United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-R-97-004F
Environmental Protection Emergency Response December 1996
Agency (OS-343)
RCRA Permit Policy
Compendium
Volume 6
9444.1987-9457.1996
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste (Part 261)
• Lists of Hazardous Waste
Generator Standards (Part 262)
•General
• Manifests
• Pre-Transportation
• Recordkeeping
• Special Conditions
• Importing
ATKl/3590/07 kg
-------
DISCLAIMER
The compilation of documents in this Compendium, as well
as the policies, procedures and interpretations outlined
in the documents themselves, is intended solely for the
guidance of employees of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This compilation may not include all
documents discussing Agency views on particular subjects.
In addition, these documents are not intended and cannot
be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with
the United States. The views expressed in these
documents do not necessarily reflect the current position
of the Agency, and EPA reserves the right to act at
variance with these views or to change them at any time
without public notice.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JAN 2T 1967
SOUD AASTE ANO e
Ronald J. "rozdowski
Process and Environment Chemist
Moog Inc.
East Aurora, NY 14052
Dear Mr. DrozdowsXi:
I am responding to your letter dated December 9, 1986,
identified as ME LTR t25-86, that requested our interpretation
of the regulatory status of your coolant waste streams.
Mr. Ed Abrams, of my staff, spoke to you on the telephone on
Janaury 8, 1987, to clarify several points regarding the
management of your waste streams containing 1,1,1,-trichloroethane
(111-TCE).
Mr. Abrams determined that you segregate your vapor degreasing
operation wastes from your machining coolant wastes. While both
wastes contain 111-TCE, only the spent degreasing solvent is a
listed hazardous waste (FOOD at this time. Your coolant wastes
are not interpreted as EPA Hazardous Wastes F001 under the Federal
hazardous waste program at this time because the coolant is not
being used as a solvent, nor has it been mixed with a spent
solvent. However, the coolants would be considered hazardous if
they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste.
You should also be aware that the Office of Solid Waste is
presently working on a toxicity characteristic which is likely
to establish levels of 111-TCE in waste extracts that will
cause them to be characteristically hazardous if the concentra-
tions of 111-TCE are exceeded. (See enclosure for proposed
rule.} These wastes will have a "0" clarification. Thus,
althou^l moor coolant wastes rosy'not currently be subject to the
RCRA fiosVHfclsj C regulations, they may be defined as hazardous in
-------
If your coolant wastes are currently not subject to
Subtitle C regulations, you will not need a RCRA permit to
dewater and thereby reduce the quantity of the coolant waste
for disposal. However, I strongly recommend that you consult
with your State and local authorities regarding your intended
treatment of coolant wastes.
I hope I have answered your inquiries satisfactorily. If
you have additional questions, you may telephone Mr. Abrams
at 202-382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
9444.1987(03)
JAN
IS8T
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Tom Sauer
General Electric Company
1 Newmann Way
Mail Drop N123
Cincinatti, OH 45215
Dear Mr. Sauer:
This letter is in response to your Janaury 13 telephone
conversation with David Topping of my staff. Specifically, you
requested a written interpretation as to whether electrochemical
machining operations are within the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F006.
As stated in the December 2, 1986 Interpretive Rule (51 PR
43350), the F006 listing includes wastewater treatment sludges
from chemical etching and milling. The listing Background Document
for F006 refers to the Development Document for Existing Source
Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating Category, August
1979, for details on specific processes. The latter document
states that "chemical etching and milling" includes the specific
processes of "...chemical milling, chemical etching, bright
dipping, electropolishing, and electrochemical machining." Waste-
water treatment sludges from electrochemical machining operations
are, therefore, EPA Hazardous Waste Mo. F006.
Should you have any further questions regarding this
interpretation, please contact me at (202)475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9444.1987(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
ji.N I 2 "?-'~
SOLID WASTE AND 6M6RGENCV
Mr. Steven H. white
Tricil Environmental Services, Inc.
Talbott Tower, Suite 510
131 North Ludlow
Dayton, OH 45402
Dear Mr. White:
This letter is in response to your January 5, 1987 inquiry
concerning the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. Specifically,
you requested an interpretation as to the status of wastewater
treatment sludges that result from a waterfall curtain used in
electrostatic painting operations.
Wastewater treatment sludges from electrostatic painting
operations are not included in the P006 listing. Thus, the waste
would only be considered hazardous if it: (1) exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic (e.g., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity) or (2) is mixed with a
hazardous waste (e.g., F019 from pre-painting conversion coating
operations on aluminum).
Should you have any further questions regarding this
interpretation, please contact me, or David Topping of »y staff.,
at (202)475-8551.
Sincerely,
1
... a.
Matthew A. Straws, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
owru
9444.1987(05)
Mr. «». David
President
Finish Enoineering Co.
921 Sreengarden Road
Frie, Pennsylvaina 16501-1591
T^ear Mr. Bowest
This is in response to your letter of November 25, 1986,
recording the regulatory status of still bottoms generated from
the reclamation of listed solvents. As we indicated in our previous
letter, EPA encourages the recycling of hazardous wastes and we
are currently evaluating this activity to determine whether
other changes to the regulations may be appropriate. In addition,
we are also re-evaluating the existing listings to better define
them. In particular, we expect to re-propose the current listings
and set concentration levels in the listings which would define
when the wastes contain levels of toxic constituents which would cauai
then to be defined as hazardous. If a waste that meets the listing
description contains levels of the toxic contaminant below the
level set when we relist wastes, the waste would no longer be
considered a listed hazardous waste. Although this effort is techni-
cally complex and, therefore, may take several years to complete,
we believe the "relisting effort" addresses your concern directly.
In the shorter term, if you wish to remove your particular
still bottoms from regulation, you will need to submit a
Relisting petition pursuant to 40 CFR 260*20 and 260.22. These
sections outline the process for submitting a petition to delist
your wastes and the showing that must be made as part of the peti-
tion process. However, you should be aware that if your solvent
still bottom wastes are classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No.
Fn03, anrf if this waste no longer exhibits any of the hazardous
waste characteristics after it has been mixed with another solid
<-a*te, your waste is no lonier considered hazardous under Subtitle C
cf the F^eral hazardous waste rules (i.e., the still tacttons
voul* not nee-' to be rtelistert under ths Federal hazardous waste
rnl^s). See 40 rrn *&1.3{a)<2)(iii).
OFFICIAL PILE CUP
-------
-2-
Please feel free to call Mr. Matthew A. Straus at (202) 475-8551
if you have any further ouestiona: If you have any specific questions
regarding deliatinq, pleaae contact Mr. Myles Mora* at (202) 382-4782.
Sincerely,
Marcla Milliana. Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED I fES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A'.ENCY
9444.1987(06)
1987
ur ir.r: D<>nearch Fr.crir.'?or
•JP" Inci^stri^s
414 East Third Street
Muscat ir.e, Iowa 52761
Dear Vr. Grosser:
I am responding to your letter dated January 15, 1987
reouestinq an interpretation of the land disposal restriction
regulations as applied to a paint sludne waste. According to
your letter, this waste is created in a water-wall spray
booth which prevents oversprayed paint particles fron being
discharged to the atmosphere.
I concur with your interpretation that this waste is a
manufacturing process waste based on the description of a
manufacturing process waste on page 40697 of FP 51, published
on November 7, 1986.
In regard to your request for a copy of the "BOAT
Background Document for F001-F005 Spent Solvents", this three-
volume set (identified as PB-87-120-259) can be purchased
from NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Their
telephone number is (703) 487-4650. The cost for the set is
$63.00. Also, these documents are available for viewing at
any EPA regional library.
I hop* this information is helpful. If you have additional
guestions, you may call Bd Abrams of my staff at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Robert N. Scarberry
Chief, Listing Section
-------
9444.1987(07)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20480
MAR ^ , OFF.CEOF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
John Skoufis
Laboratory Manager
Anscott Chemical Industries, Inc.
26 Hanes Drive
Wayne, NJ 07470
Dear Mr. Skoufis:
In reference to your letter of December 22, 1986, and your
telephone conversations on Friday, January 16, 1987 and Wednesday,
February 18, 1987 with Mr. Ed Abrams of ny staff, I aa responding
with my clarification on the hazardousness of typical drycleaning
industry waste streams.
As I understand your process, a typical drycleaning facility
generates three aqueous wastes that are contaminated with small *
quantities of perchloroethylene (PCE). These wastes arc generated
from the following three sources:
1. Condensation from PCE recovery during the normal drying
cycle of fabrics .in the drycleaning machine.
2. Condensation from the distillation recovery e>f PCE.
3. Condensation from the steam stripping of PCE from filter
cartridges.
The spent solvent listings apply only to wastes that are
generated when the solvents are used for their solvent properties
(i.e.. to solubilize or mobilize another constituent) and can no
longer be used or reused without reclamation; the spent solvent
listing does not apply to process wastes that may become contaminated
with the solvents during processing or manufacturing. Thus, waste
Ho. 1 above i« not a listed waste under RCRA and would not be subject
to Subtitle C regulations, unless the wastewater exhibited any of the
hazardous" waste characteristics defined under 40 CFR 261.21-261.24
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity). [Please note that on June 13, 1986, the Agency proposed,
among other things, to set a concentration of 0.1 ag/L as the
regulatory level for PCE. Should this rule be finalized as proposed,
waste No. 1 would exhibit the hazardous characteristic of organic
toxicity if the level of PCE exceeded 0.1 mg/L as measured by the
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. (See 51 £B 21648.)]
