibits any of the characteristic
of a hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, EP toxicity).
I trust the above answers your questions. If I can be
of further assistance please give me a call at (202) 755-9187.
Sincerely,
David Friedman
Manager
Waste Analysis Program
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
cc: Hotline
-------
9444.. 1981(03)
OFFICE C-F SOLID WASTE
JUN 6 (981
Mr. nd Keough
Continental Pipeline
P.C. Box 2197
Room 600
Kichjaond Tower
Houston, Texas 77001
Dear Mr. Reoughs
This letter is in response to your request for a
clarification of the hazardous waste listing 1052, "Tank
bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining industry." In
our telephone conversations, you indicated that your company,
as well as other pipeline companies, generate leaded tank
bottoms at bulk terminals, distribution points, etc., which
are not part of a refinery. Therefore, it was not clear to
you whether the listing 1C052 included all leaded tank bottoms
generated by the petroleum industry or just those specifically
generated at a petroleum refinery.
As you had discussed with Matt Straus, of my staff, on
the telephone, the hazardous waste listing K052 is limited
to only those leaded tank bottoms which are generated at OE
as part of a petroleum refinery. A petroleum refinery is
described in the listing background document as a ••••complex
combination of interdependent operations engaged in the
separation of crude oil by molecular cracking, molecular
rebuilding and solvent refinishing, to produce a varied list
of intermediate and finished products...* (Background Documents
SS261.31 and 2€1.32 - Listing of Rasardous Wastes (FinaHsafeion
of May 19, 1910 Hasardous Waste List), November 14, 19SO, p.
685.] Therefore, only leaded bottoms from those tanks {i»e.,
tank farm) which are directly part of a petroleum refinery
(i.e., used to store product/crude prior to shipment off-site)
and which generate leaded bottoms would be currently covered
by the listing. These leaded bottoms are subject to control
as hazardous wastes when they are removed from the tanks.
This we believe is made clear in reading the listing background
document which defines the scope of the listing.
-------
This, however, does not mean that your bottoms are non-
hazardous. Each generator is ultimately responsible for
determining whether this waste exhibits any of the charac-
teristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity and EP toxicity) as provided in 1262.11 of the
regulations. If the waste exhibits a hazardous waste charac-
teristic, the facility will be deemed a generator of hazardous
wasto, and the waste must be managed in accordance with the
hazardous waste management regulations. In addition, if, in
further studies, the Agency determines that leaded tank bottoms
generated from other sources are also hazardous, the Agency
will amend the listing to include these sources under Subtitle
C control*
Please feel free to give me or Matt Straus of wy staff
a call if you have any further questions* My telephone
number is (202) 755-9185 while Matt's telephone number is
(202) 755-9187.
Sincerely yours.
Alfred V. Lindsey
Deputy Director
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
WH-565:MStraustpesjx59l87i5-30-81 Disk PS-51-02
-------
9444.1981(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
Mr. Reed Sato souo WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Enforcement Division, Region IX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Dear Mr. Sato:
I am writing in response to your letter of July 23, 1981 (£-5-3;
IX81-SCRA-079) requesting clarification of 40 CFR 261.33(e)..
You are correct in your interpretation that a material containing a
compound listed in §261.33(e) as its sole active ingredient is a hazardous
waste when discarded even though the original product has been diluted by the
user. Thus if a person purohas«s z concentrated sslution of the pesticide
Aldicarb (P070) and then dilutes it to an application strength solution; disposal
of the application strength solution is considered to be disposal of the product
itself. A literal reading of the regulations would mean that even if the
amount of chemical product prior to dilution was less than 1 kilogram, disposal
of more than 1 kilogram/month of the application strength solution would require
management as a hazardous waste.
It is important to keep in mind, however, the applicability of the "fanner
exemption" discussed in §262.51. A commercial applicator working for a farmer
may mix, apply, rinse and dispose of pesticide rinsate or unused pesticide
solution on the farmers property if done so in accordance with the instructions
on the pesticide label. This exemption would not apply if the pesticide were
being applied to more than one fanner's property and disposal only, occurred at
one farm, or if the waste was shipped off the farmers's property for disposal.
I trust that this explanation clarifies the issue for you*
any further questions, please feel free to give us a call.
Sincerely yours,
If you have
David Friedman
Manager
Vtaste Analysis Program
Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division (WB-565)
cc: Fred Lindsey (W-565)
A. Corson 06-565)
D. Friedman (W-565)
M. Straus CWB-565)
Amy Schaffer, Enforcement (VH-562-M)
Susan Broom (WH-564)
Filcnena Chau (VE-562)
EOA Hotline
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGJONIX'
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco. Ca. 94105 33
In Reply: E-5-3
Refer To: IX-81-RCRA-079
Mr. D*vid Friedman, (WH-565)
Manager of Waste Analysis
Waste Characterization Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Request for Policy Statement regarding J261.33(e) of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
Dear Mr. Friedman:
EPA Region 9 is currently engaged in an enforcement action which
involve* an interpretation of §26l.33(e) of Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
It is our contention that a pesticide containing a listed 5261. 33 (e)
chemical product as its sole active ingredient which is diluted to
application strength i« a- hazardous waste if discarded. We contend
that such application-strength pesticide is a hazardous waste even
where the chemical product prior to dilution is less than 1 kilogram.
Therefore, so long as an applicator generates 1 kilogram of waste
pesticide residues per month he is required to notify as a generator
pursuant to section 3010 of RCRA.
Within our own technical section there has been some dispute as to
whether the preceding analysis is correct. In order to obtain guidance
on this matter I contacted your office on July 20, and explained our
position to Mr. Matthew Straus. Mr. Straus stated that Region 9's
interpretation of $£61.33(e) is correct.
Furthermore, Mr. Straus indicated that if the applicator tanks were
rinsed, that rinsate could be considered hazardous waste as well.
I am writing to obtain a written statement from your office which
confirms Mr. Straus1 conclusions. Such a statement will greatly assist
us in the successful conclusion of our enforcement action. If you have
any questions regarding this request please call me at FTS 556-8000.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Reed Sato
Attorney-Advisor
Enforcement Division
-------
3444.19.82(01)
Regulation of .Paint Filters
David Friedman, Manager
waste Analysis Program (WH-565B)
Chet McLaughlin, Chief
State Programs Section (Region VII)
Recently you indicated that the States of Iowa and Kansas
have raised questions concerning the regulation of paint
filters removed from spray booths. The questions revolve
around how we regulate those filters which are hazardous
wastes when removed from the spray booth but not after immersion
in water.
I will try to answer the specific questions raised in
your memo (a copy of which is attached).
1. In calculating the quantity of hazardous waste
generated, it is the weight of spent filters (including
occluded paint) that is used. Generators are responsible
for evaluating their waste to determine whether it is a
hazardous waste or not. If necessary they may have to test
their waste to make such an evaluation. However, many tines
testing is not required. The necessary evaluation can be
made on the basis of engineering calculations. If the water
fails the EP toxicity test it is also a hazardous waste and
its weight would be added to that of the filters.
2. Waste paint filters are handled the sane as any
other hazardous waste relative to the small generator exemption.
3. I am not sure why this particular waste needs special
treatment in the hazardous waste system other than perhaps
for a streamlined system of obtaining treatment permits for
the hazard mitigation operation (the 55 gallon drum filled
with water). Except in the case of the EP Toxic waters, the
immersed filters are not hazardous wastes and can be placed
in a sanitary landfill at will, whether the generator is a
large or small generator.
I hope I have answered your questions. If not give me a
call at 8-755-9187 (382-4806 after September 3U).
Enclosure
cc: Lehman
Lindsey
Corson
Straus
Hotline
WH-565B:DFRIEDMAN:pes:x59187:9-15-82 DISK PS-57-15
-------
MEMORANDUM
9444.1982(01)
Enclosure
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
August 19, 1982
Regulation of Paint Filters
Chet McLaughlin, Chief
State Programs Section
Allan Corson, (WH-565)
Chief Waste Characterization Branch
The State of Kansas and Iowa have raised a series of problems with
the regulation of paint filters from pray booths especially those
generated infrequently and in small numbers. When these filters
are removed, they can be subject to self ignition and are usually
treated by immediately immersing them in water. Typically these
individual filters are then transporter to a nearby sanitary
landfill and immediately buried to prevent auto ignition. This
produces the potential for the container, water, filter and waste
to become hazardous waste subject to handling as such.
The alternative is to allow the filter to ignite and burn
releasing small quantities of potentially hazardous air
contaminants and handling of the ash a appropriate.
The questions raised by the states on this subject are several:
1. Do they consider the weight of the paint or paint and filter
for the generation quantity? Does the container and water have to
be tested before it can be disposed? If the water fails the EP
toxicity test must it be handled as a hazardous waste?
2. Do they have to require the handling of filters as a
hazardous waste at firms where other wastes achieve the 1000
kg./mo level and allow others to be treated as small quantity
generators able to use sanitary landfills?
3. Assuming the petition route is not appropriate, the use of
enforcement discretion is apparently the only available mechanism
to allow the states to assume equal treatment and safe handling of
this particular wastes? Are others under consideration?
4. Can they anticipate any regulation interpretation memorandum
on this related subjects in the next several months?
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1983(01)
JUN 1 0 1983
£
T
wn
Dan kelson RK: WCBJS0614 \
VJaste Management, Inc. &
1003 Butterfield Road >
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 «
Dear Mr. Nelsons ^
*e
In your letter of *pril 4, 1983, you requested that NJ
EPA confirm your interpretation of the RCRA hazardous waste ^
regulations as they pertain to the spent solvent listings,
and the status of leachate from sanitary landfills that have s>
received hazardous waste. I trust that this letter adequately *
addresses your concerns. ^
As stated in your letter, the solvent listings (EPA Hazardous *
waste Nos. F001-P005) pertain to spent solvents (i.e.,;solvents ~
used for their solvent properties). Industrial process waste »
containing solvents, on the other hand, are not included in 1?
the solvent listings except to the extent that it is a mixture ~
of a solid waste and a spent solvent. Thus, you are correct 'f-
in stating that spent 1,1,1-trichloroethane generated from a ~
cleaning process is considered EPA Hazardous waste NO. P002, %
while industrial process waste containing 1,1,1-trichloro®thane o
as a contaminant are not listed spent solvents. These wastes, 2
however, may be listed individually under Subpart D of the •*
regulations.
Leachate froa a sanitary landfill that has received listed
wastes is also considered a hazardous waste. However, as you
stated, leachate containing POOS listed solvents is only hazardous
to the extent that it exhibits the characteristic of ignitability.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to give *ie
a call at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely yours.
Matthew A. Straus
Manager
Hazardous waste Definition Program
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1983(02)
OATC:
SUtjCCT:
FROM:
TO:
July 117 1983
Scope of the Listing KC61, Enission Control Dust/Sludge from the Primary
Production of Steel in Electric JrXirnaces
Alan Corson, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch (WH-565-B)
Chief, Residuals Management Branch
Air & Waste Management Division
3his-is in response to your question as to the scope of the- listing K061
Bnission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel.
Interpretation of Scope of K061
The K061 waste listing is defined under 40 CFR Section 261.32 as "Qnission
control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel (T)."
This applies to steel produced in electric furnaces, not blast
furnaces.
The listing does not include foundries.
Facilities that use scrap steel as a raw material are included
in the listing.
The listing does not include iron making.
If a facility produces steel in an electric arc furnace using steel
scrap, the emission control dust meets the listing of K061. fthat is
done with the steel after this process does not affect the process
wastes' inclusion in the listing.
IP* .*«• 132*4
• 3-74)
-------
9444.1983(03)
HEMORAHDOM REt WCBLG2016
Subjects Hazardous Waste* from Solar Call
and High Tech Industries
From: John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WU-562)
Toi Leland Modesitt. Director
Office of Legislation (A-103)
In response to your inquiry for follow-up with
Senator Burdick's staff * the production of solar cells and
other high technology devices (transistors* integrated circuits),
involves a variety of Manufacturing processes and can include
the use of industrial solvents and metal treatment. Hazardous
wastes generated from these operations include electroplating
wastewater treatment sludges that contain cyanides and h®evy
,e metals that are toxic or reactive? spent solvents that are
g toxic or ignitable} and discarded commercial chemical products
N or manufacturing chemical intermediates that are also tosic
S or reactive.
However, this does not mean all wastes generated from
D the production of high technology devices should be considered
hasardous. The determination as to whether or not a waste
r is considered hasardous is made in one of two ways. In one
f oase, the Agency has listed certain wastes as hasardous
r wader 40 CFR 261, Subpart D (f26_1.31 wastes from non-specific
r- sources? 1261.32 — wastes from specific sources? 1261.33 -
£ discarded commercial chemical products). Zn smother case, «
,{, waste is hasardous if it exhibits one of the characteristics
as of a hasardous waste (i.e., ignitabillty, oorrosivity, reactivity,
« and •» toxiolty). CndeF~4~0 CPR 261 Subpart C, each geaerator
5 la responsible for determining whether his waste exhibits
-------
MEMORANDUM
9444.1984(01)
DATE:
Mar 5, 1984
SUBJECT: Clarification of the Listings for Metal Heat Treating
F010, F011, and F012.
FROM: Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Air & Waste Management Division
Region IV
This memorandum is in response to your question regarding
the scope of the cyanide listings for metal heat treating
operations (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F010, F011, and F012). In
particular, you asked whether the form of cyanide (i.e.. complex
cyanide or free cyanide) was germane in determining whether one
had a listed waste. In short, the answer is no. In listing
these wastes as hazardous, the Agency was (and is still)
concerned with the management (or management) of cyanide wastes
(both complex cyanide and cyanide salts). If the Agency felt
that a distinction was necessary, it would have done so in the
listing. For example, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F012 would have
been listed as follows:
"Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from metal heat
treating operations where complexed cyanides are used in the
process (except for precious metals heat treating quenching
wastewater treatment sludges)."
In addition, you should be aware that the form of cyanide often
changes during the heat treating operation or subsequent
treatment; therefore, although you may begin with cyanide salts
(free cyanide) your waste may be primarily complex cyanide. The
waste listings take this into account by differentiating between
the form of cyanide present in the waste (i.e., only cyanide-salt
containing wastes (free cyanides) are listed as posing a
reactivity hazard).
Furthermore, it should be noted that although complex
cyanides are less toxic than free cyanides, complex cyanide-
bearing wastes are of concern because of their potential to
undergo photodecomposition to form toxic hydrogen cyanide and
free cyanide decomposition by-products. (See Listing Background
document for Cyanide Wastes, Response to Comments Section,
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Comment No. 3 for more details.)1 Therefore, if the metal heat
treating process uses cyanides in any form, the process is
covered by the hazardous waste listings.
This document is included in the document §§261.31 and
261.32 - Listing of Hazardous Wastes (Finalization of May
19, 1980 Hazardous Waste List), #1941.28 November 14,
1980.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1984(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
MARCH 84
Conpany A etches semiconductor silicon wafers. Carcany B use the wafers
to.rnanufacture printed circuit beards. The tvo conpanles ar« totally
separate. Is ccrrany A's wastewater treatment sludge from the etching
process classified as a F006 waste?
Yes, the vastewater treatment slucge is regulated as F006. The
chemical etching is viewed as electrcplating, even though the
Background Dccunent on electroplating did not include tne etching
process. The Background Oocunent was overly narrow in including
only the aanufacture of printed circuit boards and excluding
etching.
Source: Bill Sproat and Myles Mcrse
-------
9444.1984(03)
Mr. John O. Nalewaja, President RE: SMBASC1A32
Weed Science Society of Anerica
c/o Agronony Department
North Dakota State University
Fargo, ND S810S
Dear Mr. Nalewajax
X an writing in response to your letter of March 20, 1984,
and the resolution of the Weed Science Society of Anerica
requesting the removal of 2,4-D waste from regulation under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The toxic properties of 2,4-D were evaluated by the KPA's
Office of Drinking Hater as part of the process leading to
the development of the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards (MIPOWS). Inclusion of 2,4-D in the list of
toxicants regulated under 40 CFR 261.24 and 261.33 of the RCRA
regulations was based on the evaluation that was conducted
in support of the NIPOWS.
The HIPDMS for 2,4-D was derived assuming that the lowest
long term level with minimal or no effects for the rat and the
dog is 50 and 8 mg/kg/day respectively. Based on these values,
a "safe level" for man was derived of 1.12 mg/man/day. (See
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, BPA-
570/9-76-003, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Supply), Verschuaran (Handbook of Environmental Data on
Organic Chemicals, Van Mostrand Reinhold, New York, MY, 1983)
indicates that 2,4-D is significantly toxic to manaais (i.e.,
oral rat LDSO 300*1000 mg/kg, oral mourn LD50 375-521 mg/kg,
oral dog LDSO 100 mg/kg). In addition, 2,4-D exhibits acutely
toxic effects at the mg/1 level in a variety of aquatic species
which indicates that Its uncontrolled release into the environ-
ment can also affect the ecological balance. . for the above
reasons, 2,4-D and its salts have been listed under the hazardous
waste identification regulations.
WH-S62B:npRieDMANslg*S248s3824773tWStt Disk ASCI A3 2
AX400797
DOB DATEa 4/9/84
-------
tou nay partition the Agency to change its regulations;
foe OSW to remove 2*4-D froa regulation under ItCRA* you must
demonstrate that the chemical would not pose a hazard to
human health or the environment even if improperly disposed
of. For more information* please contact David Friedman of
•y staff '(202-382-4770). Requests or inquiries related to the
NIPDWS and their rationale should oe directed tot
Dr. Joseph Cotruvo
Director
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Drintcing Water, WH-550
401 if Street* SW
Washington* DC 20460
(202)382-7575
Sincerely yours*
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562B)
cct J. Cotruvo
-------
9444.1984(04)
April 26, 1984
Dave Dolan
Environmental Scientist
Waste Management Branch
Region V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Dave:
As a result of several inquiries, we wish to clarify which
wastes generated by Bell Lumber and Pole, located in New
Brighton, Minnesota, are listed as hazardous under Part 261 of
the hazardous waste regulations implementing the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. At the present time, one category
of wastes from the wood preserving industry is included as a
hazardous waste from a specific source: K001 "Bottom sediment
sludge from the treatment of wastewaters from wood preserving
processed that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol".
From process descriptions compiled by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health, and Region V during a recent plant site visit,
the following is my understanding of the current and past waste
generation points at the Bell Lumber and Pole facility.
1. Work tank/storage tank sludges. These sludges
accumulate at the bottom of vertical storage tanks for
preservative solutions of pentachlorophenol. In the past,
these tanks may have been used for creosote preservative
solutions. These tanks receive reclaimed preservative
solutions, store them, and in some cases heat the reclaimed
solutions prior to reuse in the wood treating tank.
Currently, sludges from these tanks are discharged to the
mechanical oil/water separator described below.
2. Mechanical oil/water separator sludges. Wastewater
contaminated by oil/preservative solutions and sludges are
collected at a sump at the wood treating tank and are
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
discharged to a tank (81' x 6') where oil/water separation
takes place. This oil/water separation procedures treats
effluent generated after completion of the wood treating
process. Although no water is intentionally added to this
process, a substantial amount of water is released from the
wood itself during hot oil/preservative solution steeping.
Some of this wastewater is emitted to the air as steam
during the steeping process, and some is entrained in the
preservative solution or settles to the bottom of the wood
treating tank.
The first mechanical oil/water separation device was
installed in 1976 at "Tank 8". A steel belt oil/water
separator, installed in 1980, is in current use and operated
daily except when the weather is cold enough to freeze the
water. This oil/water separator daily receives contaminated
wastewater effluent directly from the treating tank.
Approximately one time each year, bottoms from the
storage/work tanks are also added to the mechanical
oil/water separator.
3. Thermal dehydration/evaporation sludges. The
oil/preservative solutions recovered by the mechanical
oil/water separator undergo a secondary wastewater treatment
step by thermal dehydration/evaporation. This is currently
conducted in the "Butt Treatment Tank" with heating coils,
generating a sludge. Other sludges may be added directly to
this thermal dehydrator/evaporator without first being
subjected to mechanical oil/water separation. Thermal
dehydration or evaporation of wastewater from wood
preserving solutions typically generates a sludge.
Before installation of the mechanical oil/water separation
devices, a thermal dehydration treatment was used as the
sole procedure for drying oil/preservative solutions from
the wood treating tank. Fuel oil, used as the solvent for
either creosote or pentachlorophenol, typically will entrain
significant amounts of water during the wood treating
process. Entrained wastewater must be removed to regenerate
dry oil/preservative solutions for good penetration into the
wood during the treating process. Thermal dehydration of
the used oil/preservative solutions in the past could be
assumed based on typical industrial process information,
with concomitant sludge generation.
From the above description of sludge generating processes,
the mechanical oil/water separator sludges and the thermal
dehydrator sludges meet the K001 listing description of
wastewater treatment sludges from wood preserving processes using
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol. If the storage tank/work tank
sludges are mixed with the mechanical oil/water separator sludges
or thermal dehydration/evaporation sludges, then the resulting
mixture also must be managed as a K001 hazardous waste.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Page 21 of the Listing Background Document for the Wood
Preserving Industry states "wastewater treatment sludges are
generated first at oil/water primary separation", which includes
any mechanical oil/water separation device as described for the
Bell Lumber and Pole facility, as well as sludges from surge
tanks, drainage pits, etc. On page 21, dehydration of
oil/preservative solutions and on page 26, evaporation of
wastewater from the addition of heat are also described as
wastewater treatment processes generating sludges defined as K001
hazardous wastes.
Based on processing procedures used by the wood preserving
industry, it is reasonable to assume in the absence of proof to
the contrary that Bell Lumber and Pole was generating a K001
wastewater treatment sludge prior to 1976, and indeed throughout
its manufacturing history. This is because water removal from
spent wood treating solutions is necessary to regenerate usable
oil/preservative solutions. We do not know if thermal
oil/preservative dehydration or another procedure was used.
Further indication that K001 wastewater treatment sludges
were generated prior to installation of the mechanical oil/water
separation devices in 1976 and throughout the facility's history
comes from the CERCLA "Notification of Hazardous Waste Site",
date June 9, 1981. Thomas E. Doten, then Vice President and
Plant Manger of Bell Lumber and Pole, states that K001 waste was
placed in the on-site landfill up until the late 1960's. He was
unable to estimate the amount of K001 waste deposited in this
landfill "given age [circa 1920] of facility".
Generation rates of K001 wastewater treatment sludges may be
estimated by information in the Listing Background Document and
the Effluent Guidelines Division Data Collection Portfolio. From
the Listing Background Document, the amount of pentachlorophenol
treated wood and the amount of pentachlorophenol wastewater
treatment sludges generated annually yields an estimate of 0.276
cubic feet of sludge per 1000 cubic feet of treated wood.
Effluent Guidelines Division data for all types wood treating
processes (creosote, pentachlorophenol), indicates that
approximately 0.432 cubic feet of sludge is generated per 1000
cubic feet of treated wood from zero wastewater discharge plants.
An average wood preserving plant treats 4000 cubic feet of
wood per day. Therefore, the annual wastewater treatment sludge
generated by a plant would be in the range of 55-87 drums. Some
individual plants have indicated they produce several times as
much wastewater treatment sludge. If sludges from other plant
sources such as storage or work tanks are mixed with the
wastewater treatment sludges before or after oil/water separation
procedures, then this volume estimate would be higher.
I hope this information is useful in evaluating the waste
sources of groundwater contamination from the landfill on the
This has Jbeen retyped from the original document
-------
Bell Lumber and Pole facility. If you have any further
questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely yours,
Gate Jenkins, Ph.D.
Waste Identification Branch (WH 562)
Characterization and Assessment Division
cc: Matthew A. Straus/OSW
Francine Jacoff/OSW
Steve Silverman/OGC
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1984(05)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
APRIL 84
2. The dry cleaning Industry use carbon filters to filter the solvent,,
perchloroethylene. Are the resulting carbon filters which contain spent
perchloroetnylene viewed as hazardous waste?
The filters are viewed as FOU2. and the weiyht of the filter 1s counted toward
the small quantity generator (SQG) Unit of 1000 K*. These filters are
typically generated by the dry cleaning Industry and ma/ contain up to one
gallon of perchloroethylene.
Source: Alan Corson
Research: Oenlse Wright
-------
9444.1984(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
APRIL 84
3. Wastewater fron an API separator discharges into multiple sequential surface
1i»pouf>d*ents where the solids fall out.
a) Is the wastewater fron the API separator a hazardous waste If it eoesn't
exhibit a Subpart C characteristic?
b) Is the sludge that precipitates out 1n the jnpoundroents a KU51 waste?
c) If the wastewater 1s filtered, are4 the solids from filtration KU&l?
a) No.
b) Yes; the API separator and subsequent inpoundments used for sett!1n«, or"
solIds are viewed as all part of the API separation system.
c) Yes.
Source: Hyles Horse and Jin PoppHi
Research: Denlse
-------
9444.1984(07)
Nay 30, 1984
W. H. Yancey
NL Baroid
P.O. BOX 1675
Houston, TX 77001
Dear Mr. Yanceyt
This is to confirm our Hay 29, 1984 telephone conversation
regarding your letter to Alan Corson dated Nay 17, 1586 f regarding
ballast fluid classification. Z hope this discussion clarifies
your question on the formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde is listed (as U122) in 40 CPR 261.S3(f). This
listing refers only to discarded commercial chemical products,
off-specification species, container residues, and spi>.l residues
having the generic name "formaldehyde." The comment in Section
261.33(d) explains that the tern "commercial chenical product*
refers to a substance Manufactured for commercial us® «hich is
commercially pure or a technical grade and formulations in which
the chemical is the sole active ingredient. It does $>€»£ refer
to a material, such as a process waste, that contains essy of the
substances listed in 261.33(e) or 261.33(f). To be 6G*s*£dered
a hazardous waste, such process wastes will be listed £n either
Sections 261.31 or 261.32 or be identified as a hamardous waste
by characteristics as set forth in the regulations.
In other words, formaldehyde (and sodium pentachlorophenate)
is being used to keep down growth in the ballast fluid. The fluid
is not considered to be the commercial chemical product formaldehyde.
Ship ballast fluid would have to be specifically listed as a hazardous
waste stream or be hasardous on the basis of the characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity), as explained
above*
-------
If you have any further questions, feel free to call ae at (202)
382-4804. You should also be able to contact the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline tollfree at (800) 424-9346 for assistance with any aspect
of the RCRA regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Irene Horner
Studies and Methods Branch (MH-S62B)
-------
9444.1984(08)
JUN 6
JUN 61984
Mr. Kenneth H. Holyoak
American Chemical Company
505 N. Lake shore Drive
Suit* 6101
Chicago, XL 60611
Dear Mr. Holyoak i
I mm writing in response to your Hay 15, 1984, request
for clarification of the existing Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste identification regulation*
as they apply to deodorants for portable toilets as well as
potential additional requirements due to pending
Chemical deodorants containing snail amounts o£ formal-
dehyde are used to provide sanitary conditions in portable
toilet units. Let me explain how the current Mutilations
apply to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a hazardous wast®
if it is a discarded commercial chemical product. The
comment in 40 CPR 261.33(4) explains that the term eownereial
chemical product refers to substances manufactured for commer-
cial use which are commercially pure or a technics?, grade
and formulations in which the chemical is the sole active
ingredient. Zt does not refer to all materials containing
any amount of formaldehyde*
In other words, the formaldehyde is not the sole active
ingredient of the deodorant and is therefore not a listed
hazardous waste stream. The deodorant would only be a hazardous
waste if it exhibited any of the characteristics defined in
the regulations (igni table, corrosive, reactive, or BP toxic,
as outlined in Sections 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24).
-------
ri z
o x
3 I
Pending legislation In Congress plans to regulate lower n <£
quantities of hasardous waste than are presently subject to °-«
regulation under the small quantity generator regulations. x,
The RCRA reauthorlsation legislation changes currently do ox
not reflect any changes in the waste identification. Thus, > £
the anticipated changes will have no iapact on the regulation xg
of deodorants containing formaldehyde. on
to »•
Thank you for your inquiry. As you know, 40 CPR 262.11 £^
requires any generator of a solid waste to determine whether en
or not the waste Is hasardous, as I have informally reviewed * *,
above with you* If you have any other questions, feel free £
to contact Irene Horner of ny staff at (202) 382-4804 or the \
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-t34€ for further regulatory £
clarifications. °
Sincerely yours, ?
K)
sD
I
CD
\
John Skinner, Director »*•
Office of Solid waste (NH-S62) *
x
o
X
-------
9444.1984(09)
3:
I
I 3 1984 2
RE: WIBBS840102 ^
CO
MEMORANDUM §
SUBJECTx Zinc Plating (Segregated Basis) on Carbon Steel "3
PROM: Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief ^
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B) £
i
TOx William H. Minor, Chfref *
Technical Permits and Compliance Section £
Waste Management Division ^
Region V \
\
00
Alter evaluating the information supplied by feh* Gulf and \
Western Stamping Division regarding their phospbat£n$ operations E
and zinc plating line, it is.our conclusion that the wastes £.
generated from both their operations meet the description of _
EPA Hazardous Waste Mo. FOO6. More specifically, tfc* SPA v-.
Background Document defines phosphating as a component of 2
electroplating of chemical conversion*coating. Otfecir components o
of this category include coloring, chromating, and iiamersion o
plating. Accordingly, wastes generated from the pftosphating *°
operation at Gulf and Western would be considered n&x&rdous
wastes.
With respect to their other operation, wastewatsr treatment
sludges generated from sine plating operations on carbon
steel are not considered hazardous wastes when the waste
stream froa these operations is maintained and treated separately
(segregated) from other waste stream generated at the facility.
However', Gulf and Western's zinc plating line also includes
a chroma te passive ting bath in which the low carbon steel
stampings are dipped after plating. Chrome passivating is
considered a component of chemical conversion coating and
therefore the wastewater treatment sludges generated from
this operation would also be considered hazardous.
Therefore, wastewater treatment sludges generated by
both operations at Gulf and Western are considered EPA
Hazardous Waste No. P006 and subject to regulation under 40
CPR 262-266. If you have further questions regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to call Mr. William Sproat of
my staff at FTS 382-4783.
-------
"444.1984(10)
25
884
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT) Regulation of waatewater Treatment Effluent from
Processes that Generate 1001 and POOS Vastavater
Treatment Sludge
PROMi John B. Skinner, Ph.D.
Director
Office of solid waate
TOi James I. Bcarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Air and Waate Management Division
This memo is io response to your request dated May 2if 1984,
concerning regulation of BPA lazardous Haste vos. K001 and ?Q06.
Pirst, you requested clarification of the listings icOQi and
P006 aa to the scope of their coverage. These listings include
any sludges derived from the treatment of waatewatera regardless
of where the sludges are formed. Thus, if a sludge is formed in
a wastewater treatment tank, filtration device, or surface impoundment,
it is K001 or P006 sludge. These wastewater treatment unita
would be subject to all hazardous waste regulations, including
appropriate permitting standards.*
There is an exceptions tanks that treat or store hazardous
waatewaters are exempt from the part 264 and 265 management
standards when the tank is part of a wastewater treatment unit
aa defined in §260.10.
-------
-2-
Toa also requested clarification 6f th« regulatory status of
the effluenta tram a particular wood preserving facility. The
wastewater treatment train la illustrated acheaatically belowi
Cylinder
..-.».