-------
However, waste Nos. 2 and 3 above are hazardous wastes pursuant
to 40 CFR Ml.3(c) (2) (i) because they are residues derived from the
treatment of F002 hazardous wastes (solvent recovery residues and
residues from the steam stripping of filter cartridges, both
containing PCS). Therefore, these wastes must be managed in
accordance with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
If you require additional information, please feel free to call
Mr. Ed Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely, .
Matthew A. Straus
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.198 7(08
MAR 16867
.'•ir. rhonas r
-------
treatment probably exhibited the characteristic-? of corrosivitv
and £P toxrcity and, as such, were hazardous wastes. However,
according to tne provisions in 40 C?n, 251.3(d)(1), if tre^t^ent
of a characteristic hazardous waste results in a treatment
residual tnat no lonqer RXhioits any of the characteristics
then the treatment residual is not a hazardous waste. Hence,
the waste on Chen-Met*s north prooerty resultinq fro^ li»ne
treatment of spent picule liquor wastes is not a hazardous
waste if it no longer exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
wastes. As such, it can be disposed of in a Subtitle 0
sanitary lanJfill.
I hope this letter adequately addresses your concerns.
If you have any further questions, you can contact me at
(202) 3S2-4770.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline w. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
-tts n,f
W *\>\ 9444.19C7<09)
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 2 5 1987
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. A. Allen Hill
Executive Office of the President
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr.x«ill'r~
Thank you for your February 27, 1987, letter concerning
wastes generated at Continental Can Company's LaCrosse and
Milwaukee plants.
The Agency previously determined that the can washer
sludges meet the definition of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Hazardous Waste No. F019 — wastewater treatment
sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum.
This determination is based upon the belief that the process
used in the can washer system (zirconium phosphatizing) is a
chemical conversion coating process. In fact, Continental
Can Company itself identified the waste from a similar can
washer system at their Olympia, Washington plant as F019 in a
delisting petition submitted to the Agency pursuant to 40 CFR
§§260.20 and 260.22.
Mr. Richard Torrito of Continental Can Company stated
in his February 5, 1987, letter that the can washer sludges
had been incorrectly identified as F019. Specifically,
Mr. Torrito claimed that zirconium phosphatizing is not a
chemical conversion coating process. As a result of subse-
quent telephone conversations between Mr. Torrito and my
staff* Continental Can Company has submitted a detailed
description of their can washer process so that the Agency
can make « determination as to the proper classification
of the waete. Once this determination is made, the Agency
will notify Continental Can Company of its decision.
If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free
to call me.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9444 . 1987 ( 10 )
UNITED STATES EN v IROK...ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
w A5HINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 9B87
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY MESPONS
Mr. Joe Pader
Environmental Affairs
Consultant
P.O. Box 277
Dayton, OH 45401-0277
Dear Mr. Rader:
This letter is a response to your letter of March 13, 1987,
in which you request an interpretation on what "used" and "unused"
formulations mean as applied to the F027 listing.
In the regulations, the word "used" includes formulations
that have been contacted with wood during wood preservation
processes (pressure, vacuum, or non-pressure processes) or surface
protection processes (antisapstain or sapstain control processes).
The word "used" would apply to the material that remains*in the
process vessel after the wood has been treated, and not just to
the material that adheres to the wood, as some people have
interpreted the term.
Also, the formulations do not have to be spent (i.t., t not
capable of being used or reused without being reclaimed or recycled)
to be classified as "used"; even after one treatment, a formulation
is considered to be "used."
In your letter, you also ask if it were possible that one
could open a container of unused pentachlorophenol formulation
and dip a piece of wood into it for the purpose of claiming it as
"used" and, thus, not the listed waste. In this case, the Agency
would consider this to be sham use and the formulation would
still be termed as the listed waste when discarded.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact
Robert Scarberry of my staff; he can be reached at (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely,
Q.
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444. 1987( 1 1)
Mr. Kurt Z. './hitman
Project Coordinator
GW Inc.
Post Office Box A
Saukville, Wisconsin 53080
Dear Hr. Whitnam
This letter responds to your request for clarification on t'i«
applicability of the F001 through F005 hazardous waste listings to
four specific waste streams generated frora the use of virain chemi-
cal formulations and whether these wastes are subject to the
November 7, 1936, land disposal restrictions final rule. I
apologize for the long delay in responding to your correspondence.
Each of the scenarios presented in your letter is restated
below an.1 followed by an appropriate response which provides
clarification on whether these wastes are covered by the s^nt
solvent listings (i.e. , EPA Hazardous Waste Hos. F001, F002, FOD3,
F004, and F005).
Exanple $1 - "A paint reroover consisting of 55% Methylcne Chloride,
15% Phenol and 30% Sodium Chrosatec This r»tert*l
is an outdated, virgin product. GW , Inc. , assirrne^
a CPA hazardous waste of D002 onlyP'
— According to the above description, the waste strewn is an
outdated, virgin product and has not been utilised as a paint
rsnover. As such, the solvent was not used for its solvent
properties, and therefore, is not covered by the F001-F005 spent
solvent listings. If this waste stream exhibits the characteristic
of corrosivity, it would be appropriately classified under EPA
Hazardous Waste Number D002.
The spent solvent listings include only those wastes
as a result of a solvent being used for ita solvent properties,
that is, its ability to solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other
constituents (e.g., solvents used in decreasing, cleaninn, fabric
scouring; as diluents, extract ants, reaction and synthesis melia)
Furthermore, the listing only applies to solvents that are con-
sidered spent (i.e., solvents t-hat have been used and ar«» no
longer fit for use without beinct regenerated, reclaimed, or
otherwise reprocessed).
•u.*. an . ni5~»»7-isj
-------
Example f 2 - "A paint stripper consistiiw of 15% Toluene,
Methylene Chloride, 10% Phenols, 20% Kerosane and
20% Paint Sludge. Analytical results show that
this is an ignitable waste (D001)."
— It appears, based on the information provided in your letter,
that the virgin paint stripper was used for its solvent properties
(i.e., to solubilize paint). The resultant waste stream prbhablv
constitutes a spent solvent mixture covered under the F001-F005
hazardous waste listings, however, this deter&ination depends on
the concentration of the F001-F005 constituents in the paint
stripper before use (see the enclosed FEDERAL RSniSTEH notice for
the solvent mixture rule). Since the waste streao contains
greater than 10% of the solvents listed in F001, F002, F004 or
F005, the virgin paint stripper also probably contained a total
of 10% or more of these solvents. If so, this waste stream
meets the criteria for an F001-F005 spent solvent mixture/blend
and would be subject to the land disposal restrictions.
Example $3 - "Spent paint waste formulation of 30% Alkvd Enanel
Resin, 15% Chromium and Lead Pigments, 20% Toluene,
5% Xylene and 30% unknown solids. The EPA hazardous
waste codes for this sludge are D007, DOOQ and D001."
— The spent solvent listings do not cover manufacturing process
wastes contaminated with solvents when the solvents were used as
reactants or ingredients in the formulation of coonercial chemical
products. Therefore, the waste solvent-based paint formulation
described in your letter is not within the scope of the F001-F005
spent solvent listings.
Example 14 - "Spill Residue consisting of 951 Clay (Oil Zorb) and
Dirt, and 15% 1,1,1 Trichloroethane. The EPA waste
code is F002 for this waste stream.*
— Proper classification of this waste stream requires knowledge
of the regulatory status of the 1,1,1-trichloroethane prior to
its being spilled. If the 1,1,1-trichloroethane was a discarded
commercial chemical product* manufacturing chemical intermediate,
orvoff-specification commercial chemical product, the spill residue
should be classified as U226. As such, this waste is not subject
to the Novssfcer 7, 1986 final rule.
If howsvsr, the 1,1,1-trichloroethane was a spent solvent
prior to its b«ing spilled, the entire waste stream would be
classified as a listed spent solvent (EPA Hazardous Waste So.
P002). In this case, the spill residue would be considered a
hazardous waste because it contains an F002 solvent. This waste
stream would be subject to the prohibitions on land disposal of
spent solvent wastes.
-------
Z hope this information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at (202)
475-6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline V, Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
enclosure
-------
9444. 1987(12)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOV.IO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
"K. Seller
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
7272 Cleanwater Lane, LU-11
Olympia, Washington 98504-6811
Dear Ms. Seiler:
I recently received your letter of February 26, 1987, in which
you requested clarification as to whether excavated soils,
contaminated with 2,4,5-T, Simazine, 2,4-D, Dicanbia, and Bromacil,
are F027 wastes. The site in question was a county public wor)cs yard
where a pesticide product was mixed with water as a carrier, prior to
application on the county roadsides. Contamination occurred from
spillage of both unused and used pesticide solutions.
The F027 listing designates, as acute hazardous waste (H),
formulations containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorphenol or
discarded unused formulations containing compounds derived from these
chlorophenols. Whether the contaminated soil contains a listed
hazardous waste is dependent on: (a) whether the 2,4,5-T got onto
the soil through the use of the chemical or by being discarded, and
(b) whether the 2,4,5-T was in fact a discarded formulation as stated
in Sec.261.31.