"A*
lea
Separator Tank
Flor
xulation Tank
Spray Irrigation Field
•D*
Holding Pond
Sand/Crawl Filtration Beds
The effluents froai tha oil/water separator tank (*A*> and tha
chemical flocculation tank (*B*J ara not classifiad as tha
listad hazardous waata K001 aftar tha listad hazardous vastawatar
traatmant sludgaa hava aattlad out, avan though soaia floeculatad
•atarial is carriad along with tha affluant straaa. Whan th«
Agancy listad waatawatar traatnant sludgas froai wood prasarving
procassas, tha Agancy diffarantiatad batws*n sludgaa which
aattla out froa successive traataants of process vastawaters
and tha wastawatar stream itself. Tha vaatevater affluents
fron theae tvo tanks would, therefore, be subject to regulation
only if they meet one or nore of the characteristics of a hazardous
waste, as set forth in §$261,21-261.24.
This facility next uses a sand filtration surface impoundaent
(*C*) to treat the wastewater effluent after oil/water separation
and flocculation. The sand filter consists of two 20 x 20 x IS
ft. surface impoundments, with natural clay bottoms, and aides
constructed of preserved wood. The wastewater is added to the top
of these units and collected as an effluent froa the bottom, and
sent to a holding pond (*D*) where additional wastewater treatment
sludges are generated. Both the sand filter and the holding pond
would be subject to all hazardous waste regulations and permitting
standards since they are surface impoundments used to manage a
hazardous waste (i.e., the sludge).
The principal regulatory question presented by this sand
filtration unit is whether .the wastewater that paases through the
unit loses its status as *wastewater* and becomes •leachate" because
it percolates through the listed sludge that has been trapped in
the unit, we do not believe that the passage of a contaainated
liquid (e.g., leachate, wastewater) through a filter should cause
us to redefine what that liquid is, even though the filter may chanye
the chemical makeup of the contaminated liquid. For purposes of our
-------
regulatory definitions, what comes out of a filter is the »t
thing that goes into the .filter, a, wastewater that .passes through
a filter in a treatment system .is still a wastewater. That result
is not changed by the fact that the filter happena to be a sand bed
and the wastewater emerges from the bottom rather than the top oC
the treatment unit.*
The final step in the wastewater treatment system used by the
wood preserving facility in question is a spray irrigation field
{*!*). We are currently investigating the status of this unit to
determine if it meets the definition of a land treatment unit, a
surface impoundment, or a landfill. We expect to get back, to you
on this point in the near future.
The above discussion regarding waatewater treatment units,
wastewaters, and the storage or disposal of hasardous wastewater
treatment sludges wastes is also applicable to other facilities
generating similar wastes.
It should be noted that this approach also prevents an operator from
placing a sand filter at the bottom of a landfill and then arguing
that the liquid emerging from the bottom of the unit is no longer
a leachate. l*aehate emerging from waste in a landfill remains
a leachate even after it has passed through a filter.
WH-562B/CJENKINS/pes/475-855l/7-l2-84/Disfc CJllOl
-------
9444.1984(11)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
27JUL 1984
SOUO WASTE AND EMERGENCY KESPQNSi
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Clarification of K062 - Spent Pickle Liquor Listing
\ t ,t
From: John H. Skinner, Director Vv^nl
Office of Solid Waste M
To: Directors, Waste ManagemenVoivisions
EPA Regions I-X.
Within the past year/ several EPA Regional Offices have
requested clarification of EPA Hazardous Waste Ho, KQ62 *
Spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations. This
interpretive memorandum addresses several question and issues
which have been raised regarding the listing.
1) Which operations/processes are considered "steel finishing
operations" and thus are covered by the listing?
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) defines "steel finishing
operations" as processes which impart desired mechanical
and surface characteristics to steel. The following
processes are included in this description and are
intended to be covered by the K062 listing, provided
that spent pickle liquor is generated:
1) acid pickling
2) alkaline cleaning
3) cold reduction
4) blast cleaning
5) cold drawing
6) cold rolling
7) galvanizing
8) coating with organic and inorganic compounds
-------
-2-
9) tempering I/
10) coating of steel with metals"
11) tin plating
12) electropolishing
Although the background document for K062 addresses"only
spent pickle liquor from the iron and steel industry, the
Agency intended the listing to cover all industries engaged
in the pickling of steel. Indeed, many persons who generate
spent pickle assumed that the listing was much broader then
indicated in the background document.2/ Furthermore, on
January 4, 1984, (see Notice of Availability of Data and
Request for Comments, 49 FR 427) the Agency stated that steel
finishing is practiced by a diverse group of manufacturers.
The large number of notifiers indicate that generators in
many industry categories are aware of this interpretation.
Recently, representatives from the porcelain industry
informally challenged OSW on its interpretation of the K062
listing. It is their position that the listing pertains
only to the iron and steel industry.3/ However, for reasons
stated earlier, to the extent that facilities within this
industry category pickle steel prior to coating or enameling,
the spent pickle liquor (or any waste derived therefrom) is
considered the listed waste.
The Agency'realizes that concentrations of the hazardous
constituents of concern for which spent pickle liquor was
listed may differ among industries based on process variations;
however, wastes that do not meet the criteria for which pickle
liquor was originally listed may be excluded from regulation
on a site-specific basis (delisting pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20
and 260.22). The Agency also will consider industry-wide
petitions to delist these wastes.
I/ Although coating of steel with metal (electroplating) is
~ considered "steel finishing,* the Agency did not intend
the K062 listing to include electroplating processes that
generate spent pickle liquor. This would be duplicative
since electroplating wastes are specifically covered
under F006.
2/ Data from the RCRA Notification data base indicate that
"~ a diverse group of industry categories pickle steel and
generate spent pickle liquor (e .g., metal working machinery
and equipment; refrigeration and service industry machinery;
coating, engraving and allied services; sanitary services;
aircraft and parts, and others).
3/ Approximately half the facilities within the porcelain
~" industry have notified that they generate either K062 or
the lime stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge.
-------
-3-
At this time, the Agency has taken action on a rulemaking
petition submitted by the American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI) to remove lime stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge
(LSWPLS) (formerly referred to as lime neutralized waste
pickle liquor sludge) from the presumption of hazardousness
contained in the regulations. This exclusion however, ipplies
only to LSWpLS that is generated by the iron and steel industry
(SIC Codes 331 and 332). (See 49 FR 23284 - 23285, June 5,
1984 for specific details regarding the conditions of the
exclusion).
2) Many electroplating operations pickle prior to electroplating.
Is the waste generated from this process considered F006,
K062, D002, or both F006 and K062?
In considering petitions to delist electroplating
waste, the Agency has stated that the F006 listing
includes the acidic wastes (i „_ e., spent pickle liquor)
from the electroplating process. Electroplating
operations typically pretreat the metal using acidic
baths prdor to electroplating. The acidic wastes
from this process are generally mixed with spent
plating bath solutions and lime treated. Sludge
generated from this process is considered F006. For
example, an electroplater acid pickles metal parts
as part of the electroplating process. The resultant
wastewater (including spent pickle liquor and rinsewater)
is neutralized with lime. Sludge generated from
this process is F006. In another example, a galvanizer
also pickles metal parts prior to galvanizing. Since
galvanizing is not included under the electroplating
category, spent pickle liquor from this process
would be considered EPA Hazardous Waste K062. If
the pickle liquor is lime treated prior to disposal,
the sludge from this process is a hazardous waste by
virtue of the "residue rule* ($261.3(c>(2)).
In cases where acidic wastes from the electroplating
operation remain untreated or are segregated from
other process waste and treated separately, the waste
is then considered K062 (or lime stabilized waste
pickle liquor sludge).
3) Does the K062 listing pertain to spent pickling acids
other than those listed in the background document for
K062 (i.e./ H2SO4, HCL, and HNO3 + HF)7
In developing the background document for K062,
the Agency listed the most commonly used pickling
agents. However, we intended the listing to include
all acids used in the pickling of steel.
-------
-4-
I trust that this memorandum adequately clarifies the
K062 listing. Should you have questions, or require
additional information, please call Jacqueline Sales at
FTS 382-4770.
cc:
Gene Lucero, OVTPE
Kirk Sniff, OECM
Bill Hedeman, OWRR
-------
9444.1984(12)
July 30, 1984
Kent Gray
Utah State Department of Health
Hazardous Waste Program
P.O. Box 2500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
Dear Mr. Gray:
This letter responds to your recent inquiry regarding the
regulatory status of spent acid from electropolishing of
stainless steel (i.e., whether the waste is considered EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K062—Spent pickle liquor from steel
finishing operations).
As you stated in an earlier conversation with Jacqui Sales,
of my staff, electropolishing is a process which utilizes a
mixture of sulfuric and phosphoric acids (pH 1.0) to impart a
shiny finish to stainless steel. As Ms. Sales explained, the
spent pickle liquor listing was intended to include those
processes where acid is used to impart a desired surface
characteristic to steel or steel products; in particular, to
remove oxide scale. Although the background document for the
listing addresses only the commonly used pickling acids (i.e.,
hydrochloric, sulfuric, nitric, and hydrofluoric), the Agency
intended the listing to include all acids used in the
pickling/cleaning of steel. Thus, spent acid from
electropolishing is considered the listed waste.
I trust that this letter adequately addresses your concerns.
Should you have additional questions or require further
information, please call Jacqui Sales at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
MEMORANDUM 9444.1984(14)
DATE: July 30, 1984
SUBJECT: Dragout from EPA Hazardous Wastes No. F007 - Spent Cyanide Plating
Bath Solutions from Electroplating Operations (Except for Precious
Metals Electroplating Spent Cyanide Plating Bath Solutions)
PROM: Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Air & Waste Management Division
This is written in response to your inquiry concerning dragout from
plating bath solutions listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F007. Briefly, the
process described at Georgia Tubing involves the transfer of parts from a
plating bath solution to a chlorination tank to stop the plating process.
During this transfer, dragout drips off the plated parts, is collected and
transferred to the chlorination tank for treatment.
In general, your interpretation that the chlorination tank receives and
treats a listed hazardous waste and is therefore a hazardous waste treatment
tank is correct. However, it should be pointed out that the definition of EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F007 refers to spent, plating bath solutions only.
Therefore, the plating bath solution itself would not be considered an F007
waste until it is spent. Only the dragout from the plating operation or if
the plating bath solution itself was dumped would be considered an F007 waste
because at that point in the operation it would be considered spent. In
addition, any sludge that forms in the bottom of the chlorination tank would
also be considered an F007 waste. The sludge would be considered an F006
waste only if wastewaters from the electroplating operation were to enter the
chlorination tank for treatment in addition to the F007 waste. If you have
any further questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to call Mr.
William Sproat of my staff at FTS 382-4783.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1984(16)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT
AUGUST 1984
LISTING OF BAGHOUSE DUST GENERATED FROM REMELTING
OF PRIMARY PRODUCTION STEEL
1. A facility generates a baghouse dust from remelting primary produced
steel. The remelting occurs in electric furnaces. The baghouse dust
contains fluoride neutralized by calcium carbonate and the heavy metals:
lead and selenium. The baghouse dust has been analyzed for the heavy
metals (50.65ppm lead and 13ppm selenium). The analytical methods used
were 8.56 and 8.59, respectively, in SW-846 (not the E.P. toxicity
teat). Assuming that the baghouse dust will fail the EP toxicity test,
should the waste be K061 (even though it is not primary smelting) or
should it be D008 and D010?
The waste generated from this process is K061. Although steel is
being remelted, this process is considered primary production for
the purposes of RCRA.
Source: Matt Straus
Research: Gordon Davidson
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 84
9444.1984(17)
.CRA/Superfund Hotline
August 1984 Report
Page 2
3. A company recycles methyl chloroform (F002) through a distillation
process. Often after distiUatvon, the recovered methyl chloroform
does not meet market specifications and must be disposed. Is
this waste listed as F002 or U226?
Off-specification solvents produced from the distillation
of listed solvent hazardous waste would be treated as fin
off-specifict-ion commercial chemical product if discarded
according to 261.33 of Title 40 and considered U226 for
regulatory purposes.
Source: Penny Hansen
Research: Tom Gainer
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9444.1985(01}
FEBRUARY 85
The New York State Health Department deemed a house unfit for
habitation due to excessive chlordane levels in the soil around the
house. The soil contaminated with chlordane was removed and placed in
55-gallon drums. The removal resulted in 45 drums of contaminated soil
withan average concentration of 50 ppm. Is this contaminated soil a
RCRA hazardous waste?
The contaminated soil is not a RCRA listed hazardous waste.
Chlordane could only be considered a RCRA hazardous waste if it
was discarded prior to use or was a container or spill residue.
If chlordane met any one of these criteria, it would be a listed
hazardous waste (U036), as listed and described in 40 CFR
261.33. In this situation, however, none of these criteria were
met because chlordane was applied as a commercial chemical
product. The generator must still determine if the contaminated
soil exhibits any of the four RCRA characteristics {EP toxic,
ignitable, corrosive, reactive). If the soil does not exhibit a
characteristic, then it is neither a listed nor a characteristic
hazardous waste. Although the contaminated soil is not a RCRA
hazardous waste (assuming it does not meet a characteristic), the
generator must be cognizant of potential liability under CERCLA
if the waste is not managed properly.
Source: Alan Corson (202) 382-4770
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1985(02)
March 4, 1985
Mr. Walter G. Talarek
American Wood Preservers Institute
1945 Gallows Road
Vienna, Virginia 22180
Dear Mr. Talarek:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 14, 1985 in
which you request clarification of the dioxin listing. In particular, you
asked for comment regarding the applicability of the RCRA dioxin listings
published in the Federal Register on January 14, 1985 to wastes from wood
preserving processes using pentachlorophenol.
As you state in your letter, the following hazardous waste listings
relating to pentachlorophenol were promulgated on January 14, 1985:
F021: Wastes (except wastewater and spent carbon from hydrogen
chloride purification) from the production or manufacturing use (as
a reactant, chemical intermediate, or component in a formulating
process) of pentachlorophenol, or of intermediates used to produce
its derivatives (H)
F027: Discarded unused formulations containing tri-, tetra-, or
pentachlorophenol or discarded unused formulations containing
compounds derived from these chlorophenols... (H)
F028: Residues resulting from the incineration or thermal treatment
of soil contaminated with EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022,
F023, F026, and F027 (T)
[Please note that, contrary to the statement in your letter, the latter
is a "T" not "H" waste].
Most of these wastes are not typically generated by the wood preserving
industry. We, therefore, generally agree with your assessment that the
final dioxin rule (published on January 14, 1985) does not include
wastes by the wood preserving industry. However, wood treatment
facilities could be covered under the listing if:
A wood preserving facility makes a derivative of
pentachlorophenol (e.g.. a sodium or potassium salt); the wastes
resulting from such a process would be EPA Hazardous waste F021.
A wood preserving facility makes formulations containing tri-,
tetra-, or pentachlorophenol or its derivates; waste resulting
from such a process would be F021 wastes.
A wood preserving facility discards unused formulations
containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorophenol or its
derivatives; these would be EPA hazardous waste No. F027.
Furthermore, although most of the wastes generated by the wood
preserving industry are probably not regulated by the January 14, rulemaking,
you are aware that we are presently investigating whether wastes resulting
from wood preserving processes using pentachlorophenol should be listed as
hazardous (or acute hazardous) wastes, and whether CDDs and CDFs should be
added as constituents of concern in the wood preservation process waste
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
already listed [EPA Hazardous waste K001]. As previously stated, we will take
appropriate regulatory action if warranted.
I trust that this adequately addresses the concerns expressed in your
letter. Please do not hesitate to call Matt Straus, if you have further
questions concerning this matter, Mr. Straus can be reached at (202) 475-
8551.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: J. Bellin
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1985(03)
APR \ 1985
(#
o\
O
Mr. John D'Aloia, Jr. a
Deuel and Associates, Inc. *
7304 Jefferson St., WB \
Albuquerque, KM §7109 i
(0
Dear Johns £
\
There are, indeed, several facets to identifying which •
solvents are P-listsd wastes. I a* going to review the *?
points we discussed over the phone on March 20th, in response *
to your letter dated March (,1985. 3
Only those solvents designated in the "F* series are "
listed as "F" solvent wastes. Zn the Hay 19, 19tO Federal w
Register (45 FR 33122), §261.30(b) says that Appendix VXX T
identifies the constituent which caused EPA to list the waste in ™
§261.31 or §261.32 as IP toxic or toxic waste. In Appendix YXX* x
only the listed solvents are specified. The spent solvent 2.
listings in §261.31 are worded "The following spent halogenated/ £
non-halogenated solvents..." which clearly designates only the
listed solvents. s
Moreover, currently, only solvents used separately are
covered by the FOO1-005 listings. The Agency issued & letter on
July 21, 1981, to the Safety-Kleen Corporation that s%«£ed that
the §261.31 listings only refer to "...spent solvents identifiable
as any technical grade of the chemical that is produced or marketed
,and not to mixtures otherwise containing the chemical o* (A copy
of RIL 95 is enclosed.) As you observed, this interpretation
is consistent with the approach taken in identifying 9261.33
hasardous waste.
Zf individually used solvent waste streams are mixed after
generation, the mixture is a mixture of F-listed waste streams.
You can see how important it is to be able to identify the
original source of the wastes in order to classify the mixture.
Just knowing the composition of the waste is not enough to
know what waste code(s) to apply to the waste. Regulations
under development will identify spent solvents on the basis of
total solvent contained in the mixture.
Finally, States with authorised programs may have more
stringent or extensive regulations than EPA or operate a progran
with greater scope of coverage than EPA according to §§271.Hi)
and 271.121(1). Zf States designate mixtures of solvents used
-------
in combination •• F003, tha program is mora axtanaiva than tha
KCftA program, bat operating in li*u of ROUt*
If yo« bar* any further
-------
9444,1985. (05)
«• >*
Mr. Stuart S. Bassall, P.E.
Project Hanager
uawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers
One Blue Hill Plaza
Pearl River, New York 10965
Dear Mr. Bassellt
I am glad to clarify the issue that you raised in your
letter of April 1, 1985. The identification of RCRA "P*
"U" wastes (chemical products that are hazardous wastes
discarded) is not as obvious as the identification of other
listed wastes.
As you know, 40 CPR 262.11 outlines the generator's
responsibility for identifying hazardous waste as followsi
first, check to see if the waste is excluded from regulation
under Part 261 Subpart D, second, see if the waste is listed in
Part 261 Subpart D, third (if it is not a listed waste),
determine whether it is a characteristic waste by testing or
applying knowledge of the process producing the waste. Neither
tne fish nor the used formalin would qualify as a listed RCR&,
waste.
To clarify why the fish and the used formaldehyde are not
listed waste, the reasoning is as follows* Formaldehyde is
listed (as U122) in 40 CPR 261.33(£). This listing refers
only to discarded commercial chemical products, off-specification
species, container residues, and spill residues having the
generic name "formaldehyde." The comment in S261.33(d)
explains that the term "commercial chemical product" refers
to a substance manufactured for commercial use which is
commercially pure or a technical grade and formulations in
which the chemical is the sole active ingredient* It does
not refer to a material, such as a process waste, that contains
any of the substances listed in $261.33(e) or $261.33(f). To be
considered a hazardous waste, such process wastes will be
listed in either §$261.31 or 261.32 or be identified
as a hazardous waste by characteristics, as set forth in the
regulations.
-------
The comment excludes waste materials that contain any "P"
and "U" suostances unless the vaste stream is listed (i.e.,
listing formaldehyde used as a preservative) or the waste meets a
Part 261 Subpart C criteria. This means EPA regulates unused
cnemicals but not all wastes containing the same chemicals.
There are regulatory efforts underway that may eliminate this
discrepancy.
Of course* the generator also needs to determine that
the discarded fish and formaldehyde are not hazardous on the
basis of exhibiting any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste. It is unlikely that the formalin will be found to be
ignitable* corrosive, reactive, or SP toxic. If you hava- any
other questions on the Federal policy of regulatory hazardous
waste* feel free to contact me at (202) 382-4770. Of course*
you need to comply with the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation determination in the State of New York* since the
State program is operating in lieu of the- Federal program.
Sincerely yours,
Alan 8* Corson
Branch Chief
ccs James S. Koran* NYDEC
-------
9444.1985(07)
RCRA Input to Region IV Inquiry: UIC Well Inventory
Update
Eileen B. Claussen, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Paul Baltay, Director
State Programs Division
Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Per your request the following paragraph is the RCRA response
to the embalming fluid question in the subject inquiry.
The RCRA hazardous waste identification regulations
contain two mechanisms for identifying a waste as a
hazardous waste, lists and characteristics. A waste is
a hazardous waste if it either is listed (40 CFR 261*31,
32, or 33) or it exhibits one or more of the defined
characteristics (§261.21, 22, 23, or 24). While used
embalming flui'ds do not qualify as hazardous under sny
of these criteria, many people mistakenly believe th?»y
they do because formaldehyde, the key ingredient in
such products, is listed under §261.33. Section 2fe3c33
lists commercial chemical products which are hazardous
wastes when discarded or intended to be discarded. It
does not include wastes which result from the intended
use of the product. Thujs, embalming fluid, since it-
consists of formaldehyde plus some inert ingredients
(e.g., colorants and perfumes), would be a hazardous
waste if discarded unused and the septic tank/tile
field could classify as a Class 4 well. However, if
the generator is disposing of embalming fluid which has
been used, for example, to flush body fluids out of the
cadaver, then disposal of the fluid does not constitute
disposal of a hazardous waste and the tank/field is not
a Class 4 well.
WH-562B/DFRIEDMAN/ACORSON/margaret/rm S248/382-4770/5-17-85
DFA Diskette
-------
UN'"'. ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT ENC- 9444 ^ 1985 ( Q8
MAY 2 4
Mr. Robert C. Scott
Director of Administration
Mobay Chemical Corporation
Agricultural Chemicals Division
P.O. Box 4913
Kansas City, MO 54120
Dear Mr. Scott:
I am writing in response to your request for a decision
regarding whether certain wastes associated with the manufacture
of pesticides at your Kansas City, Missouri plant are considered
to be listed hazardous wastes. More specifically, you have
inquired whether the manufacturing processes for prothiophos,
sulprofos, fensulfothian, and MTMC generate listed spent .solvents.
These manufacturing processes use either toluene, methanol, or
m-cresol as reactants in such excess that large amounts of these
materials do not react and are removed from the process as a waste
stream. Steve Hirsch from the Office of General Council and I
have carefully reviewed the material which you have submitted as
well as the Background Listing Document (BLD) and the Federal
Register notice for the listing concerning wastes from the usage of
organic solvents. Based on our review, we conclude that the wastes
that contain the unreacted materials are not listed spent'solvents.
We agree with Mobay's assertion that the original solvent
listing was not intended to include chemicals which are commonly
used as solvents when they are used as reactants. As the bases for
our decision, we cite the following excerpts and quotations from the
BLD and the Federal Register notice:
o The footnote on page 33 of the BLD states, "Large amounts
of chemicals listed in Table II-l are used in such non-
solvent applications as chemical feedstock..." Thus, usage
as a feedstock was considered to be a non-solvent use.
o Pages 40 and 41 of the BLD define solvent application in the
production of pesticides to include "... usage as a reaction
(synthesis) medium, and usage in equipment cleaning." The
term "reaction medium" does not mean reactant or feedstock;
rather, it refers to a substance that is capable of dissolving
another substance (i.e., solute) to form a uniformly dispersed
mixture or solution thereby enhancing the ability of the
solute to undergo a chemical reaction with other soluble
substances.
-------
— 2—
o The language in 40 FR 56584 (November 17, 1981) clearly
states that substances commonly used as solvents, "... may
also be used in a manufacturing process as chemical reactants
or process intermediates and, when so used, are not considered
to be spent solvents."
It should be noted that although we do not consider the subject
waste streams to be listed hazardous wastes, these streams may
exhibit hazardous characteristics (e.g., ignitability). If such is
the case, these wastes should be handled under the waste management
standards contained in 40 CPR Parts 262-266, Part 124, and the
permitting requirements of Parts 270 and 271. If you have any
questions regarding our decision on this matter, you may contact
me at (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Identification Branch
-------
9444.1985(09)
JUN3 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT t Request for Guidance on Part B Applications
PROM: John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TOi Jams H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
EPA Region IV
This memorandum responds to your inquiry of April 29, 1985,
requesting concurrence on the status of toluene-laden filter
residue generated from the ink production process at Onion Camp
Corporation. Your memorandum states that both EPA Region IV and
Georgia EPO consider the waste to be a spent ~ sol vent— EPA Hazardous
Waste No. POOS. We disagree with this determination.
In general, chemicals which are used as solvents are not
consumed, nor are they physically or chemically altered during
the process. When used in this manner, that is, for their
"solvent" properties, wastes generated are considered spent
solvents when they consist of solvents (&nd other materials)
which no longer meet the specifications £OE which they
originally used and are intended for discard or further
The filtering unit at Union Camp is an integral part of
the production process, since its primary function is removal
of unreacted chemicals, excess reactants and other impurities
from the product. The filtration cake generated at this unit,
however, is not a spent solvent. The waste stream apparently
only includes the solvent as a contaminant. As noted in Union
Camp's letter to John D. Taylor of the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division, "the filter cake waste stream consists
primarily of filter aid, unreacted metal oxides, and resinate
product." Tli« listing background document notes,
th« wastes encompassed by this listing do not
include waste streams where solvent is a contaminant,
such that the waste stream is not spent solvent, as
defined above. Thus* wastes which contain as consti-
tuents solvents which are used in the industrial
process are not included within the scope of this
-------
-2-
listing. Sor ar* th*ae vast* streams hazardous by § w
virtu* of th* nixing nil* (S*c. 261. 3 (a) (2) (ii ) ), £ £
sine* a ap*nt aolv*nt is not b*ing mixed with £\
a not bee* .sol id vast* (Listing Background Document, _ t.
— ail Z ul
p. ol )• o »
i o
Accordingly, the filter cake ia not an POOS waste, but remains
only an ignitabl* (D001) vast*.
Sine* th* r*sidu* is treated on-sit* (partially in a Punda
Unit and partially by evaporation), to d*cr*as* solvents content,
th* facility must obtain a treatment permit, and *ither obtain R
a storag* p*rmit b*for* treatment or comply with 40 CPR 5262.34. ^
*
If you have questions or require additional information, \
pl*ase call Jacqueline Sal**, of my staff, at (PTS) 382*4770. f
U)
I
OB
U1
(0
jr
en
h->
o
*e
o
-------
9444.1985(11)
•**' '9 as
I
c
r.
c
x
en
C
2
Mr. J.K. Bloeser %
Eaton Corpora tioo 7^
Manufacturing ferrioes Center a
32500 Chardon load en
Willoughby Hills, Ohio 44094 £
c
D*&r Kr. BlowMrs ^
This i» la r«ply to your lrtt«r of Jua* 3» 19€S, && which ^
you solicited our opinion &£ to th« »t«Ltue of «p«at. ion •zchange ^
rcein resulting froc »«t*l r^xaov&l free •l«etroplat.ing rin«« o
v&tcrc (EPA Ba&&rdou» Wfc«'c« F006). Xs you »ur»i»«d in your ^
queet.icn« our ancvcr i> in th* affirvatlvc — the «p«nt ion ^
•xchtngc r«»in it ooncid«r*d to b« F006 «ad Buat b« »anag«<3 in £
accordance with hacardoue w&cta r«gulationa« i
Ul
Should yoo n*ed additional information or* in particular, if
you vi«h information relative to •Deluding your waste frotc
regulatory control ("delieting*), Z euggeet you call Myle« Horse,
202/3^2-4782.
truly yours,
JLlan t. Cor son,
Branch Chief
Studiee and Method* Branch (VH-562B)
-------
9444.1985(12)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 85
Solid Waste Determination
4. A warehouse stores product acrylonitrilc. 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 disc-anted. Thus, the acrylonitrile is
a solid waste per §261.2(b)(l) and §261.2(b) (50 FR 614, January 4, 1985).
Ash from the acrylonitrile is a list.ad hazardous waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i).
Source: Steve Silvenmn (202)382-7706
Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
-------
9444.1985(13)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 3085
OFFICE OP
SOLID WASTE ANC EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Ken Chiu
Solid Waste Branch (HS-13)
US EPA
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60616
Dear Mr. Chiu:
I am writing this letter in response to the question you
posed in our telephone conversation on August 30, 19850 Accord-
ing to the manufacturing process description that you provided,
the surface impoundment at the Rockwell International, Newark,
Ohio facility is considered a hazardous waste impoundment, listed
as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.
It is my understanding that. Rockwell International manufactures
automotive gears. These gears are placed in an iron/Eianaanese/
phosphate tank to provide lubrication. The gears are them dipped
in a rinse tank, and this contaminated rinse water enters the
impoundment. The F006 listing applies to wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating operations. Any sludge thet. orecipitates
out of Rockwell International's wastewater is classified as hazar-
dous.
Rockwell International's lubrication coating process is con-
sidered electroplating, as defined in the listing background
document. A number of production processes, including coating,
are considered subcategories of the electroplating industry.
Electroplating is defined as the application of a surface coating,
usually, but not always, by electrodeposition to provide corrosion
protection, erosion resistance, anti-frictional characteristics
or decoration. In particular, phosphate conversion coating pro-
duces a layer of insoluble crystalline phosphate on the surface
of a metal that provides a base for lubricants.1
Consequently, Rockwell International's iron/manganese/phosphate
lubricating process is considered electroplating, and sludge that
results from treatment of the wastewater is considered hazardous
V OS EPA. Development document for existing source pretreatraent
standards for electroplating point source category. EPA No.440/
1-79/003. August, 1979.
-------
and listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. If Rockwell Inter-
national feels that their sludge is non-hazardous, then please
advise them to call this office and discuss submitting a delist-
ing petition.
I hope that this letter helps to clarify the issue. If you
have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call
me at (202) 382-4519.
Sincerely
!
A
Ann Burke Sarno
Environmental Protection Specialist
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
9444.1985(14)
September 10, 1985
Mr. Dave Johnson
Production Manager
Pueblo Chemical and Supply Company
Garden City, Kansas 67846
Dear Mr. Johnson:
We have reviewed your letter of July 22, 1985, notifying the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of your intent to dispose
of over 20,000 gallons of rinsates generated as a result of
cleaning containers that contained 2,4,5-T and other pesticide
formulations by deep well injection. These waste rinsates are
listed as acute hazardous wastes under EPA regulations (see
enclosed Federal Register notice) and subject to all regulatory
provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Thus,
the waste rinsates can be disposed only at a deep well facility
which is permitted to handle dioxin-containing wastes. If the
facility at which you intend to dispose the waste rinsates is
permitted to handle such wastes, you may proceed with the
disposal plan. However, if the facility is not permitted you can
either seek a facility that is permitted to handle these wastes
or petition the Agency to exclude your wastes from the hazardous
waste list.
While wastes described in the regulations generally are
hazardous, a specific waste meeting the listing description from
an individual facility may not be. For this reason, 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22 provide generators the opportunity to petition
the Administrator to exclude a waste on a site-specific basis
from the hazardous waste list.
To be excluded, petitioners must show that a waste generated
at their facility does not meet any of the criteria under which
the waste was listed. (See 40 CFR 260.22(c).) In addition, the
Agency is required to consider factors (including other
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed if
there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional
factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. Accordingly, a
petitioner must demonstrate that his waste does not exhibit any
of the hazardous waste characteristics and present sufficient
information for the Agency to determine whether the waste
contains any other toxicants at hazardous levels.
This has been retyped from the orioinal document.
-------
If you wish to del1st the subject waste rinsates from the
hazardous waste list, you can petition EPA to exclude the
rinsates from the listing under CFR Part 261. The petition must
include sufficient information for the Agency to determine
whether the waste meets the criteria for which it was listed as
well as information to determine if any other hazardous
constituents are present in the waste rinsates at levels of
regulatory concern. The analysis data included in your letter to
EPA can, in part, be used to support a delisting determination
should you decide to petition the Agency for an exclusion to the
listing.