Soil, which is contaminated with unused 2,4,5-T, that had been
discarded, would contain a listed hazardous wast*, namely F027. This
contaminated soil, which contains a hazardous waste, is therefore
subject to the Subtitle C regulations.
Soils, which are contaminated with 2,4,5-T, an a function of its
use, would not be considered to contain a hazardous waste. These
contaminated soils may, however, be hazardous if they are excavated
to be discarded, and if they meet the hazardous waste
characteristics, i.e.. if the EP leachate concentration exceeds the
levels specified in Sec.261.24(b).
-------
To ay knowledge, there are currently no commercial treatment or
disposal facilities permitted to accept listed dioxin vastes. You
also questioned whether any treatment standards have been established
for dioxin wastes. According to 40 CFR 264.343, incinerators burning
hazardous wastes F020-F023, F026, and F027 must achieve a destruction
and removal efficiency of 99.9999% for each principal organic
hazardous constituent specified in its permit. Effective Nov. 8,
1988, these same wastes are restricted from land disposal if an
extract of the waste or the treatment residual of the waste (using
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)) is equal to or
greater than 1 ppb of dioxin.
Please feel free to call Doreen Sterling/ of my staff, at
202-475-6775, if you have any further questions.
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9444.1987(13)
r
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPON
Hflf 5 I93T
Mr. William C. Duncan
Vice President
Compliance Recycling Industries
8200 S. Akron, Suite 112
Englewood, CO 80112
Dear Mr. Duncan:
As requested in our telephone conversation on April 15, 1987, and in your
letter of the same date, I am responding to your request for the Agency's
interpretation (as it applies to RCRA regulations) of your process for the
treatment of electroplating rinse water.
My understanding of your process is that only rinse vater is fed to a
tank near the electroplating line. The rinse vater is then pumped through a
filter to a "compliance module" that contains anionic and cationic ion
exchange resins which remove metals, chromates, and cyanide. The water
exiting the module is deionized and can be recycled back, as rinse water, or
sent to disposal. Also, you have determined that neither the treated rinse
water nor the spent ion exchange resin exhibits any of the hazardous waste
characteristics.
First, I must apologize if I misled you during our telephone
conversation. I have discussed your process with others at the Agency, and
have determined that your Ion exchange resins (containing the cations and
anions removed from the rinse water) and the filter from the transfer module
fit the definition of a sludge (see 40 CPR 260.10). Therefore, th& used
resins and filter are P006 hazardous wastes, even if they do not exhibit any
of the hazardous waste characteristics. Thus, it will be necessary for the
electroplaters to comply with the generator requirements, Including
manifesting the shipment of these cannisters to your regeneration facility.
Because your regeneration is a recycling activity, you will not require a
permit, unless you store the cannisters for any length of time before you
process them.
Also, any wastes generated during your ion exchange resin regeneration
process would also be considered as P006 wastes via the derived- from rule,
with the exception of the recovered metal that you sell as a product.
I hop* that I have answered your questions satisfactorily. If you
require additional Information, please feel free to contact me at (202)
382-4787.
Sincerely,
Edwin P. Atarams
Chemical Engineer
-------
9444.1987(14)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENOi
WASKtWGTON, D.C. 20460
8 Q87 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Michael Sanderson, Chief
RCRA Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Dear Mr. Sanderson:
This letter is in response to your April 20, 1987 memo
regarding certain wastes generated at Everco Industries' Ottumwa,
Iowa plant. Specifically, you requested an interpretation ac to
whether wastewater treatment sludges generated at their plant
meets the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.
We have reviewed the description of Everco's procesee? and
agree that the wastewater treatment sludge does not meet the defi-
nition of F006. The non-cyanide zinc plating process ie epecfically
excluded from the listing as "zinc plating (searegated basis) on
carbon steel." Likewise the coating processes, both before and
after the process change, are not within the scope of the listing
as explained in the December 2, 1986 Interpretive Rulec It is
also noted that the cleaning and stripping operations »re also
specifically excluded from this Xi.etinq &s "cleaning/stripping
associated with tin, zinc,, and &Au«iiiUK platinc- on carbon steel."
Thus, the waste would only be considered har.crdous if it exhibits
any of the Subpart C hazardous waste characteristic.
Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation,
please contact me, or David Topping of my staff, at FTS 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Stre,us, Chief
Waste CharacteriK&tion Branch
-------
J"x
9444.1987(15)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
18Q8T
Mr. Dennis M. Burchett
V.P. Regulatory Affairs
Clean Crop
419 18th Street
1286
Colorado
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RES'
P.O. Box
Greeley,
80632
Dear Mr. Burchett
This is in response to your inquiry of April 2 1, 1987. From
information in your letter and fro« your phone conversation of May
8, 1987, with Mike Petruska of ay staff, we have concluded that
your spent carbon contains the listed hazardous waste Phorate
(P094). Therefore, the contaminated carbon ic tubject to the
hazardous vaste regulations. In particular, your company must
comply vith the hazardous waste generator requirements, including
compliance with the manifest. See 40 CFR 261.£(b). \n addition,
the facility that regenerates the carbon must &l$o comply with
the appropriate hazardous waste rules. See 40 OFS. 261.6(c)
The reasoning behind this determination ie *•.£ follows:
'The packaging of the finished Phorate pr^i^et releases Phorate
to the air. In effect, Phorate is being "discarded;"
"EPA regulations at 40 CFR S261.33 identify certain commercial
chemical products (among them Phorate) as hazardous waste
when they are discarded;
8EPA continues to regulate a listed waste even when it is
contained in another material, i.e., In this case the spent
carbon.
The first point above, concerning the Phorate being discarded,
is critical to your situation. Even though you capture the Phorate
release* to the air in carbon scrubbers and send the spent carbon
for regeneration, the Phorate contained in the carbon is not
recovered but rather is destroyed during carbon regeneration.
This leada ua to conclude that you are discarding Phorate. You
-------
-2-
should note, however, that if you were reclaiming or reusing the
Phorate, your regulatory situation would be different. In this
case, the Phorate would not be solid waste, and so would not be
hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR §261.2.)
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike Petrusk;
of ray staff at (202) 382-4765.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
cc: Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
-------
9444. 198 7(16)
HUT 20 887
Ms. Karen S. Thirman
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Ms. Thirman:
I am responding to your letter of April 30, 1987, requesting
the Agency's interpretation of the hazardous waste classification
of an etching process waste. Specifically, you ask whether the
process described in your letter generates a listad hazardous
waste.
In reviewing your letter, we believe that th* process
described is considered to be a stripping process that employs
cyanide chemicals, and the waste stream generated is EPA.
Hazardous Waste No. F009, "spent stripping and cleaning bath
solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used
in the process". This point is substantiated in reviewing the
listing background document for "Spent Waste Cyanide Solutions
and Sludges", covering EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F007, FQ08, and
F009, where it specifically states (on page 7) that chemical
etching is part of the listing.
If you require additional information, please feel free to
contact Ed Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444. 1987(17)
MAY 20 1951
Mr. Stephen J. Evans
Environmental Engineer
Modine Manufacturing Company
1500 De Koven Avenue
Racine, Wisconsin 53401
Dear Mr. Evans:
This is in response to your letter of March 30, 19P7, in which
you request guidance as to the proper classification of waste paint
sludge and whether these wastes are subject to the Koveirber 7, l^a*,
land disposal restrictions rule. Specifically, you referred to naint
sludge waste resulting from painting operations where the paint has
been thinned with petroleum nantha solvent. Furthermore, you indi-
cated that the virgin petroleum nantha solvent contains certain
solvent constituents that are also included under the F001-FOO*
spent solvent listings (e.g., xylene and toluene).
Each of the questions raised in your letter is rest«t*<* below
and followed by the appropriate response'*
1. Can we continue to classify the paint sludge as e D007 waste or
must we classify it as an FO03 waste?
In order for a waste to meet the criteria of trw spent solvent
listings (i.e., EPA Hazardous Waste Mos. F001, F002, F003, F004,
and F005), the waste must be generated as the result of a solvent
being used for its "solvent" properties, that is, its ability to
solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents (e.o., solvents
used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring; as diluents,
extractants, reaction and synthesis media). Process wastes containing
solvents where the solvent is an ingredient in the formulation of
a product are not covered by the spent solvent listings. Thus,
paints containing solvents as an ingredient are not covered under
the solvent listings. In the painting process scenario you
described, the addition of petroleum naptha solvent to a paint
product constitutes the formulation of a modified paint product.
The Agency does not recognize a distinction between paints that
contain solvents and paint where solvents have been added.
-------
Therefore, thinned paint (as described in your letter) that is
later discarded as a waste or paint sludge resulting from the
use of the thinned paint would not be covered under the F001-P005
spent solvent listings. If the extract from a representative
sample of the paint sludge exceeds the maximum concentration of
chromium for the characteristic of FP Toxicity (40 CPP. 261.24),
the waste would be appropriately classified under EPA Hazardous
Waste Number D007.