If you have any questions or need further information on the
delisting procedures, please contact Dr. Howard Fribush, Office
of Solid Waste, or (202) 475-6726.
Sincerely,
Jack W. McGraw
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1985(15)
June 24, 1985
Mr. Martin H. Lewis
Smith & Schnacke
Suite 2250
41 S. High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-6199
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This letter responds to your inquiry of June 14, 1985,
regarding the regulatory status of a solvent mixture (Nalcast
6015, water and wax) and residue from a water-wall paint spray
booth in which solvent-based paints are sprayed.
First, you are incorrect in stating that Nalcast 6015 (used
in the removal of wax) is considered a process waste when
intended to be discarded. Since Nalcast 6015 is used as a
"solvent" (i.e., to clean wax from metal parts) it is considered
"spent solvent" when it has served its intended purpose and can
no longer be used without further processing. However, you are
correct in stating that under the current hazardous waste
regulations, spent solvent mixtures are not regulated, unless
they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste (j._.e. , ignitability, EP toxicity, reactivity, and
corrosivity).
At this time, the spent solvent listings pertain only to the
technical grade or the pure form of the solvent, thus, solvent
mixtures remain unregulated. On April 30, 1985, the Agency
proposed to close this regulatory loophole by expanding the
universe of wastes considered "spent solvents" to include solvent
mixtures containing ten percent or more of one or more listed
solvents (see enclosed Federal Register notice). When this rule
becomes final, Nalcast 6015, when spent or discarded, will be
considered a listed hazardous waste. In addition the Nalcast
6015/water/wax mixture also will be considered hazardous waste
based on the provision in the "mixture rule" (40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iii) which states that a mixture of solid waste and
hazardous waste is considered "hazardous waste."
With respect to the water-wall spray booth residue, these wastes
are not hazardous waste unless they exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste. As you correctly stated,
solvent-based paints are not listed hazardous waste when
discarded nor are they covered under the spent solvent listings.
The listings do not apply to waste streams where solvents are a
contaminant.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
I trust that this letter adequately responds to the
questions raised in your letter. Should you have additional
questions, please call Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (202)
382-4807.
Sincerely,
Eileen Claussen
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Branch
Enclosure
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1985(153)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
JULY 1985
The Solvent Mixture Rule
4. EPA published a proposed rule on April 30, 1985, (50 FR 18378} which would regulate
certain spent solvent mixtures. The proposed rule amends $261.31 so that spent solvent
listings having EPA hazardous waste numbers F001 through F005 would be combined under
the F001 listing. More Importantly, the proposed rule would regulate certain spent
solvent mixtures that are not currently regulated due to the "sole active ingredient"
interpretation. * The proposed hazardous waste description for F001 includes "spent
solvents and spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, in total, ten percent (or more)
by volune" of the listed spent solvents. How will EPA interpret "ten percent (or
more) by volume?" For example: (a) Does a solvent blend containing trichloroethylene
and methylene chloride (both listed spent solvents under FOOD, each present at five
percent by volune, meet the listing description? (b) Does one of the spent solvents
listed under F001 have to be present at ten percent by volume?
EPA interprets the phrase "ten percent (or more) by volune" to mean the total per-
centage by volume calculated by sunning the percentages of all F001 listed spent
solvents included in a mixture/blend. "Ten percent (or more) by volume" does not
mean that a particular spent solvent under the F001 listing must be present in the
mixture at ten percent by volume.
(a) A solvent mixture/blend containing two F001 listed spent solvents at five per-
cent by volume each would be considered a F001 listed hazardous waste.
(b) In order for a mixture to meet the spent solvent listing, a single solvent need
not be present at a concentration of ten percent. Rather, the ten percent threshold
refers to the total of all listed solvents in the mixture.
*Currently the FO01-F005 listings only apply to the spent form of the listed solvents
where only one solvent (i.e., sole active ingredient) solvent was used in a process.
The F001-F005 listings do not apply to the spent form of solvent blends or mixtures
with more than one active ingredient (i.e., two or more solvents listed in $261.31).
-------
9444.1985(16)
September 26, 1985
Mr. Robert E. Broyles
Purina Mills, Inc.
Checkerboard Square
St. Louis, MO 63164
Dear Mr. Broyles:
This is in response to your letter of September 6, 1985, and
pursuant to your conversation with Dr. Judy Bellin. In
particular, you requested that EPA clarify whether persons who
solely blended commercially available materials are exempt from
the dioxin regulations; whether the rinsate from the equipment so
used is EPA hazardous waste; and whether EPA can provide for an
expedited delisting petition.
Concerning the first point, the dioxin regulations
promulgated on January 14, 1985 provide that the past
manufacturing operation described in your letter and discussed
with Dr. Bellin (i.e.. the formulation of chemicals derived from
2,4,5-trichlorophenol) presently results in the generation of EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F023. This applies to the waste resulting
from the company's mixing and formulating tanks.
Two courses of action are available to change this
determination. The company can replace the mixing tanks, or it
can submit a delisting petition showing that the waste in
question does not contain chlorinated dioxins or
-dibenzofurans or other toxicants at levels of concern. Waste
generated after substitution of "new" equipment, or after
delisting of the waste, would no longer be considered EPA
hazardous waste.
With respect to the evaluation of a delisting petition, we
cannot guarantee that the petition will be processed
expeditiously. The Agency already has approximately 300
petitions that are currently being reviewed and acted upon; your
petition would have to be considered in an appropriate order.
I trust the above adequately responds to your concerns. If
you have further questions, please call Judy Bellin at (202) 382-
4789.
Sincerely,
Matt Strauss, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Thishas been retyped from theoriginal document.
-------
9444.1985(17)
.*' *1 ?i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
W/~SK!N6TON. O.C. 20460
OCT 3 [985
OP
SOV.IO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Virginia Smith
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Ms. Smith:
I have reviewed EPA's classification of spent pickle
liquor as a hazardous waste as you requested in your
September 12, 1985, letter to the Administrator. However,
the Agency has taken the position that spent pickle liquor
from any source, including hot dip galvanizing, is a listed
hazardous waste (it is listed in the regulations as K062) e
This interpretation is consistent with the letter from jack
McGraw (then Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response) to Mr. Satterfield on April 10,
1985. In that letter, Mr. McGraw stated that hot dip
galvanizing is excluded from the electroplating category?
however, no such statement was made with respect to the
pickle liquor waste.
I should point out, however, that a number of companies,
especially those in the porcelain enamel industry, have taken
exception to this view, in fact, a law suit was filed bv the
porcelain Enamel Institute (PEI) disputing the Agency's
application of the K062 listing beyond the Iron and steel
industry. As a result of this suit and a rulareaking petition
filed by several members of PEI, the Agency recently requested
comments on the Agency's application of the KOS2 listing.
This request for comment appeared in the Federal Register on
September 10, 1985* I have included a copy of this notice
for your convenience.
In the notice, you will find a discussion of the issues
and background information on the Agency's position. Since
the coaswnt period is now open, Mr. Soderquisfc may make any
comments he believes appropriate about the K062 listing. I
can assure you that all comments will be evaluated as part of
the Agency's rulemaking procedure.
The delisting mechanism is also an alternative; it need
not take three to four years. The time it takes for processing
a delisting is directly dependent upon our receiving a complete
delisting petition from the company filing the petition. We
-------
recently published a guidance document (EPA/530-SW-85-003) to
help petitioners file complete petitions. This document is
available from the National Technical Information Service.
I realize that compliance with EPA's regulations may be
costly, however, we believe that the costs are justified in
order to protect our ground-water resources.
I thank you for your concern in this matter. If
Mr. Soderquist or you would like any additional information,
please contact Mr. James Poppiti at (202) 382-4788.
Sincerely yours,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
9444.1986(02}
January 27, 1986
Mr. Abe Esral
Plant-Roberts Chemicals
1644 Tullie Circle, Suite 118
Atlanta, Georgia 30329
Dear Mr. Esral:
This letter is written in response to your December 16
letter to J. Winston Porter, regarding the Office of Solid
Waste's definition of primary and secondary production of steel
in electric arc furnaces. As you are aware, the electric arc
furnace is the most versatile of all steelmaking processes
because it can be operated as either an acid or basic, oxidizing
or reducing process and, thus, can accommodate any combination of
raw materials including ore, steel scrap, and pig iron (plus
fluxes such as limestone and fluorspar). In general, nearly all
steelmakers using the electric arc furnace use a combination of
all of these raw materials. Therefore, the Agency does not have
a definition for primary and secondary production of steel in
electric arc furnaces and does not differentiate between the
wastes generated when a specific combination of raw materials are
used.
The Agency's use of the term, "primary steel production" is
meant to distinguish between manufacturers who produce steel
using the electric arc furnace and foundary operators who use the
electric arc furnace to melt steel scrap for castings. The
Agency made this distinction clear when it published its response
to a comment received on the interim final rule for the K061
listing (see 45 FR 33124, May 19, 1989) in which a clarification
on the scope of the listings was requested. The interim final
rule read, "Emission control dust/sludges from the electric
furnace production of steel." The commenter indicated that it
was not clear whether the listing description applied only to
primary steel production or to both primary steel production and
to foundries using steel scrap in their electric furnace
production.
The Agency's response was that the listing was intended only
to include wastes from primary steel production and that this
intent is reflected in the listing background document, which
refers throughout to primary steel production. Also, the Agency
stated that it was uncertain whether foundry electric furnace
emission control dusts and sludges are sufficiently similar in
composition to warrant inclusion in the same listing.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
In summary, all dusts and sludges from the production of
steel in electric arc furnaces are listed hazardous wastes unless
generated from foundry operations. In addition, dusts and
sludges from foundry operations may be hazardous wastes if they
exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes as
described in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C.
Please feel free to give Matt Strauss, of my staff, a call
if we can be of any further assistance, his telephone number is
(202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Original signed by
Marcia E. Williams
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1986(03)
February 12, 1986
Mr. Kevin J. Igli
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
3003 ButterfieId Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Dear Mr. Igli:
Thank you for your letter of January 2, 1986, regarding the
disposal status of containers formerly containing pentachloro-
phenol (PGP) . In your letter, you request that I explain how the
January 14, 1985 dioxin rules deal with the management of these
wastes.
As you stated in your letter, an emptied, unrinsed container
which formerly contained an unused formulation of PCP is EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F027. Under the rules promulgated on January
14, 1985, these containers must be disposed either at a fully
permitted facility having a waste management plan for this
("dioxin") waste; at a permitted incinerator that has
demonstrated 99.9999% destruction and removal efficiency (6-9s
DRF) for the chlorinated dioxins (CDDs) and -dibenzofurans (CDFs)
or for the principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs) that
are more difficult to destroy than the CDDs/CDFs; or at an
interim status facility which has received certification from the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response as
satisfying the performance standards in Subpart 0 of Part 264.
These containers may also be stored at an interim status facility
in compliance in the tank or container standards.
At present, the residues of such incineration are considered
to be an EPA acute hazardous waste. However, on September 12,
1985, the Agency proposed a regulation that would change their
status to hazardous wastes (rather than acute hazardous wastes),
which could then be managed at interim status land disposal
facilities (see enclosure).
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
At this point in time, I am not aware of any potential rule
change which could allow these wastes to be managed any
differently than described above. Please feel free to call Dr.
Judith Bellin, if we can be of any further assistance; her
telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Enclosure
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNITED STA^, ENVIRONMENTAL PR^ ECTIO., *GtR 9444.1986(05)
MAR 3 1985
W Lilian: H. Warren
Eder Associates
35 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley, N.Y. 11560 Re: File 509-1
Dear Mr. Warren:
This is in answer to your letter of February 13, 1986.
You requested clarification concerning the regulatory status
of spent carbon used to remove dissolved pentachlorophenol (PC?)
from ground water. You also asked what type of disposal facility
could properly dispose of this waste.
Your letter indicates "product spillage" as the source of the
contamination. If the product spilled was unused formulations
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. F027) and this is what migrated into
the ground water, the spent carbon is an acute hazardous
waste (F027), and, therefore, would be subject to the hazardous
waste regulations promulgated for dioxin-containing wastes. It
this is not the case, the waste you describe is not subject to
regulation under RCRA. In any event, you snould be aware
that the improper management of this waste could certainly be
hazardous to human health and the environment. Regeneration of
the spent carbon would result in desorption and distribution ot
the chemicals it contained to air (in this case, pentachlorophenol
and chlorinated dioxins and -dibenzofurans are of principal
concern). Land disposal of the spent carbon in a situation
whore solubilizing solvents are co-disposed could ultimately
result in once again polluting ground water. Therefore, the
management of this waste should be carefully controlled.
With respect to your request regarding disposal options,
incineration of this waste in a hazardous waste incinerator that
is permitted to burn PCBs is probably the most prudent option.
If you decide to incinerate you may wish to speak with Dr. Paul
dee Rosier^ of our Office of Engineering Research. His telephone
number is 202-382-2722.
Sincerely,
A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
FILE COPY
-------
9444.1986(07)
Dr. Tom Tseng RE: CJ1305
Conservation and Protection
Ontario Rag ion
Environment Canada
25 St. Claire Ave. B.
Toronto/ CA
M4 Tl M2
Dear Dr. Tsengs
Current U.S. EPA regulations control environmental releases
from wood preserving and surface protection facilities under several
Congressional statutes, including the Resource Conservation end
Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Zn addition,
exposures of workers and consumers to the preservative formulations
during application and usage of the treated wood is controllad by
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The current applicability
of the authorities to environmental releases is smreaarized below,
along with a description of our present investigations under RCRA.
Wastewater Effluents under the CWA
Process wastewaters effluent discharges from wood preserving
facilities which use arsenicsI/chromates, creosote, and/or penta-
chlorophenol are regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
final regulations were promulgated in 1981 (46 PR 8260-8295) and
vary according to whether a facility was in existence at the time
of the regulation (pretreatment standards for existing sources,
PSES) or for new plants (new source performance standards, NSPS).
The release of pentachlorophenol 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 wastewaters is mandated for Boulton processes and non-pressure
processes.
Process wastewaters for the wood preserving »ubcategory 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 (4f fit
82ft? col. 2, 1 4). However, precipitation falling in the l/T~to
1/2 acre around the treating cylinders and tank areas is defined
as a process wastewater which must be collected and treated.
Guidance may be found in the Development Document for Effluent
Limitations and Guidelines and Standards for the Timber Products
-------
Point Source Category (EPA Publication No. EPA-440/1-81/023, p,
82), which
"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. POT
example, 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/Puran 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 dloxins and furana 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,
P021, P026 or P027.
If a facility mixes Chlorophenolic formulations on-site, then
it may be covered by either the P020 (tri- or tatrachlorophenol)
or P021 (pentachlorophenol) listing if wastes are generated during
the process. An example would be filtering the unused formulation
before storage, thus generating a filter residuaTT
If a facility discards an unused (not spent) formulation
containing chlorophenolics the associated wastes and formulation
itself are covered by Hazardous Waste No. P027.
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. P026. An
example would be mixing t-butyl tin oxide in the same tank that
was used for chlorophenoTics 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 P020, P021, or
P027 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 P020 or P021. This regulation may be found
In the Code of Pederal 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 mixing tank, or erapty
chloroohenolic drums or kraft bags.
when a wast* 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 normally be exempt
from the management standards contained in Parts 262-265 and Parts
270 and 124 (surface impoundment specifications, ground water
monitoring, hazardous waste manifesting, etc.)* Part 261.5(e)
instead states that the generation of 1 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 polychlorinated
dioxins and furans.)
Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Creosote and Pentachlorophenol
under RCRA
At the present time, wastewater treatment sludges from wood
preserving processes which use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
are regulated as Hazardous Waste No. R001 undar Part 261.31. This
includes oil/water separator sludges, the sludges which form at
the bottom of surface impoundments used to treat or dispose of
wastewater (percolation or evaporation ponds), filter media (carbon,
sand, soil), spray irrigation fields (considered land treatment
units), sludge dewatering/drying beds, etc.