2. If virgin xylene were used in lieu of petroleum naptha to thin
the paint, is the paint sludge that results an POOS waste (>1*
xylene by weight in paint sludge)?
Regardless of whether the solvent is virgin xylene or petroleum
naptha, the solvents are used as ingredients in the formulation
of the paint. As such, the resultant paint sludge would not meet
the criteria for an P003 spent solvent waste (refer to the response
to question No. 1).
3. If waste or reclaimed xylene were used in lieu of petroleum
naptha to thin the paint, is the paint sludge that results an
F003 waste (>1% xylene in paint sludge)?
No. The paint sludge that results would not be properly
classified as an P003 spent solvent waste (refer to the resnonse
to question No. 1).
4. If xylene were used to clean the spray guns (the solvent/paint
sprayed onto the water wall), would the paint sludge then become
an F003 waste (>1% xylene in paint sludge)?
Using xylene to clean the spray guns constitutes use for
its solvent properties because the xylene solubilizes (dissolves)
other constituents (i.e., paint). As such, spent xylene that
is generated from this cleaning practice would be covered by the
spent solvent listings, specifically Hazardous Waste No. POO 3.
Furthermore, in cases where the spent xylene that results from
cleaning spray guns (an POO 3 waste) is mixed with paint sludge
produced from the painting scenarios described under questions
1, 2, and 3, the resultant waste stream would be considered
an F003 waste (in accordance with the 'mixture rule", 40 CF* 261.3
5. It petroleum naptha and xylene were used to thin the paint
(and the resulting mixture contained >10% xylene by volume),
is the paint sludge that results an P003 waste?
As mentioned above, paint sludge resulting from the oversnrav
of thinned paint does not meet the criteria for an F003 waste, since
the solvents (in this case, petroleum naptha and xylene) are
ingredient* in the formulation of the paint. Thus, the solvent
mixture rule does not apply (see 50 F*» 53315, December 31, 19P5).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTS PROTECTION AGENCY
6. If the paint sludge that results is properlv classified a? an
F003 waste (because it contains >1% xylene), and it is processed
using a distilling device that removes all of the solvent and
water from the paint sludge, is the resultino 'cooked1 slu^ou
an F003 waste even though it no longer contains solvent? If so,
can it be delisted? If the 'cooked1 cludge meets the solvent
treatment standard of 0.15 mg/1 for xylene, can it be landfilled?
In accordance with the "derived from rule" (40 CT* ?61.3(c)(2)),
the residue from treatment of a hazardous waste remains a hazardous
waste. Thus, assuming the waste stream is properly identified as
an F003 spent solvent waste, the "cooVed" sludge resulting from
distillation of this material remains an P003 hazardous waste and is
subject to the applicable land disposal prohibition reauirements
unless delisted according to th« orevisions, or rendered non-har.ardous
(see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)). It should be noted that the deli*tino
procedures require that the petitions address all factors that may
cause the waste to be hazardous, not only those for which the waste
was originally listed.
Where restricted wastes and the concentrations of their
associated hazardous constituents meet the applicable treatment
standards, the wastes may be disposed of in a Subtitle C facility.
Therefore, if the "cooked" sludge meets the treatment standard
established for xylene and does not exceed the treatment standards
for any other restricted waste constituents* it may be placed in
a hazardous waste land disposal facility.
7. If the water wall and associated tank were removed and replaced
with dry filters, and paint containing >10% by volume of xvlene
was aoplied to the product, would the waste oaint filters be
classified as an F003 waste? If the waste paint filters
contained 0.15 mg/1 xylene, would they be classified as an
F003 waste?
The waste paint filters described in this scenario would not
be properly classified as an F003 waste since the paint residuals
would not constitute a spent solvent (refer to the response to
question Ho. 1).
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at (?P?)
475-6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Jacoueline w. Sales, Chief
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT^ PRC 'ECTiON AGENCY
9444.19C7{18)
Mr. Frank Czigler
Environmental Department
S 6, w Waste Inc.
115 Jacobus Avenue
South Kearny, New Jersey 07032
Dear Mr. Czigleri
This letter responds to your request for assistance on
identifying whether certain solvents are covered under the F001
through F005 hazardous waste listings, and for clarification
on the applicability of the land disposal restrictions final
rule (51 FR 40572, November 7, 1986). I apologize for the
delay in responding to your correspondence. After the new
regulations were promulgated the Agency received numerous
requests for guidance.
Each of the questions raised in your letter is restated
below and followed by the appropriate response.
1. "Since the December 31, 1985 definition of the EP& waste
types F001 through F005, the following solvents have been
added to the listing but are not listed in table CCWE-
COHSTITUENT IN WASTE EXTRACT (F.R./Vbl.51, No. 216/11-7-
86/Page 40642)t
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2-Etho xyethano1
2-Nitropropane
Benzene
If these solvents are to be included in the Hat of
wastes restricted from land disposal, what maximum
concentrations in waste extract are the treatment
standards) expressed as?"
— The November 7, 1986 final rule does not include treatment
standards for these four newly listed F001 throuoh F005 spent
solvents. Provisions under RCRA section 3004(g)(4) require
the Agency to make a determination within 6 months whether to
subject newly listed hazardous wastes to the land discos*!
prohibitions. However, the statute does not impose an
automatic prohibition if the Agency misses the deadline.
EPA expects to make land di8poapa4un8e
-------
pertaining to these solvent wastes in association with the
scheduled listed wastes (51 FR 19300, May 28, 1986).
2. 'Are wastes generated by laboratories as a result of
analytical and research work, where the listed solvents
are used for their solvent properties, (e.g., solvents
used in liquid chromatography, rinsing paraffin off tissue
culture slides, in ion exchange columns, in layer separation,
in distillation, as final step of organic synthesis, in
re-crystallization, etc.) regulated?*
Yes. Under the approach promulgated in the final rule,
F001-F005 listed solvents are subject to the land disposal
restrictions. If an analytical or research laboratory generates
these restricted wastes, the wastes Bust be managed in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 268. In order for a solvent
waste to be covered by the F001-F005 spent solvent listings
the waste must be generated as a result of the solvent being
used for its "solvent" properties, that is, its ability to
solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents (e.g.
solvents used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring; as
diluents, extractants, reaction and synthesis media).
In the case of solvent Mixtures, the mixture must contain,
before use, a total of ten percent or more (by volume) of one
or more of the solvents listed in P001, F002, F004, or F005.
Wastes that meet these criteria are covered by the spent
solvent listings and as such, are subject to the November 7, 1936
final rule*
3. "Are rags contaminated with listed solvents that were
used for their solvent properties (e.g., in clean-up
work) excluded from F001 through F005 listing an^/or
the November 8th regulations? This same question
was posed to the RCRA-Hot Line, and the following answer
was received!
"If the solvents are poured onto the surface to be cleaned,
then the contaminated rags used in the clean-up fall into
the FOOl through F005 listing. If the solvents are poured
onto the. rag* that are to be used in the clean-up, then
the resultant dirty rags DO NOT fall into the FOOl through
F005 listing."
— Technically, the interpretation of the regulations that you
received from the RCRA Hotline is correct. The F001-F005
solvent listing includes certain halogenated and non-hmlogenatert
solvents when spent. A solvent is considered spent when it
has been used and is no longer fit for use without being re-
generated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed* Therefore, when
solvents are applied to a surface or machinery (and used
for their solvent properties), then cleaned-off with rags, the
solvents are spent and the contaminated rags are covered bv the
-------
F001-F005 listing. When solvents are applied directly to a
prior to use, the solvent at that tine is not scent and the
rags are not covered by the spent solvent listino.
As a practical natter, however, in each of these scenarios,
the contaminated rags would be basically identical in constituent
make-up and would pose similar hazards. Further sore, land
disposal facilities (which are ultimately responsible for veri-
fying that only wastes meeting the treatment standards are land
disposed) would not be able to distinguish between rarrs used to
cleanup spent solvents from other rags contaminated with solvent.
As a result, these facilities Bay choose not to accept raqs con-
taminated with solvents unless they meet the treatment standards.
In light of these considerations, we recommend that any raos
contaminated with listed solvents be managed as hazardous wastes.
4. "Are dry cleaning filters used to separate solid *ines out
of the F001 through POOS listed solvents exempted?"
— No. If F001 through F005 listed solvents are treated usino
dry cleaning filters to separate out solid fines, the resultant
waste filters are also F001-F005 hazardous waste. In accordance
with the "derived from" rule (40 CFR 261.3(c) (2) (i)), any solid
waste generated from treatment, storage, or disposal of a* hazardous
waste is a hazardous waste* Thus, used filters from the treatment
of spent solvents is designated as an F001-F005 waste and is
subject to the land disposal restrictions.
5. "Does the process of thinning a paint for its subsequent
use in the painting of a surface remove the paint from
a non-FOOl through F005 category (as beinq a commercial
product) to being an F001 through F005 wast* (due to
solvent having been used as a diluent) if a part of the
thinned paint is later disposed of as a waste?*
-- Process wastes containing solvents Where the solvent is an
ingredient in the formulation of a product are not covered by
the spent solvent listings* In this specific case, the addition
of solvent to a paint product constitutes the formulation of. a
modified paint product, The Agency does not recoemize a
distinction between paints that contain -solvents and paint Where
solvents have/ been added* Therefore, thinned paint (as described
in the above ease) that is later discarded as a waste would not
be covered under the F001-F005 spent solvent listings.
6. "Meed clarification regarding the F003 solvent listings
(a) Are we to understand the phrase, "...All spent solvent
mixtures/blends containing, before use, ONLY the above
spent non-halogenated solvents..." as listed under
the F003 hazardous waste number listing (In F.R./Vnl.
-------
50, No.251/Tuesday 12-31-85/Page 53319) to wean that
the solvent mixture must consist (before use) 100% of
one or more of the non-halogenated solvents (as listed
in F.R. under P003 listing). In other words, if there
is any non—FOP3 solvent, (i.e., ethanol, mineral spirits),
or other contaminant (i.e., water, oil, etc.) in the
solvent mixture/blend (before use), then the waste
effluent of the process would not fall under the F003
listing."
— In order for a waste to meet the criteria of an F003 soent
solvent mixture/blend it must include, before use, only
solvent constituents listed under the F003 hazardous waste co'le,
or must contain, before use, one or more of the F003 non-
halogenated solvents and a total of ten percent or more of solvent
constituents covered under Hazardous Waste numbers F001, FOO?,
F004, and F005. Therefore, as you correctly stated, if the
solvent mixture/blend contains (before use) other solvents such
as ethanol, or mineral spirits, the spent solvent would not be
considered a listed waste, in particular an F003 waste. However,
the Agency does not intend to exclude such mixture from regulation
where non-F003 constituents are present as contaminants in the
virgin products.
(b) "As we understand it, if a solvent mixture/blend in*used
for its solvent properties (e.g., in cleaning out a reactor)
and it is made up (before use) of less than 10 percent
F001, P002, P004, and POOS solvent constituents and areater
than 90 percent but less than 100 percent P003 listed
solvent(s), then the resultant waste does not fall into
any of the F001 through POOS hazardous waste lietina(n).
Is the above a correctly interpreted example?"
— Your interpretation of the solvent mixture provisions as
they apply to the scenario described in the above question is
correct. If a solvent mixture/blend (before use) contains
F003 listed solvents and PO01, F002, P004, and F005 solvent
constituents, it would not constitute a listed hazardous waste
(unless the total of all P001, POO2, FO04, and POOS constituent*
meet the t«n percent threshold). Although such waste streams are
not listed wastes, these solvents may be regulated under prrjk if
they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste (i.e., corrosivity, ignitability, TIP toxicity or reactivity)
(c) "An often asked guestion by our clients is described in
the following example. Please indicate whether it exhibits
a correct interpretation of the P001 characteristic waste
type in light of the newly defined P003 listing.
A batch reactor vessel is used in a production process.
After each batch, the reactor must be thoroughlv
cleaned out with pure xvlene. As a resource recoverv/
conservation measure, the clean-out effluent ("con-
taminated xylene") is regenerated by distillation. The
-------
regenerated xylene IB re-used as reactor cleaning stocV;
and the still bottoms residue must be disposed of as a
hazardous waste, classified as EPA WASTE TYPE D001
according to the generator, since it exhibits
characteristics of EPA-ignitability."
-- According to the information provided in your example, the
xylene is used solely for the purpose of cleaning out the batch
reactor vessel and is not a reactant or ingredient in a production
process. As such, the pure xylene has been used for its solvent
properties and would be considered an F003 spent solvent when it
can no longer be used without further processing. Still bottoms
generated from the distillation of the spent xylene also would he
designated as an P003 solvent waste in accordance with the listino
description, not as EPA Hazardous Waste No. DO01.
7. "RCPA Hot-Line gave us the following example. Are they
correct?"
(a) "A paint reactor is cleaned out between batches with 100
percent xylene. The resulting solution is pumped into
a holding tank in which the solids settle out. According
to the RCRA Rot-Line, the solids do not fall into any
of the F001 through F005 waste listings because the xylene
is still considered 100 percent technical grade and is
to be re-used after the solids are removed, if the hotter*
sludge/solids are found to exhibit characteristics of EPA-
ignitability would they be correctly classified as D001
waste? When is the xylene considered contaminated or spent?
If it is considered contaminated after the first "wash out",
and used for subsequent washes, should the resultant sludge
be classified as an F001 through F005 listed waste or a
D001 characteristic waste?"
— The example described above is an incorrect interpretation
of the F001-F005 spent solvent listing. Regardless of whether
the bottom sludge/solids removed from the holding tank exhibit
the characteristic of ignitability, such wastes would be incor-
rectly classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. D001. The pure
xylene would become "contaminated" when it comes in contact with
the paint or other imparities. Therefore* the xylene would be
considered contaminated after its use during the first "wash-out"
of the paint reactor. As mentioned in earlier responses, such
solvents would be considered spent when they are no longer used
without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed.
Thus, the contaminated xylene placed into the holding tank would
constitute an F001-F005 "spent" solvent because the xylene is
regenerated by allowing the solids to settle out. The bottom
sludge/solids accumulated and removed from the settling unit
also would constitute an F001-FOO* listed waste based on the
"derived from" rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).
-------
(b) "If the tank is washed with a mixture of 90 percent
xylene 10 percent mineral spirits, is the resultino
sludge an F001 through F005 listed waste?"
If the solvent mixture/blend used to clean out the paint
reactor contained, before use, 90 percent xylene and 10 percent
mineral spirits, the spent solvent waste would not meet the
criteria of a listed hazardous waste (on the basis described
above under question 6(a)). The resulting bottom sludqe/solids
would be correctly classified as a D001 hazardous waste if they
exhibit the characteristic of iqnitabilitv.
8. "As specified in 40 CFR 261.32, "...solvent washes and slu^oes
..." resulting from ink formulation are properly classified as
EPA waste type K086. Does this K0fl6 classification hold true
in light of the most recent definition of the P001 throuoh
F005 hazardous waste listings? If a waste meets both waste
category requirements, that of a waste from a specific source
and also that of an F001 through F005 - non specific source,
which waste classification takes precedence?"
— In cases where tubs and equipment used in ink formulation
are washed by solvents, and the solvents used in the washes are
included under the F001-F005 listings, the resultant solvent-
wash wastes are considered hazardous wastes under the applicable
spent solvent listings, as well as, the KOR6 listing (as indicated
in the January 12, 1981, Background Document). Such wastes must
be managed in accordance with the RCRA regulations applicable to
both waste classifications. In consideration of the November 7,
1986, final rule, these solvent-wash wastes would be subject to
the prohibitions and would be required to meet the applicable
treatment standards prior to disposal in a Subtitle C facility.
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at (202)
475-6715, if you have further questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline V. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
9444.1987(19)
o"'^S"
UNITED STATE h £'•) V!~GNVEN7>'.L PROTECTION AGENC\
/.'•• '-!•• •'•5T-: N L' >." ?.Ci60
22W
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPON:
Mr. Edqar R. Santiago
Environmental & Safety Engineering
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company
750 Warrenville Road
Lisle, IL 60532
Dear Mr. Santiago:
This letter is in response to your April 27, 1987 letter
regarding the December 2, 1986 Interpretive Rule on EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006. Specifically, you reguested an interpretation
related to the inclusion of cleaning and stripping operations in
that listing.
At line 10 of the first full paragraph on page 43351 of the
Interpretive Rule, the F006 listing is said to include wastewater
treatment sludges from "... cleaning and stripping when associated
with electroplating operations (i.e., common and precious metals
electroplating, anodizing, and chemical etching and milling).
In your letter, you imply that certain printing industry
processes are not included in the F006 listing because they were
exempted from the Effluent Guidelines Divisions' requirements
for pretreatment standards for the electroplating point source
category. We disagree with your interpretation. Neither the
F006 listing background document, nor the August 1979 Development
Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the
Electroplating Point Soruce Category referenced therein, exclude
the printing industry from the definition of electroplating
operations. That is, while the Office of Water may have elected
not to require the printing industry to meet the electroplating
pretreatMnt standards, that action does not exclude from the
F006 listing any electroplating wastewater treatment sludges
that may b« generated by the printing industry.
Finally, you inquired as to the status of EPA's action on the
trivalent vs. hexavalent chromium issue. Comments were received
on this issue in the Agency's proposed Organic Toxicity Characteristic
-------
-2-
(see 51 FR 21643, June 13, 1986). This issue will be addressed
as part oT that rulemaking.
Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation,
please contact ne, or David Topping of my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Charactieation Branch
-------
9444.1987(20)
Zelda Curtis*
Pennsylvania Department of
environmental Resources
Office of Chief Counsel
1303 Highland Building
121 South Highland Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15206-3988
Dear Ms. Curtisst
After careful review of your letter of April 24 and the
supporting documentation in Don Zimmer's letter of Hay 7, we agree
with your determination on Hitco's API Separator Sludge. The
waste is not generated at a facility encompassed by the original
listing. Thus, it is not K051.
Nevertheless, it is important to keep in .aind that some of
the wastes generated by the facility nay meet one, or more, of
tne hazardous waste characteristics. Additionally, for future
reference, I also should clarify the types of facilities whicn we
consider to be included in the listing.
The petroleum refineries encompassed oy the existing listing
are not restricted to facilities that process crude oil. Generally,
the refineries covered are all facilities in SIC 2911 who pertora
distillation of crude oil and/or unfinished petroleua derivatives.