There has been a lot of activity over the nast years in "closino"
unlined lagoons, ponds* etc. used for process wastewaters. The
issue of "how clean is clean" for removing the sludges and contaminated
subsoils (much less pimping 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.
If all contaminated materials cannot be removed, then post
closure care as specified under Part 265.310 is reguired. This
would include maintaining a cover for the unit, leachate collection,
etc.
The RCRA management standards would not apply to wastewater
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 requirements (Part 264.1(n)(6) and Part
265.l(c)(10)). However, as soon as the sludges are removed from
these units, the full RCRA permitting requirements apnly. Many
facilities have therefore chosen to install wastewater treatment
trains in structures that meet our tank specifications, rather
than surface impoundments, to avoid around water monitoring and
other RCRA oermittino
-------
Creosote or Pentachlorophenol Wastewaters under RCRA
In 1980, we proposed to add wastewaters themselves from creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol facilities to the list of hazardous wastes
under Part 261.31 (45 PR 33137). In 1984, w* started obtained the
necessary analytical data by site sampling missions to supnort
this oroposed hazardous waste listing. W« 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/furar
Since wastewaters are typically managed in the sane 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 nanagement
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 possible 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 considerii
wastewater contamination with polychlorinated dioxins and furans,
yet the CWA standards currently only consider the indicator pollutan
oil and grease.
Inorganic Arsenical and Chroraate 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) in a regulated waste. This test procedure (described in
Appendix XX of Part 261) involves extracting the waste with 20
timea 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 analysed, giving the "EP Toxicity".
The maximum allowable concentration for ttetallics in the "EP"
extract is compared to the values given in Table 1 of Part 261.24.
If either the total arsenic or chromium in th« "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 control
by the RCRA management standards of Parts 262-265, 270, and 124.
This would include contaminated soils in the treated wood drinr>an«
area, process wastewaters, sludges, snilled formulations, etc.
-------
We are currently investigating whether or not to specifically
list inorganic salt wood preserving wastes under Part 261.32.
This would aive the Agency 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 3
waste is hazardous and whether or not treatment is adeguate.
Corrective Action under RCRA
As the result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste .Amendments
of 1934 (HSWA) (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 raanaae
a waste that is listed in Part 261. This is the corrective action
reguirement for continuing releases at permitted facilities under
Section 3004(u) and (v) of HSWA.
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 woo-i drippage/storage
area, process areas, and any landfills.
If there is any contamination in these areas (release) corrective
action must be undertaken. A release from a solid waste management
unit is defined in terras of whether or not the unit is designed
for adequate containment. For example, treated wood driopage
(currently a "solid waste" but not a "listed hazardous waste") is
typically managed by land disposal (dripcage to the ground). This
ground usually does not have a clav 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 Hastes
At the- present time, our branch is involved in investiaatinq
whether or not to add additional wastes from wood preserving and
surface protection facilities to the list of hazardous wastes
under Parts 261.31 and 261.32. New 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 drippage/storage residuals
•Fugitive emissions, drippage in the process and tank area
'Maintenance area, shop area wastes
-------
•Wastewaters (including storm water runoff)
•Wastewater treatment sludges from arsenical-chromate processes
or chlorophenolics from surface protection processes
All of these wastes, where applicable, are beina studied to
determine whether or not they should be listed as acutely hazardous
waste because of contamination with polychlorlnated dioxins and
furans. This includes any wastes that can be cross contaminated
with chlorophenolics, such as wastes generated from a creosote process
where a common oil/water separator is used for both creosote and
pentachlorophenol, sludqes 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 make hazardous waste management
standards uniform at all facilities, and ease the burden to State
and Regional enforcement personel in formulatinq 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
Haste Identification Branch
Nail Code WH-562 B
-------
9444.1986(08)
May 2, 1986
Mr. Gregory J. Harvey
Industrial Hygenist
Occupational Medical Services
Newark Air Force Station, OH 43057-5000
Dear Mr. Harvey,
This letter is written in response to your request that EPA
determine whether activated carbon canisters that are used to
collect vapors of the solvents Freon 113, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
and methylene chloride, which are generated during the
application of certain paint products, are considered to be a
hazardous waste.
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 defined as being
used for their solvent properties, that is, to solubilize
(dissolve) or mobilize other constituents. For example, solvents
used as a cleaning or degreasing agent, a medium for chemical
reactions, an extraction agent, a diluent, and similar uses are
covered under the F001 through F005 listings under §261.31 of
RCRA. These listings, however, do not apply when the solvents
are used as reactants or ingredients in commercial chemical
products (e.g.. paint and coatings). (See 51 FR 6538, February
25, 1986.)
Since the incorporation of solvents into paint formulations
does not constitute solvent use as defined in the listing, the
solvent vapors collected from paint application are not spent
solvents. Unless these canisters exhibit one or more of the
hazardous characteristics described under 40 CFR 261.20 - 261.24,
they would not be a hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Nevertheless, we believe that sufficient toxicological data
exists on these solvents to indicate that the subject canisters
may pose a substantial present or potential threat to human
health or the environment, if improperly managed. We, therefore,
urge you to manage these canisters with proper controls (i.e., as
if they were hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA).
Sincerely yours,
Matthew Straus
Branch Chief
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1986(09)
May 2, 1986
Mr. Donald P. Duffy
Pace Laboratories, Inc.
1710 Douglas Drive North
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Dear Mr. Duffy:
This letter is in response to your request for an
interpretation of the electroplating listings (EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. F006 and F019) . Our responses to your specific
questions are as follows:
1. "Electroplating operations" includes electroplating of
common metals, electroplating of precious metals,
anodizing, coatings, chemical etching and milling,
electroless plating, and printed circuit board
manufacturing.
2. The only phosphating processes that are not included in
the F006 listing are phosphating on aluminum. These
processes are included in the F019 listing.
3. The exclusion "...(3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on
carbon steel..." refers to non-cyanide zinc plating
processes. That is, zinc plating processes which use
cyanide are not excluded from the F006 listing.
4. The zinc plating exclusion does not encompass any wastes
from chemical conversion coating processes (e.g.,
chromating). Thus, when chromating processes contribute
to the wastewater stream, the resultant wastewater
treatment sludges are included in the F006 listing.
5. The F006 and F019 listings are currently being re-
evaluated. At present, the primary focus of this effort
is on phosphating processes; several trade associations
are now gathering data to support our re-evaluation.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation,
please contact either Mr. Matthew Straus or Mr. David Topping of
my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Eileen Claussen
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division (WH-562B)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1986(11)
May 22, 1986
Mr. Paul Yancey
Facility Engineer
Whirlpool Corporation
6400 Jenny Lind Road
Fort Smith, AR 72903
Dear Mr. Yancey:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your question
regarding the classification of sludge generated from treatment
of cleaner solutions at your Fort Smith, Arkansas facility. It
is my understanding that the first stages of your phosphating
process are the cleaner stages. Treatment of the wastewater from
the cleaning baths involves pH adjustment, flocculant addition,
and filtration. The sludge that results from this treatment is
not considered listed hazardous waste as long as wastewater
generated from the listed process is kept entirely separate (the
listed process occurs further down the line). The cleaning
process is not a listed process, so this wastewater treatment
sludge is not listed. This sludge may still be hazardous by
characteristic, however, and you will need to test for that. If
you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me
at (202) 382-4519.
Sincerely,
Ann Burke Sarno
Environmental Protection
Specialist
Waste Identification Branch
(WH-562B)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1986(13)
Mr. Reggie W. Garden
Chemical Safety Manager June 24, 1986
Lisle Corporation
807 East Main Street
Clarinda, Iowa 51632
Dear Mr. Garden,
The purpose of this letter is to confirm our telephone
conversation held on June 23, 1986 which dealt with the question
of whether the Lisle Corporation's manufacturing process should
really be considered an electroplating operation. Based on the
information the Agency requested and received from Lisle
Corporation on June 23, 1986, the mechanical plating system is
not an electroplating operation as listed under 40 CFR 261.31.
On May 19, 1980, the Agency promulgated as an interim final
rule the listing of "wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations" in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006. As indicated in Appendix VII of Part 261 (45 FR
74892), the constituents of concern for this waste are cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, nickel, and complexed cyanide. (This waste
listing was finalized on January 16, 1981 (46 FR 4619) with some
modification).
The mechanical plating operation utilized by Lisle
Corporation involves the deposition of metallic coating on a base
metal through mechanical action (i.e., impact of glass beads on
the object to be coated in the presence of the coating metal) and
is not considered an electrolytic process. We feel, therefore,
that mechanical plating would not be considered an electroplating
operation as defined in the background document and that
wastewater treatment sludge previously generated from mechanical
plating operations would not be considered a listed hazardous
waste under 40 CFR 261.31 and thus, would not require delisting.
This, however, does not mean that the wastes already
generated from this operation are non-hazardous. Each generator
is ultimately responsible for determining whether his waste
exhibits any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and EP toxicity) as
described in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C. If the waste exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic, the waste must be managed in
accordance with the hazardous waste management regulations.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1986(13)
Mr. Reggie W. Garden
Chemical Safety Manager June 24, 1986
Lisle Corporation
807 East Main Street
Clarinda, Iowa 51632
Dear Mr. Garden,
The purpose of this letter is to confirm our telephone
conversation held on June 23, 1986 which dealt with the question
of whether the Lisle Corporation's manufacturing process should
really be considered an electroplating operation. Based on the
information the Agency requested and received from Lisle
Corporation on June 23, 1986, the mechanical plating system is
not an electroplating operation as listed under 40 CFR 261.31.
On May 19, 1980, the Agency promulgated as an interim final
rule the listing of "wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations" in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006. As indicated in Appendix VII of Part 261 (45 FR
74892), the constituents of concern for this waste are cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, nickel, and complexed cyanide. (This waste
listing was finalized on January 16, 1981 (46 FR 4619) with some
modification).
The mechanical plating operation utilized by Lisle
Corporation involves the deposition of metallic coating on a base
metal through mechanical action (i.e., impact of glass beads on
the object to be coated in the presence of the coating metal) and
is not considered an electrolytic process. We feel, therefore,
that mechanical plating would not be considered an electroplating
operation as defined in the background document and that
wastewater treatment sludge previously generated from mechanical
plating operations would not be considered a listed hazardous
waste under 40 CFR 261.31 and thus, would not require delisting.
This, however, does not mean that the wastes already
generated from this operation are non-hazardous. Each generator
is ultimately responsible for determining whether his waste
exhibits any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and EP toxicity) as
described in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C. If the waste exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic, the waste must be managed in
accordance with the hazardous waste management regulations.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further
questions, at (202) 382-4488.
Sincerely,
James R. Kent
Environmental Protection
Specialist
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1986(14)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 86
- 5 -
2. Spent Solvent Listings (5261,31)
A manufacturing facility uses a liquid-liquid extractor in its
production process. An influent water stream bearing the product to
be recovered contacts an influent stream of pure halogenated solvent
flowing countercurrent. The solvent stream preferentially absorbs
the product fron the water. The solvent bearing product stream exits
the extractor. Because the solvent is not completely inmiscible
with water, the production process yields an effluent stream consisting
of water and solvent at the other end of the liquid-liquid extractor.
If the solvent used in the extraction process is a RCRA listed
hazardous waste when spent, would the water/solvent effluent stream
be RCRA regulated?
No; although extraction constitutes solvent use, the effluent
stream is not a spent solvent covered by the spent solvent
listings in 5261.31 as revised on December 31, 1985 (50 FR
53315). The effluent waste water stream became contaminated
with solvent during the actual production process (i.e., during
use of the virgin solvent) resulting from the incomplete
miscibility of water and solvent in the extraction process.
It did not become contaminated as a result of spent solvent
being discharged into it. It/ therefore, would not be regulated
as a RCRA hazardous waste, unless such waste stream were listed
as a manufacturing waste in 5261.32 or exhibited a characteristic
in Suboart C of Part 261.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Dave Phillips
-------
UNITED ST. iS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC. J*
9444.1986(15)
Mr. J. W McAdans
Kanayor, Environmental Services
Mobil Chern.cal Company
P.O. Box 26683
Richmond, VA 23261
Dear Mr. McAdams:
I am writing in response to your request for a written
determination otf whether the "pre-coat" waste that you generate
as part of the process is a listed hazardous waste. I have-
reviewed the information that you have submitted in your June 10,
1986, letter and conclude- that the use of 2-ethoxy«thanol in
your polypropylene extruding process does not constitute use as
a solvent.
As you have stated in your letter* the spent solvents
listings do not cover manufacturing process wastes that, are
contaminated with solvents when they are used as rtactants or
ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical products.
This is because the chemicals are not being used as solvents.
I am satisfied that you have provided sufficient evidence that
2-ethoxyethanol is an ingredient of the pre-coat formulation.
Thus, this pre-coat waste containing 2-ethoxyethanol is not a
listed waste.
Although the subject waste is not a listed waste, 2-ethoxy-
ethanol is known to be teratogenic in animals by oral, inhalation,
and dermal routes* and causes adverse reproductive effects in
animals. The concentration or 2-ethoxyethanol in your waste
(1 to 5%) is many times greater than the health-based values tor
2-ethoxyethanoi. furthermore, the Agency has listed still
bottoms from the recovery of spent 2-ethoxyethanol because it
contains similar levels or th« subject solvent (1 to 10%).
Thus, this pre-coat waste may pose a substantial threat to
human health and the environment/ if improperly disposed and we
suggest that you manage it accordingly.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
•u.s. 90 .
-------
UNITED STATF 'NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENt
9444.1986(16)
Mr. Randy; L. Porter Aijg 1 g
Industrial Hygienist
University of Kansas Medical Center
Safety Office
39th and Rainbow Blvd.
Kansas City, Kansas 66103
Dear Mr. Porter:
This is in response to your July 8, 1986, letter in which
you request written clarification as to whether your laboratory
waste, generated by an investigator performing research
using stock solutions of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD), is covered by the dioxin listings (EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027). These wastes
include animal carcasses, bedding, feces, urine and other
"typical" laboratory dry waste such as paper goods, gloves,
syringes, etc.
The wastes which you described are not the listed dioxin-
containing wastes under 40 CFR §261.31. These wastes would more
appropriately be defined at 40 CFR S241.101(h) as infectious waste
"...laboratory wastes, such as pathological specimens (e.g.,
all tissues, specimens of blood elements, excreta, and secretions
obtained from patients or laboratory animals) and disposable
fomites (any substance that may harbor or transmit pathogenic
organisms) attendant thereto ". 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 management of infectious waste.
A copy is enclosed for your reference.
I hope this adequately answers your questions. If you
have any further questions, please contact Doreen Sterling of
my staff.
Sincerely yours.
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STA. INVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE.. a*
9444.198 6
SEP * 886
Mr. John L. Cherill
Environmental Control
Corning Glass Works
Corning, New York 14831
Dear Mr. Cherill:
This is in response to your letter of May 15/ 1986*
regarding the regulatory status of the reject substrates
containing vanadium pentoxide (as described in your May 15th
letter) under the existing Federal hazardous waste regulations.
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/ the
vanadium pentoxide substrate is not a listed hazardous waste;
therefore, this material (when abandoned) would only be,
subject to the hazardous waste regulations if it exhibits one
or more of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e./
ignitability/ corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity). In response to your specific questions!
1. Would our reject substrates (prior to crushing) be a
hazardous waste, P010, because the vanadium pentoxide
component would be considered a "sole active
ingredient"?
Ho. The reject substrates are not considered the
listed hazardous waste P010. P010, listed in 40 CFR
261.33(e), covers unused vanadium pentoxide (either
pure grade/ technical grade, or in formulations
where it is the sole active ingredient) which
is discarded. Since the reject substrates are not
considered the commercial chemical product vanadium
pentoxide, this material is not considered hazardous
waste P010.