Witco does not distill the neutral distillates and does not produce
motor or heating fuels. Consequently, they are not in the listed
industry.
-------
-2-
Hop«fully, this l*tt*r will s«rv* to clarify th* scop* of
th* r*fin«ry listing*. Do not hcsitat* to contact B*n Smith of
my staff at (202) 382-4791, if you r«quirs any additional infori
tion.
Sincsraly,
Matth«w \. Straus, Chi«f
Wast* Characterization Branch
ccs Dir., WMD, K*gion» I-X
-------
9444.1987(22)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 204«0
JUN 2 4 (98T 0fflce Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Richard Torrito
Continental Can Company, Inc.
800 Connecticut Avenue
P.O. Box 5410
Norwalk, CT 06856
Dear Mr. Torrito:
This letter is in response to your February 5, 1987 inquiry
regarding the regulatory status of certain wastes generated at
Continental Can Company's La Crosse and Milwaukee, Wisconsin
plants. Specifically, you requested an interpretation as to
whether the sludge generated from wastewater treatment processes
associated with the can washers at these plants is a hazardous
waste within the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019--
wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating
of aluminum.
We have carefully reviewed the attachment to your February 5
letter (i.e., the January 9, 1987 letter from Lester Steinbrecher
of Amchem Products to you), as well as Mr. Steinbrecher's
February 27, 1987 letter to David Topping of the Waste Character-
ization Branch. In those letters, it was asserted that the use
of Amchem's surface conditioners for the treatment of two-piece
aluminum cans does not constitute a chemical conversion coating
process. We disagree with that interpretation foe the reasons
explained below.
In the background listing document for F019, conversion
coatings are described as "processes (that) apply a coating to
the previously deposited or basis metal for increased corrosion
protection, lubricity, preparation of the surface for additional
coatings or formulation of a special surface appearance. This
manufacturing operation includes chromating, phosphating, metal
coloring* -and immersion plating.* The Agency believes that the
use of a zirconium phosphating process to inhibit corrosion of
the aluminum surface is within the scope of this definition.
-------
-2-
Several of the statements in the Arachem letters indicate
that the process is not chemical conversion coating because the
process does not impart a crystalline coating. While the listing
background document does refer to crystalline phosphate coatings,
it was not the Agency's intention to restrict the listing to apply
only to crystalline coatings. Further, the broader definition
(to include both crystalline and amorphous coatings) is supported
by other (non-EPA) definitions of conversion coating.
For example, Chemical and Process Technology Encyclopedia
(McGraw-Hill, 1974) states that "conversion coatings are formed
chemically by causing the surface of the metal to be "converted"
into a tightly adherent amorphous or crystalline coating part or
all of which consists of an oxidized form of the substrate metal."
Also, in Standard B 374-80, ASTM defines conversion coating as Ha
process produced by chemical or electrical treatment of a metallic
surface that gives a superficial layer containing a compound of
the metal." Thus, ASTM does not restrict the definition to crystal-
line coatings.
The fact that the can washing process is within the commonly
understood definition of chemical conversion coating is also
supported by the identification of that process as chemical
conversion coating in Continental Can Company's delisting petition
for the Olympia, Washington plant. In that petition, the fourth
stage of the can washing process is described as follows: "The
function of Stage 4 is to apply a chemical conversion coating to
the can which inhibits corrosion, brightens the can surface, and
provides an improved base for the application of organic coating
lacquers." Also, the zirconium phosphating process is described
as chemical converison coating in a rulemaXing petition filed
jointly by Reynolds Metals Company and Wilier Brewing Company.
(That petition, recently withdrawn, was to modify the F019 listing
to exclude sludges from "...the phosphate conversion coating of
two-piece aluminum beverage cans.")
Finally, in a telephone conversation with Matthew Straus of
the Waste Characterization Branch, you cited the Office of Water's
November 17, 1983 regulation related to the can-making industry
(see 48 PR 52,399). in that regulation, it was stated that the
sludges Trom the pretreatment standards was believed to be
-------
-3-
nonhazardous. That statement refers to sludges that have been
treated. That is, it was the Agency's opinion that the waste-
water treatment sludge could be treated to render them nonhazardous
(i^_?_._, the treated sludge could likely be delisted).
For these reasons, we have concluded that the wastewater
treatment sludges associated with the can washers at the La Crosse
and Milwaukee plants meet the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F019. Should you have any questions regarding this interpreta-
tion, please contact Mr. Matthew Straus, Chief, Waste Characteri-
zation Branch at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
./ ' '' I
Marci/a tfillians
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UHifcU STATES ENVIRONMEHTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1987 (23)
3 0 |ScT
Mr. Robert Williams
General Motors Corporation
Fisher Guide Division
200 Georges vl lie Road
Columbus, OH 43228-0512
Dear Mr. Williams:
The Assistance Branch has reviewed your Jetter datad
February 27, 1987 regarding the EPA's clarification of the
6«.-op-» of EPA ,V.*zardous V.'aste No. P006. This waste was the
Bucket of your aeiiBCiT^ petition 10177. We- acknowledge j'our
description of the major processes at your p.Xant, including:
1. Zinc plating on carbon steel on a segregated
2. Mechanical or electroless zinc plating
3. Sulfuric acid anodizing on aluminum
4. Phosphating on steel.
Both zinc plating on carbon steel on a segregated bassiji and
sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum were listed as exertions
from the original F006 listing in November 198.\« On December 2,
1986, a clarification of the FU06 listing was published (51 FR
43350-43351) which specifically exempted electroless zinc
plating and phosphating on steel. Therefore, «« believe that
your wastewater treatment sludge is not included in the scope
of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.
Although your wastewater treatment sludge is not an EPA
listed waste/ you are still required to determine whether the
waste exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes
as defined fey 40 CPU f 261.21-261.24.
-------
Please contact Mr. Scott Maid, of my staff, at (202) 382-4783
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
X.B / Signed
Suzanne Rudzinski, Chief
Assistance Branch
ccs Alan Debus, Reg. V
William Munor Reg. V
Matthew Straus, BQ
-------
9444. 1987( 26 )
JUL 2 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTt Clarification of Federal Policy Regarding
Dioxin Disposal
FROMt Marcia Williams, Director °''2;-2i /*"•;;. by-
Office of Solid Waste M^cia E. Williams
TO i Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Wast« Management Division
Region II
Zn your memo dated May 20* 1987, you requested our &seistance
in developing a definitive statement to address certain public
concerns over EPA's regulation of di ox in-containing wastaa. speci-
fically, you requested our assistance in drafting a proposed
response to a letter fro* Mew York State Senator John
First, Z would like to clarify the Federal regulations with
regard to the disposal of dioxin and dioxin-contaainatexS material.
On January 14, 1985 (50 FR 1978), EPA amended the regulations for
hazardous waste management under RCRA by listing as acute hazardous
wastes, process wastes from the manufacturing use of tetra- pent a-,
or hexachlorobenzenes under alkaline conditions; wastes from the
production and manufacturing use of tri-, tetra,- and penta-
chlorophenols and their chlorophenoxy derivatives! and discarded
unused formulations containing compounds derived from these
chlorophenole. Also listed were wastes that are generated in the
course of a manufacturing process performed on equipment previ-
ously used for such operations, except where the equipment was
used only .for the manufacture or formulation of pentachlorophenols
or its derivatives. Zn addition, soils contaminated with these
wastes are also regulated*
Under 40 CFR 261.31 of RCRA the dioxin-containing wastes are
brought under Subtitle C control through the listing of specific
processes which generate d±oxin, it is incorrect to imply that
toxicity is not considered in the listing process.
-------
-2-
The basis for listing these wastaa can be summarized as
followsi
* The contaminants of eonearn In thase wastas ara chlori-
nated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and ehloriaatad dibenzo-
furans (CDFs), tri-, tetra-, and pantachlorophenols, and
the chlorophenoxy derivatives of thasa chlorophanols.
• Tha toxicants of concarn ara likely to ba prasant in the
liatad wastes at concant rat ions atany ordara of magnitude
greater than the laveIs of concarn in terms of human
health. For example, analysis of distillation bottoms
from manufacturing processes making or using trichloro-
phanols can contain several hundred ppm TCDDs* filter
aids may contain up to 6000 ppm TCDDs, and cooling pond
muds were shown to contain as much as 1200 ppm CDDs.
* The contaminants of concern are not only present in these
wastes in significant concentrations but are capable of
migrating from waste matrices and reaching environmental
receptors in potentially dangerous concentrations, particu-
larly as a result of water run-off or wind dispersion of
contaminated particles. These wastes have been associated
with some of the most serious hazardous waste damage
incidents known* among them Love Canal and Times Beach.
We, therefore, believe that the most hazardous dioxin-
containing waste streams are covered by these listings. Although
the Agency recognised at the time this rule was promulgated that
there were other wastes which contained or may have contained
diorins, (i.e., chlorinated benzenes, dichlorophenol proceaa
wastes, fly ash and emission control dust from low temperature
combustion of chlorophenols, and presently unlisted residues from
wood preserving) not enough data were available to support rule-
making. For example, the Agency did not have data with regard to
the concentration of dioxins in such wastes and the likelihood of
the waste posing a threat to human health or the environment.
Although these wastes are not required to be managed in accordance
with the special management standards promulgated under RCRA,
these wastes are most likely toxic and should be carefully
managed. For example, these wastes can be safely managed by high
temperature incineration.
-------
-3-
Since then, the Agency has collected «o»e of this additional
information. This information, for example, has been used by EPA
to support a draft proposed rule, which is currently under Agency
review, to list residues generated from the use of chlorophenolic
femulations in wood preserving and surface treating operations.
The Agency also is continuing to investigate a nunber of
diox.in issues. For instance, the Water Office is exploring the
formation of dioxins fro* the pulp and paper industry's bleached
kraft process. The Agency is also developing a new exposure
assessment that nay be used to enhance our understanding of the
risks associated with dioxin.
It should also be noted that the listing process is only one
nechaniam by which the Agency has control of problens posed by
dioxin. Facilities, which have submitted a Part B permit appli-
cation or are subject to interim status arc now subject to the
new corrective action provisions (Sec. 3004(u)). This requires
that all permit applicants musts identify all solid waste manage-
ment units at the facility; identify any releases of hazardous
wastes or hazardous constituents that have occurred or are occur-
ring from those unitsr take appropriate corrective measures to
clean up releases; and demonstrate financial assurance for those
corrective measures.
Furthermore, dioxin and dioxin-contaminated soil are also
subject to clean-up under CERCLA as remedial action if the site
is on the National Priority List or as emergency response if
there is a need to abate a significant threat to public health
and welfare or the environment. To date* the Agency has taken
removal action if the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) issues a health advisory for the site. ATSDR
has traditionally viewed 1 ppb as a level of concern for residen-
tial settings. However, under the remedial program, the long-term
threats posed by each site are evaluated and pathways of exposure
are considered. Based on differing site conditions, EPA may
consider other action levels. The Agency expects to select the
remedy for five remedial sites this summer. Thus, the Agency is
in the process of formulating a policy for setting trigger and
clean-up levels in response to these anticipated site clean-ups.
-------
-4-
Finally, th» requirements governing the disposal of listed
dioxin wastes (FO20-F023, and P026-F028) in landfills are set
forth at 40 CFR 264.317. Kff«ctlTe HoT«nb«r 8, 1988, the dioxin-
containing waste* cpecified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA Bacardoui
Waste Ro». P020P023, P026, and F027 are prohibited froa land
disposal if they do not *eet the treatment standards specified at
40 CFR 268.41.
Please feel free to contact
questions.
if you have any further
-------
t n A <•» . -
9444. 1987(27)
UNITEC STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEf
WA-HINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL 6 1967
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY KESFO'
Mr. Gerald J. Wurtsmith
Federal Screw Works
Romulus Division
34846 Goddard Road
Romulus, MI 48174
Dear Mr. Wurtsmith:
This letter is in response to your June 16, 1987, inquiry
regarding wastes generated at Federal Screw Works' Romulus,
Michigan plant. Specifically, you requested an interpretation as
to whether the sludge (filter cake) generated from tr >atment of
the rinse waters meets the definition of EPA. Hazardous Waste No.
F006.
Your understanding is correct that the U.S.- KPA no longer
considers wastewater treatment sludge from zinc phcephating on
steel to be within the scope of the F006 listing^ (See enclosed
notice detailing our basis for this reinterpret&tion.) Since your
manufacturing operations contain a pickling process, however, you
should be aware that spent pickle liquor from facilities within
SIC Codes 331 and 332 is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062.
If your facility is included within these SIC Codes and spent
pickle liquor is introduced into the wastewater treatment system,
the sludge may meet the definition of K062. In addition, you
should also be aware that the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) hazardous waste program may be more stringent
than the Federal program. Therefore, you will need to contact
the state to see how they would classify your filter cake.
Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation,
please contact me at (202) 475-8551.
neerely, _
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444.1987(28)
JUL 1 3 B8T
Mr. James Boggs
Wickes Mechanical Components
P.O. Box 999
Southfield, MI 48037
Dear Mr. Boggs:
As you were informed during your conversation with Mr. Howard
of SAIC on July 1, 1987, some questions have arisen regarding the
classification of your petitioned waste as a listed waste under EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F006. Under the Agency's reinterpretation of
the F006 listing (see 51 PR 43350), wastewater treatment sludge
from electroplating operations involving chemical etching are
considered to be hazardous. Your petition discusses bright
dipping operations that occur at the facility. Bright dipping is
defined as a chemical etching operation (see EPA 440/1-79/003:
Development Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards
for the Electroplating Point Source Category) and thus the peti-
tioned waste appears to be a listed hazardous waste.
In order to clarify the regulatory status of your petitioned
waste, we will need more information about your bright, dipping
operations. Please describe the the physical and chemical processes
that occur during bright dipping, the properties and characteristics
you are trying to achieve during bright dipping, and the specific
equipment used for the bright dipping. This information should
be provided for each of your bright dipping options? yellow
dichromate, bright chrome dip, and bright dip.
Once we have received this information, we will be able to
determine whether your facility is still regulated as a generator
of F006 waste. If it is determined that you are still regulated,
another request will be sent detailing the information required
to complete the review of your petition. If you have any questions
please contact me at (202) 382-4783 or Mr. Howard at (703) 734-3171.
Sincerely,
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Variance Section
cc: Allen Debus, Region V
Bill Miner, Region V
-------
9444.1987(29)
June 19, 1987
Ms. Kathie Roos
Chemical Engineer
3738 Harrison Avenue
P.O. Box 4168
Butte, Montana 59702
Dear Ms. Roos:
This is in response to your letter of May 21, 1987, in which
you sought to bring to my attention inconsistencies and problems
your firm has encountered in helping your clients find
appropriate disposal options for various types of
pentachlorophenol wastes. You describe several categories of
wastes (i.e., bottom sludge cleaned out of dip tanks, PCP-
contaminated dirt, PCP-contaminated sorbent pillows and PCP-
impregnated posts, poles, and railroad ties) for which different
disposal guidance was provided by EPA Headquarters, Regional, and
State Program personnel as well as waste management firms.
In particular, you ask the Agency's position on whether any
of the waste categories described in your letter meet the listing
description of Hazardous Waste Nos. F021, F027, or K001. At the
present time, the K001 listing includes those sludges that are
generated from treatment of wastewaters produced from wood
preserving processes using pentachlorophenol or creosote; the
F021 listing includes those wastes generated from PCP
manufacturing; and the F027 listing includes unused formulations
of PCP (i.e., the F027 listing does not include those
formulations which are used, such as those which have been
contacted with wood curing wood preservation processes (pressure,
vacuum, or non-pressure processes) or surface protection
processes (antisapstain or sapstain control processes). The word
"used" would apply to the material that remains in the process
vessel after the wood has been treated.
Pentachlorophenol which is impregnated in treated wood
(e.g.. posts, poles, and railroad ties), as mentioned in your
letter also does not meet the F027 description for unused
formulation. Also, dirt contaminated with PCP would not meet the
listing description, unless the contamination were the result of
a spill of unused PCP. In addition, the bottom sludge cleaned
out of dip tanks does not meet the K001 listing description.
Therefore, none of these wastes, except as indicated, are
currently listed hazardous wastes. As a result, these wastes are
not subject to the land restrictions program that was promulgated
on November 8, 1986 (see enclosure). With respect to the PCP-
contaminated sorbent pillows additional information would be
needed (i.e.f the ways in which they are used, whether they are
part of the wastewater treatment system, etc.) before an answer
could be provided on its regulatory status.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
While these wastes are not listed at this time, the Agency
is currently developing regulations for wood preservation and
surface protection residuals which may list these additional
wastes as hazardous. Until that time, however, I agree with you
that good practice requires that these wastes be managed in a
responsible manner (i.e.; as though they were hazardous under
RCRA).
Finally, you should be aware that the States may have a
regulatory program that is more stringent than the Federal
program (i.e., the State hazardous waste program may consider
these wastes as hazardous under State law). Therefore, you will
have to contact the various States where your clients are located
to determine how these wastes should be handled under State law.
Thank you for your interest and concern in this area.
Please feel free to contact Mr. Robert Scarberry at (202)
382-4769 if you [have] any further questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: Solid waste Management Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9444 . 1987(30 >
JUL 2 I 1987
Mr. James Charley
Environmental Engineer
New United Motor Manufacturina
45500 Fremont Boulevard
Frensont, California 94538
Dear Mr. Charley:
This is in response to your letter of June 1, 1987, in
which you request confirmation of the proper classification of
used "paint thinner" and whether such solvent wastes are subject
to the November 7, 1986, land disposal restrictions final rule.
Specifically, you referred to a solvent blend called "paint
thinner" which before use contains 80 percent xylene, 9 percent
toluene, and 11 percent glycol ethers.
In your letter, concurrence is requested with respect to
three specific questions. These questions are restated below
and followed by the appropriate response.
1. "Are we correct in classifying this waste as a D001 rather
than as a F003 or F005 waste?"