2. Would crushing the reject substrates (as we normally
do) make them a "process waste* which, since such
process waste is not a listed waste under 261.31 or
261.32 and would not exhibit any of the characteristics
of a hazardous waste given at 261.20, 261.21, 261*22,
261.23 and 261.24, is not a hazardous waste; or,
would such crushing merely be considered a "treatment"
ot a halardous wasfe*Mcbi.»»>at<:t to a KCRA varr n v*~*< + *-*
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
M.S. OO i mi-**1-**3
-------
Crushing of the reject substrates would not be
considered a process waste since this activity is
not part of the manufacturing operation (i.e.,
operation to manufacture the vanadium pentoxide
substrate). Rather, the crushing operation is a
treatment process to reduce the waste volume of the
off-spec substrates. However, since the reject
substrates are not hazardous wastes (i.e., are not
specifically listed nor exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics (as you indicate), the crushing
operation is not subject to the hazardous waste rules.
3. Would the ultimate end user of this new product,
e.g., a power plant, have to dispose of the spent
product as a hazardous waste solely because it
contained vanadium pentoxide? (Obviously, if the
product as a result of its use captured arsenic or
lead, for example, from the exhaust stream and it
then exhibits the characteristic of EP Toxicity it
would have to be disposed of as a characteristic
hazardous waste.)
No. Aa already indicated, the vanadium pentoxide
substrate is not a listed hazardous waste. Therefore,
this material is not subject to the hazardous waste
rules, unless this material exhibits one or more or
the hazardous waste characteristics.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any
further questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9444.1986(19)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP 2 5 i986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Repromulgation of F006 Hazardous Waste Category
FROM: J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
TO Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
Thank you for your August 18, 1986 memorandum regarding
the repromulgation of the F006 hazardous waste category.
After a briefing with the staff from the Office of Solid
waste, Office of General Counsel, and the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement (OWPE), I decided to re-interpret the F006
listing to only include those processes that can be implicated,
either directly or indirectly, in the language of the listing.
During this briefing, I was presented with five options which
are described in the attached material. I selected option
three because it orovides a sound leaal argument and is cost
effective—it saves resources. Realizing that ontion three
may create problems with existing enforcement actions. involvina
F006 wastes, I have requested OWPE to develop guidance which
you should find helpful. In addition, we expect to re-visit
the scope of the F006 listing as part of our relisting effort.
The details of the decision are as follows: the F006
listing would include wastewater treatment sludges from the
following processes: (1) common and precious metals electro-
plating, (2) anodizing (3) chemical etching and milling and
(4) cleaning and shipping associated with common and precious
metal electroplating. The following processes are not included
under the. POO6 listina: (1) chemical conversion coating,
(2) electroless plating, (3) printed circuit board manufacturing
and (4) the six processes explicitly excluded from F006.
Let me elaborate two fine points regarding the processes that
are not listed. First, wastewater treatment sludges from the
chemical conversion coating of aluminum are listed as EPA
hazardous waste No. F019. Second, wastewater treatment sludges
from printed circuit board manufacturing operations that
include processes which are within the scope of the listing
(i.e. chemical etching) are listed as EPA hazardous waste
No. F006.
-------
We have drafted a Federal Register notice which oresents
our re-~interoretation of the F006 listing. This notice has
been forwarded to the Regions for comment. In addition, a
meeting was held with the Regions in Atlanta on September
16, 1986 to discuss our approach.
I hope this memorandum and the attached briefing material
ins how I made my decision and how I plan to proceed.
can b<
Attachment
explains how I made my decision and how I plan to proceed
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
-------
9444.1986(20)
Uf iD STAT. cNVlROHMENTAL PROTECuON
Mr. William L. Warren ^^
Warren, Goldberg, Herman, and Lubitz SB*
112 Nassau Street
P.O. Box 645
Princeton, New Jersey 08542
Dear Mr. Warren:
This is in response to your letter of August 26, 1986,
in which you request that EPA confirm that soil contaminated
with Chlordane, as a result of application of that pesticide
in the normal course of agricultural use, would not automatically
be considered a hazardous waste.
The pesticide Chlordane is a listed commercial chemical
product (U036; see 40 CFR 261.33(f)) that becomes a hazardous
waste when discarded or intended to be discarded. The Agency
did not intend to cover those cases when the chemical is
released into the environment as a result of use. (See, for
example, the enclosed memo regarding the regulatory status of
pesticide applicator washing rinse water.) In addition, 40 CFR
261.2(c)(1)(B)(ii) specifically states that commercial chemical
products listed in Section 261.33 are not solid wastes (and,
thus, not hazardous wastes) if they are applied to the land
and that is their ordinary manner of use. Therefore, the
contaminated soil would be treated as a hazardous waste (if
it is duq up) only if it exhibits one or more of the four
RCRA hazardous waste characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21
through 261.24.
Please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew A. Straus if you
have any further questions; Mr. Straus can be reached at (202)
475-8551.
Sincerely/
Eileen B. Claussen
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosure
-------
9444.1986(21)
Mr. Paul M. Frank
ACR Electronics Inc.
5757 Ravenswood Road
P.O. Box 5247
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33310-5247
Re: Status of Delisting Petition #0297
Dear Mr. Frank:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Agency
has reevaluated its previous interpretation of the hazardous
waste listing for F006 wastes (Wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations) and has determined that it is overly
broad. In particular, we believe that certain of the processes
identified in the Listing Background Document that are not
directly or indirectly implicated in the actual listing are not
covered under regulations as listed hazardous wastes. As a
result, we now believe that F006 includes only common and
precious metals electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching and
milling, and cleaning and stripping when associated with these
processes. On the other hand, the following processes are not
included under the F006 listing: chemical conversion coating1,
electrolysis plating, and printed circuit board manufacturing2.
The Agency will be publishing an explanation of its determination
on the F006 listing in the Federal Register in the near future.
1Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019.
2Wastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board
manufacturing operations that include processes which are within
the scope of the listing (e.g., chemical etching) are regulated as
EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
Our records indicate that your petitioned waste is generated
from processes that are not included in the scope of the F006
listing as described above. Therefore, we have discontinued the
review of your petition. It should be noted that if your
petitioned wastes are mixed with listed F006 wastes or any other
listed hazardous wastes, the resulting mixture would be
considered hazardous. Also, if your petitioned wastes or any
mixture of wastes exhibit one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous waste (40 CFR 261 Subpart C) then that waste would be
considered hazardous. If our records are incorrect or if your
petitioned wastes are mixed with other hazardous wastes for which
you still seek delisting, please contact us as soon as possible
so that we can reactivate our review. Also, please note that
this decision does not apply to any other listed wastes that may
be generated at your facility.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Myles Morse of my staff, at (202) 382-4788.
Sincerely,
Bruce Weddle
Director
Permits and State Programs
Division
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1986(23)
Mr. Alfred A. Levin
Director, Toxic Substances Control
Regulatory Affairs
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
341 East Ohio Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611-337
Dear Mr. Levin:
This is in response to your March 19, 1986, letter in which
you request written confirmation that the wastes generated from
the manufacture of 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (TCP) and
Hexachlorophene at your Beaumont plant are not covered by the
dioxin listings promulgated on January 14, 1985 (see 50 FR 1978).
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 request, I agree that all of the wastes that are
described in your letter that are generated at your Beaumont
plant from 2,4,5-TCP and Hexachlorophene production are not
covered by the dioxin listings (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020-
027).' As I explain below, these waste are specifically excluded
activities are being carried out or were carried out in the past,
the answer to these questions could change. More specifically:
Wastes from Manufacture of 2.4.5-TCP
- Wastewaters - I agree that the wastewaters that are
generated in the 2,4,5-TCP process (i.e., streams 1
and 2, as referred to in your letter) are not covered
by the EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020 and F023
listings. If, however, these wastewaters are treated
on-site and a sludge is formed (e.g., biological
sludge, spent activated carbon, spent filter aid,
etc.), the sludge is covered by the listings and would
be regulated as an acute hazardous waste. (See
enclosed, March 29 1985, memorandum from Michael Cook
to the Regions).
:The only stream which I did not address is the spent sulfuric
acid from the manufacture of 2,4,5-TCP. However, Mr. Steven E.
Silverman already addressed the regulatory status of this stream in
a separate letter dated October 6, 1986. Therefore, I will not
discuss it in this letter.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
• Wastes from Manufacture of Hexachlorophene Where Highly
Purified 2.4,5-TCP is Used
- I agree with you (except as noted below) that all the
wastes that are generated by this process (i.e.,
streams 3-11 and 13-19, as referred to in your letter)
are not included within the scope of EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. F020 and F023). I agree with Dr. Bellin
that highly purified 2,4,5-TCP means any 2,4,5-TCP
that contains less than 1 ppb of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.2 (You
should be aware that if the Hexachlorophene Process at
this plant was previously operated without using
"highly purified 2,4,5-TCP," the wastes that are
currently generated would be covered by EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F023.)
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further
questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
This level is much lower than that typically found in 2,4,5-
TCP where the 2,4,5-TCP had not been highly purified. See
table 3 in listing background document to dioxin listing
where it states that the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
trichlorophenols did range between 0.07 to 6.2 ppm. In
addition, based on discussions we had with manufacturers who
use to produce hexachlorophene meeting FDA standards with
respect to TCDD-contamination and their supplies of 2,4,5-
TCP, the 1 ppb level of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was indicated as
necessary in order to meet the FDA specification for
Hexachlorophene.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9 44 4 . 198 6 ( 2 5 3
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
HOY-3W6
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSI
Andrew A. Rathsack, P.E.
Project Manager
Andrews Environmental
Engineering, Inc.
1320 South Fifth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62703
Dear Mr. Rathsack:
Thank you for your September 29, 1986, letter requesting
written confirmation that floating hollow plastic balls,
which are used to control vapors from industrial process
tanks containing carbon disulfide, would not be a hazardous
waste when disposed.
As you are aware, carbon disulfide is listed in 40 CFR
261.33(e) as an acutely hazardous substance waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This listing
includes commercial chemical product, off-specification
species, container residues, or spill residues when any of
these are discarded or intended to be discarded.
The plastic balls are a hazardous waste since carbon
disulfide has been incidentally deposited on them. Cleaning
the balls should remove the carbon disulfide and render the
balls non-hazardous* Simple washing may be sufficient for
this purpose.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me
know.
.Sincerely
Assistant Administrator
-------
9444.1986(26)
NW TS86
Mr. Gary Wlnslow
Samios Crop Protection Corp.
Chemical Manufacturing
1990 Bay Road
East Palo Aito, CA 9*303
Dear Mr, Winslow:
Thia letter is in response to >our October 8, 1936, letter
requesting guidance regarding tne interpretation of the scope
or the a^ent solvent listings (i._fc_-, EFA Hazardous Waste Noa.
P001, PC02, i?003. FOOH, and F005)• ' In your letter, you
discuss your understanding of these hatardous waste listings
and request that we determine- whether three specific wastes
are listed spent solvents.
In funeral, jour understanding of the regulations related
to the identification ana classification or spent solvent
waste is correct. However, below are tne criteria that we
use to determine whether a particular waste is a hazardous
spent solvent;
1) the waste oust be a solid waste as defined in %0 CFR 261.2,
2) the waste oust be generated as a result of tlu.- solvents
belrio used for their solvent properties: that is, to
soluoilise (dissolve) or mobilize otner constituents.
(The listings do not cover aanui'acturing process wastes
that are contaminated with solvents when the solvents
are used as reactants or ingredients in the formulation
of cooDercial chemical products.), and
3) in the ease of solvent aixtures, tne oixturo oust contain,
before use, a total of ten percent or more (b> volume) of
one or acre of the solvents listed in F0Q1, F002, POOU,
or F005 (»*e 50 PR 53315).
-------
_ In rv£ar*J to the three »vyoiftc exaap-ies that jou discuss
In ^our letter, each -xazple involves tL« t/m*ration or a
soivt-nt-contaainatfcd process westawater. You are correct in
>our conclusion that the- spent solvent listings arc not applicable-
because tnaac waatowatc-rs are manui'aeturing process waste atreans.
and not the spent solvents.\* Thus, these wastes would only OH
coneltlcpc'd hazardous wastes'lf thej exhloit one or wore hacardous
waste characteristics defined in 40 CPR 261-21 - 261.24.
Please contact Hr. Matt Straus at (202) 175-8551 if you
have additional questions regarding the regulatory status of
th--3t wastes.
It snoulC be noted that ir the waste streano discussed
in your letter were a mixture or wastewater ana spent solvent
(i.e., it is not a waste which contain* a solvent as a result
o'f'aYi" actual manufacturing process), the wast^watcr mixture
would not bo regulated if the mixture Bet the conditions in
40 CPR 2C1.3(&)(2)(IV)(A) or (B) .
Rare la will lacs
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444. 1986(27}
DEC 5 G8B
Dr. Gerald Spiegeiran
jJnviroiinuiitul Controls dauager
laterwaste Services Co.
•Vest iliirket Street
Carapbelltown, Pennsylvania 17010
Dear Dr. Spiegelnan:
This is in response to your letter of September 17, 19S6,
regarding tna applicability of the hazardous waste regulations,
specifically 4O Cx't< 261 and 40 C?R 26S, to still oottoms generated
r'roi.i distillation of spent xylena frora the manufacture of sodium
xylenesulfonate. I apologize for the delay in responding to your
latter. During the recant months we have boen using all available
resources to develop tiiu land disposal restrictions final rule (51 PR
40572, November 7, 1900).
A process waste containing solvents where the solvent ic a
reactctnL in the for:aulutio» of cocaoercial chesucal products are
aoc covered by tna spent solvent listings (EPA Hazardous \.'^ut.e Mos.
r'oUl, F002, F003, F004, and F005). According to the information
provided in your letter, xylene is used as a react ant i.i the
manufacture of aodium xylenesulfonate, therefore, you ar« correct
in notiiKj that excess xylene frota this process would not. be
covered under the F003 solvent listing. Still bottoms generated
fro.-n the distillation of the excess xylene would not be a hazardous
waste unless they exhioit one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous waata (i.e., corrosivity, ignitability, EP toxicity,
or reactivity), ifurtheriaore, as you correctly stated, spent
xylcae and still uottono from the recovery of xylene used in
your process does not meet the listing description for EPA haz*rdoui
Wttste aunber U239, since it is not a discarded comi.*ercial chemical
product« off-specification species, or other material identified
undor 40 CPU 261.33.
The first clans of wastes subject to the l&nd disposal re-
strictions effective November 3, 1936, include th«* F001-F005 solvents
and certain Uioxiu-containing wastes. Therefore, the xylene
still bottoras generated from your process would nolt be subject
to these rules. If these wastes exliioit ono or more of the
caaractoristics of hazardous waste, they will be subject to the
restrictions when the Agency promulgates treatment
rvr e*\-.2H-»r>+t»r\ qfi g u;i
-------
I hqp«a this information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please feel free to contact Bill Fortune, of my staff at (202)
475-6715, if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline W. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
9444.1986(28)
December 5, 1986
Mr. Eliot Cooper
Director of Environmental Affairs
Waste-Tech Services, Inc.
18400 W. 10th Avenue
Golden, CO 80401
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1986, in which you
request clarification of the regulatory status of spent fluidized
bed media used during the destruction of listed hazardous waste
as well as clarification of facility changes allowed under
interim status.
Under the RCRA regulations, spent fluidized bed media would
not be considered to be a hazardous waste via application of 40
CFR 261.3(d) since the spent media would not be considered to
have been derived from the treatment of a hazardous waste. In
addition, the mixture rule in 40 CFR 261.3 (a) (2) (iv) does not
apply since the fluidized bed media is not a solid waste at the
time it becomes mixed with a hazardous waste. Nevertheless,
spent fluidized bed media contaminated with a listed hazardous
waste (or, in this case, a waste derived from a listed hazardous
waste) would still be subject to regulation since it contains a
hazardous waste. See §261.3(c)(a) and (d)(2). Therefore, the
treatment, storage, or disposal of spent fluidized bed media
contaminated with hazardous waste must be handled as if the
fluidized bed media itself were a hazardous waste. However, if
the fluidized bed media, as a result of the incineration process
or as result of other treatment, no longer contains a hazardous
waste, it would no longer be subject to regulation under Subtitle
C of RCRA. In this case, no delisting petition would be
required.
Your second question concerns whether an interim status
facility may add a new incinerator if the facility currently does
not have an incineration process. The answer is yes, provided
that the conditions specified in 40 CFR 270.72 are met. Under
§270.72(c), owners or operators wishing to make any changes in or
additions to the processes of treatment, storage, or disposal at
an interim status facility are required to submit a revised Part
A and a justification for the change to the regulating agency for
approval. EPA or an authorized State may approve these changes
only when they are necessary to prevent a threat to human health
and the environment due to an emergency situation, or when they
are necessary to comply with Federal regulations (including the
interim status standards of 40 CFR Part 265) or State or local
laws. This provision does not preclude the addition of a
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
completely new process (e.g.. incineration) at an interim status
facility that currently does not have such a process.
It should be noted, however, that §270.72(e) limits the
scope of any changes that take place at interim status facilities
by prohibiting changes that require a capital expenditure greater
than 50% of capital cost for the construction of a comparable
entirely new hazardous waste management facility. Therefore,
this provision (known as the "reconstruction" limit) may restrict
the extent of a change even if the addition of a new process is
allowed under §270.72(c).
The above response to your two questions describes the
operation of the Federal RCRA program for the situations you
outlined in your letter. However, 42 States now have final
authorization to operate the RCRA program in lieu of EPA. Some
State requirements may be more stringent or more restrictive than
the Federal program in these two areas. If you have specific
concerns regarding your operation in Colorado, I recommend that
you contact Mary Gearhart in the Colorado Department of Health
(303-331-4830) since the State has RCRA authorization.
If you have any further questions on the Federal RCRA
requirements, please feel free to contact Larry Wapensky in EPA's
Region VIII office in Denver (303-293-1660).
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Larry Wapensky, EPA Region VIII
Mary Gearhart, Colorado Department of Health
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444,1986(29)
OK t
Dr. George V. Hanbo
National Feat Control Association, lac.
8100 Oak Street
Dunn Loring, VA 22027
Dear Dr. Rambo:
This is in response to your letter of November 13, 1986,
requesting an interpretation of the federal hazardous vaste
rules concerning the disposal of spent ash following fumigation
vith aluainum and/or magneeiuia phosphide products.
As you are aware, aluainua phosphide is listed as a
hazardous vaste (1?A Hazardous Waste Ho. F006) is 40 CIS
§26l.33(e). However, this listing only applies to the uamged
commercial product when discarded as the purs grade, tseamieal
grade, or *&«T» 1* i» the sole active ingredient in a
formulation!/. Sines the product has been used, it veal* not
be considered the listed hazardous vasts* nevertheless,
the ash-residue of the product would be hazardous aad subject
to the appropriate requirements if it exhibits any of the
hazardous vaste characteristics (i.e., ignitabllity, corrooivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (3?) toxicity) aad if the
srall quantity generator (SQG) level (1 kg of total hazardous
waste calendar month) is exceeded. Thus, when the ash residue
is collected, the generator is responsible for determining if
it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics; if it
does, the additional processing of the residue (i.e.Xexpose
to air or place in a water detergent" bath) must be managed in
accordance with 40 CPR Farts 262 to 266.
If you have any further questions, olease feel free to
call Wanda LeBleu-Biswas of my staff at (202) 382-7392.
I/ The 1 tjgfrfmfl alao applies to any off-spec commercial
aluminum mtMSiphide, container residues, and spill residues of
the unused product.
Sincerely,
Maroia I. Williams
Director, Office of Solid Vaste
-------
9444.1986(30)
December 10, 1986
Curtis Verploegh
Hazardous Waste Manager
The University of New Mexico
Occupational Safety
Medical Building 3, #137
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Dear Mr. Verploegh:
This is in response to your October 21, 1986 letter in which
you requested clarification as to whether your laboratory waste,
generated by an investigator, performing research involving
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is covered under 40
CFR §261.31. The wastes in question are: 1.07 mg of TCDD
contained in some 361 mouse carcasses, 450 gallons of cages and
bedding, and 41 gallons of dry waste.
The wastes which you described are not the listed dixoin-
containing wastes under 40 CFR §261.31. Rather, these wastes
would more appropriately be characterized as infectious wastes,
11. .. laboratory wastes, such as pathological specimens (e.g. , all
tissues, specimens of blood elements, excretes, and secretions
obtained from patients or laboratory animals) and disposable
fomites (any substance that may harbor or transmit pathogenic
organisms) attendant thereto—" see 40 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 management of infectious waste. A copy is
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 800C. These wastes which you describe can
be safely managed by high temperature incineration.
I hope this adequately answers your questions.
Sincerely yours,
Doreen Sterling, Ph.D.
Chemist
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
cc: Matt Straus
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
. nu ict_rION AGENCY
9444.1986(31)
n
Mr. Randy-M. Mott „
Heron, Burchette, Ruckert
and Rothwell
Suite 700
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Dear Mr. Mottj
Thank you for your November 5, 1986, letter regarding
the September 22, 1986, correction notice (51 PR 33612) for
the spent pickle liquor final rule (51 PR 19320, May 28,
1986). You stated that the correction notice dramatically
changed the spent pickle liquor final rule without prior
notice and comment. You, therefore, argued that the Agency
violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the Agency
did not provide notice and comment, §4, 5 U.S.C. $553 (1966).
You also argued that adoption of the correction notice by the
State of Tennessee violates the Tennessee Administrative
Procedure Act.
We disagree with your argument that our action has
violated the Administrative Procedure Act. We think that
the Agency's intent throughout the rulemaking process has
been to list, as a hazardous waste, spent pickle liquor from
steel finishing operations from facilities within the iron
and steel industry, and that the Agency stated this intention
clearly and repeatedly. In fact, until your letter, there
has never been any question, or even assertion, that the
listing is limited to only those facilities actually producing
iron and steel. Thus, in the September 10, 1985, proposal
that led to the May 1986 final rule, the Agency explained
that the whole debate revolved around the question of whether
the Agency's existing K062 listing applies to pickle liquor
generated by any steel finishing operation -or only from
those steel finishing operations in the iron and steel industry.
See, e.g. 50 PR 36966/1} 36967/1; 36967/2.
The Agency laid out several options to resolve the
issue, including whether the listing "applies only to K062
wastes generated by the iron and steel industry*, (id. at
36968/1). The reference to the "iron and steel industry"
referred to facilities in Standard Industrial Codes (SIC)
Codes 331-332, as shown by the Agency's reference to those
SIC codes (id. at 36966/1), as well as, the regulatory lan-
guage in §261.3(c)(2) (ii).
-------
The final regulation adopted the option of narrowing
the K062 listing to wastes from facilities within the iron and
steel industry. In particular, we statedt
"The Agency believes that the petitioners and the
conmenters to the September 10* 1985, proposed rule
have a valid argument that the listing should be
read to apply only to those facilities within the
iron and steel industry." £emphasis added](51 FR '
19321/2)
"Therefore, in light of the comments received and
arguments made, the Agency had decided to modify
its interpretation and narrow the scope of the spent
pickle liquor listing to apply to those facilities
within the iron and steel industry." Cemphasis
added] (51 FR 19321/2)
"This amendment will have no adverse economic impact
on small entities since the rule will reduce the
hazardous waste requirements to those persons who
generate spent acid in non-iron and steel industries."
[emphasis added] (51 PR 19322/1)
"The majority of comroenters strongly supported the
petitioners' claim that the plain language of the
listing for spent pickle liquor from steel finishing
operations...indicates that the listing applies
only to facilities within the iron and steel industry."
•me final rule mistakenly applied to facilities producing
iron and steel. The preamble to the final rule also occasionally
referenced this error. The rule did not reflect the Agency's
intent and could not reasonably be viewed as doing so. The
Agency (as shown above) did not propose such a limited con-
struction, and received no comments suggesting such a restricted
listing nor was the regulatory language consistent with the.
preamble language cited above.
It should also be noted that the May 1986 regulatory
language contradicted the language of another regulation
regarding waste K062 and so did not reflect the Agency's
intent and could not reasonably be considered to do so. In
particular, li»e stabilised waste pickle liquor sludge from
the iron and steel industry liquor (SIC codes 331-332) had
been exempted from the "derived from" rule under $261.3(c)(2)
(ii). See 49 PR 23284, June 5, 1984. Thus, a listing of
pickle liquor only from facilities producing iron and steel
would have made the listing narrower than the parallel exclu-
sion for sludges derived from treating the listed waste, we
repeat that such a factual contradiction could not be deemed
to reflect the Agency's intent, and so could be changed by
means of a technical correction. The Agency indeed noted
this contradiction in making the technical correction. 51
FR 33612/2.
-------
Therefore the Agency believes that it has not violated
the Administrative Procedure Act. We believe that the
regulated community is clear on the issues involving the
pickle liquor listing as evidenced by the comments received
on the Septebmer 1986, proposed rule. Also, the Agency
believes that the commenters and the regulated community
understand that the iron and steel industry is defined as
SIC codes 331 and 332 (as stated in the June 5, 1984, final
rule).
In support of this position,the Agency received numerous
calls from the regulated community and State officials ques-
tioning the contradictory language in the preamble and final
rule. Many of these callers indicated that the preamble
language of the final rule indicates that the listing applies
to all facilities within the iron and steel industry while
the rule addresses facilities that "produce" iron and steel.
The Agency recognized the contradiction as pointed out by
callers and responded with the September 22, 1986, correction
notice.
Thus, in light of the phone calls received by the Agency
addressing the contradictory language in the preamble and
regulatory language of the May 1986, final rule, the Agency
concludes that the regulated community understands that the
Agency made an error in the final rule, and that it did not
have "a belated change of heart in the nature of the rule"
as you allege. Furthermore, the Agency has difficulty under-
standing the practical consequences to your client of the
corrected regulatory language. You indicate that Bristol
recycles all pickle liquor and rinse water* We would be
interested in an explanation of what operations at Bristol
are regulated and which regulations would apply.
I trust that this letter adequately addresses your
concerns. If you have questions, please contact Matthew
Straus or Jacqueline Sales at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Jack W. MePr-.»
. Winston porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED STATES ENYlKUNMeNtAt PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1986(32)
Mr. Richard M. Barrett
Teledyne Monarch Rubber Company
10 Lincoln Park
Hartville, OH 44632
Re: Status of Delisting Petition #0507
Dear Mr. Barrett:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Agency
has reevaluated its previous interpretation of the hazardous
waste listing for F006 wastes (Wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations) and has determined that it is overly
broad. In particular/ we believe that certain of the processes
identified in the Listing Background Document that are not directly
or indirectly implicated in the actual listing are not covered
under the regulations as listed hazardous wastes. As a result,
we now believe that P006 includes only common and precious metals
electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching and milling, and
cleaning and stripping when associated with these processes.
On the other hand, the following processes are not included under
the F006 listing: chemical conversion coating V, electrolcss
plating, and printed circuit board manufacturing £/. The Agency
recently published an explanation of its determination on the F006
listing in the Federal Register £/.
In addition, the Agency notes that your petition also
identified the subject waste as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062
The Agency has recently revised the scope of the K062 listing
to include wastes from only those facilities described by
V Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F019.
£/ Wastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board
manufacturing operations that include processes which are
within the scope of the listing (e.g., chemical etching)
are regulated as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.
see 51 PR 43350 , December 3, 1986 for an explanation of
M.S. 00 : l*IJ-4*7-l!3
-------
-2-
SIC codes 331 and 332. Based upon discussions with Mr. Richard
Bohaychyk of Teledyne, we have concluded that the SIC code for
your facility causes the waste to not meet the K062 listing
description.^/
Our records indicate that your petitioned waste is generated
from processes that are not included in the scope of the F006
listing or that of the K062 listing, as described above. Therefore,
we have discontinued the review of your petition. It should be
noted that if your petitioned wastes are mixed with listed F006
wastes, listed K062 wastes, or any other listed hazardous wastes,
the resulting mixture would be considered hazardous. Also, if
your petitioned wastes or any mixture of wastes exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (40 CFR 261 Subpart
C) then that waste would be considered hazardous.
If our records are incorrect or if your petitioned wastes are
mixed with other hazardous wastes for which you still seek
delisting, please contact us as soon as possible so that we can
reactivate our review. Also, please note that this' decision does
not apply to any other listed wastes that may be generated at
your facility.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Myles Morse of my staff, at (202) 382-4788.
Sincerely,
Myles Morse
Acting Chief
Variances Section
cc: Alan Debus, Region V
William Muno, Region V
V See 51 FR 19320, May 28, 1986 for an explanation of the
K062 decision. Also, see 51 FR 33612, September 22, 1986
(correction notice).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTBCTION
9444.1986(33)
Honorable Lloyd Bentsen "" •< 9
961 Federa-1 Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Mr. Bentsen:
Thank you for your November 29^, 1986, letter requesting
information concerning the regulatory status of electric arc furance
(EAF) dust generated by the Bodner Metal and Iron Corporation of
Houston, Texas, after treatment with Lopat Industries; K-20
encapsulation process. My office has reviewed the material supplied
with the letter, and has concluded that the encapsulated EAF dust is
still a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and should be managed as such.
The Texas Water Commission, in its letter of November 7, 1986,
to Emanuel Bodner of Bodner Metal and Iron Corporation, was correct
in its assessment of Bodner Metal and Iron's EAF dust. This EAF
dust is a listed hazardous waste (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K061)
under 40 CFR $261.32. The hazardous constituents for which this
waste was originally listed are hexavalent chromium,*lead, and
cadmium. A listed waste must be handled as hazardous, even, if
treated, unless a regulatory exclusion ("delisting") is granted.
The delisting process requires detailed sampling and testing
of representative samples of the waste generated a particular
facility. Oelisting decisions are based on the characterizations
of the wastes generated at individual facilities.
The standards that a waste must meet to be delisted are more
stringent than the standards set in the RCRA regulations for the
hazardous waste characteristics. These characteristics (i.e.,
extraction procedure [EP] toxicity, reactivity, corrosivity, and
ignitability) wore established to bring non-listed wastes which
exhibited any of these characteristics under hazardous waste
regulation. After the promulgation of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), the Agency is now required to
evaluate all wastes, for which a delisting is sought, for their
originally listed constituents of concern and for any "Appendix
VIII" hazardous constituents reasonably believe to be present in
the waste, as> well as the hazardous waste characteristics, in each
delisting demonstration.
-------
It should be noted that the two series of EP toxicity tests
performed on samples of treated EAF dust (the results presented
with Mr. Bodner's letter of November 10, 1986) have produced leachate
concentrations for lead that are too high to justify a delisting.
The Agency uses a vertical and horizontal spread (VHS) dispersion
model to aid in the evaluation of delisting petitions. This model
uses leachate dat and waste volume to predict potential impacts of a
waste upon ground water. The EP leachate data for lead (1.6 and
3.6 mg/1) in the treated waste, as presented in the Bodner letter,
will produce compliance-point concentrations which fail the VHS
evaluation (i.e., the compliance-point values exceed the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard for lead of 0.05 rog/1).
The Agency has required that other stabilization technologies
employed in several other delisting petitions achieve EP leachate
concentrations for lead below 0.3 mg/1. Several petitioners have
been successful in achieving these leachate levels.
Although it would not change the regulatory status of the EAF
dust the Agency does believe that encapsulation processes (such as
the Lopat K-20 process) are useful in controlling the mobility Of
hazardous wastes and thereby decreasing the probability of
environmental contamination. To assure that stabilizing treatment
technologies will successfully bind constituents over the long
term,, the Agency requires stabilized wastes to be ground to a
uniform 100-mesh particle size prior to chemical testing. This
provides the Age-ncy with a means of evaluating the waste for the
potential effects of weathering or mismanagement.
I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have
any additional questions concerning the delisting of hazardous
wastes, please contact Mr. Myles Morse, of my staff, at (202)
382-4782.
Sincerely yours,
/»/ 7e?v i". K*1^'-
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------