— Although this solvent is used for its solvent properties,
it would not be correctly classified as an FOOl-^005 spent
solvent. Zn order for the waste to neet the criteria of a
spent solvent mixture/blend, the solvent mist include, before
use, a total of ten percent or more of solvent constituents
covered under Hazardous Waste numbers F001, F002, F004, and
F005. Where a solvent uixture/blend (before use) contains
an F003 listed solvent (i.e., xylene) and F001, F002, FP04, an4
F005 solvent constituents, it would not constitute a listed
hazardous waste unless the total of all F001, F002, F004 and
F005 constituents Beet the ten percent threshold. Sine* the
concentration of toluene (an F005 listed solvent) in the solvent
blend, before use, is only 9 percent, the resultant waste stream
would not constitute an F001-F005 spent solvent Mixture/blend.
The waste "paint thinner" would be correctly classified as a
D001 hazardous waste if it exhibits the characteristic of
ignitability.
1MS-4I7-I5}
-------
2. "Are _we correct in statinq that this waste is not restricted
under the November 8, 1986 final rule on land disposal?"
The hazardous wastes prohibited from land disposal effective
November 8/ 1986, include the F001-F005 spent solvents and certain
dioxin-containing wastes. Since the "paint thinner" waste addressed
in your letter does not constitute a waste covered by the soent
solvent listings/ you .are correct in asserting that this waste
would not be subject to the November 7, 1986 final rule (51 FR
40572). If this waste stream exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability), it will
be subject to the land disposal restrictions when the Agency
promulgates treatment standards for characteristic wastes by the
May 1990/ statutory deadline.
3. "If this waste is restricted, are there any variances provided?
Specifically:
a) Soil contaminated with this waste.
b) Shop rags contaminated with this waste."
The waste described above is not restricted from land disposal.
However, if it were a restricted waste (i.e., an F001-F005 spent
solvent), the only applicable variances are the following; 1) a
24-month statutory exemption (i.e., until November 8, 1988) from
the land disposal prohibitions for solvent-containing soils Generated
from Comprehensive Environmental Response, Comoensation, and Liabilitv
Act (CERCLA) response actions and Resource Conservation and Recoverv
Act (RCRA) corrective actions: 2) solvent-water mixtures, solvent-
containing sludges or solids, or solvent contaminated soils
(non-CERCLA or RCRA corrective action) which contain less than
1% total F001-F005 solvent constituents: or 3) solvent-containina
wastes from small quantity generators of 100-1000 kg/month.
Soil and shop rage contaminated with solvents are only subject
to a 2-year nationwide variance if they meet at least one of
the above criteria.
I hope this information adequately addresses vour concerns.
Please feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at
(202) 475-6715* if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
9444.1987(31)
JUL
Ms. Shixlee Schiffman, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous Waste Regulation
and Classification
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, KY 08625
Dear Ms. Schiffmant
This is in response to your letter of June 10. 1987, in
which you requested our interpretation on several issues involving
electroplating rinsewaters. Specifically, you requested confirmation
of your conclusions drawn as a result of your telephone conversa-
tions with Mr. David Topping, of ay staff. In addition, you
requested our answers to five specific questions relating to the
hazardous waste/non-hazardous waste status of used ion exchange
resins that were used to treat electroplating rinsewatezs.
First, I would like to respond to the two questions, you
discussed with Mr. David Topping. In particular, 1 agree with
your conclusions thatt 1) rinsewaters from electroplating opera-
tions were not meant to be included-^lrT~the F009 listing (spent
stripping and cleaning -bath solutions from electroplating opera-
tions where cyanides are used in the process), and 2) xw»idual
droplets of stripping, cleaning, or electroplating solutions
present on the metal would not make the rinsewaters hazardous oy
the "mixture rule" when the metal parts are rinsed off* la the
first case, rinsewaters are not considered spent stripping ox
cleaning bath solutions) in the second case, trace amounts of
plating bath solutions that are carried over to rinse tanks are
not considered to be a solid waste nixing with another solid
waste. These materials are in use and axe not wastes until they
are spent and removed from the process. The remaining questions
will be answered in the same order that they are presented in your
letter i
1. Your first question asks "can a wastew&ter treatment
system which only is treating a non -hazardous electro-
plating waste (such as rinsewatexs) produce an FOOfe
listed hazardous waste?" The answer to this question
is yes; the sludge from the treatment of electroplating
wastewater contains toxic metals at concentration many
times higher than their concentration in the wastewaters
xjnsewatejs a its not} specc&xxy
i*M-:a*->.*
-------
in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D, they nay exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic (EP toxicity) under 40 CFR 261
Subpart C for certain toxic netals.
2. Your second question asks "would an ion exchange
canister which has been used to capture metals and
cyanide from non-hazardous electroplating rinsewaters
only, be considered to contain wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating operations (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006)?" The answer to this question also is
yes. Section 260.10 of 40 CFR defines sludges as "any
solidt semi-solid, oz liquid waste generated from a
municpal, commercial, oz industrial wastewater treatment
plant, watez supply treatment plant, oz effluent from
a wastewater treatment plant." Thus, any residuals
generated from treatment of wastewaters from electro-
plating operations for pollution control would be
considered an F006 listed waste.
3. Your third question asks "is the ion exchange resin,
which is similar in function to activated carbon (i.e.,
used to remove pollutants from wastewaters), considered
a 'sludge' in this situation? Once again, the answer
is yes for the sane reason given above.
4. Your fourth question asks "do rinsewaters from electro-
plating operations fall within the scope of any listed
hazardous wastes?" The answer to this question is no;
electroplating rinsewaters aze not a listed hazardous
waste under 40 CFR 261, Subpart D. However, as I
indicated earlier, electroplating rinsewaters nay
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic under 40 CFR
261, Subpart C.
5. Your fifth question asks "does the 'mixture rule
apply to rinsewaters from electroplating opezations due
to th« presence of 'residual droplets* of stripping,
cleaning, oz electzopiating solutions?" This question
was answered previously.
If you have further questions relating to this subject,
please feel free to call Mr. Edwin F. Abzams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
.-."".in I At. f-KU I euilOH -Of "< »
9444.1987(31a)
JL1
Kr. Siraans
Raym&rk Industrial Division
1204 Darlington Avenue
Crawford*villa, Indian* 47933
Daar Mr. Sirnanat
After our review of Rayvarfc's delisting petition (10627)
submitted to the Agency on August 16, 1985/ and of additional
information supplied in support of the petition, the Variances
Section baa established that Rayvark's waste does not neet the
corrected listing description for K062 vastas published on
September 22, 1986 (51 PR 33612), which aa*nded the K062 listing
promulgated on Hay 28, 1986 (51 PR 19320). The listing now
refers to "pickle liquor generated by steal finishing operations
of facilities within the iron and steel industry (SIC Cedes 331
and 332).* Since you have identified your etching processes as
being classified under SIC Codes 3465 and 3449, your waste pickle
liquor is not a listed hazardous waste and «ay be managed as a
solid waste under Subtitle D regulations* Your petition is,
therefore, nooted, and we have cloeed yoor file* Please be
reminded that your waste must still be tested periodically to
verify that it does not demonstrate any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste*
Should you have any questions regarding our evaluation*
please contact Scott Maid, of wy staff, at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely,
Mylas Morse, Chief
Variances Section
act Allen Debus, EPA Keg. V
William Muno, KPA Reg. V
Karl Breaer, EPA *eg. V
-------
9444.1987(33)
4UG 7 -
Mr. William S. Harer
CHEM-CLEAR
992 Old Eagle School Road
Suite 915
Wayne, PA 19087
Dear Mr. Harer:
This is response to your letter of May 12, 1987, in which
you requested an interpretation regarding the regulatory status
of a waste generated by one of your clients. Specifically, the
waste in question is generated by caustic rinsing metal parts
that have been cleaned with a solvent containing over 10%, by
volume, trichloroethylene.
The Agency does not consider small amounts of solvent
carried over on the metal parts from solvent degreasing to meet
the listing description of a spent solvent. Therefore, if any
solvent is carried over into the caustic rinse water, the
mixture rule would not be applicable. Thus, the caustic rinse
water would only be a hazardous waste if it exhibits one of the
hazardous waste characteristics [ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity]. Since your
caustic rinse water does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, as was demonstrated by your client's analytical
results, the caustic rinse water would not appear to be a
hazardous waste under the Federal hazardous waste regulations.
However, you should be aware that the State's hazardous waste
regulations may be more stringent than the federal hazardous
waste rules. Therefore, you should contact a representative
from the State to determine the waste's regulatory status under
the State's hazardous waste program.
If yoo require additional information, please contact Ed
Abraas at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITcJ STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1987(33)
AU8 25I9ST
Mr. William S. Rarer
CHEM-CLEAR
992 Old Eagle School Road
Suite 915
Wayne, PA 19087
Dear Mr. Rarer:
I am responding to your letter of May 12, 1987, requesting
an interpretation regarding the regulatory status of a waste-
generated by one of your clients. Specifically, your client
requested a ruling on a waste that is generated by caustic
rinsing metal parts that had been cleaned with a solvent
containing over 10%, by volume, trichloroethylene.
The Agency does not consider small amounts of solvent
carried over on the metal parts from solvent degreasing to meet
the listing description of a spent solvent. Therefore, if any
solvent is carried over into the caustic rinse water, the
mixture rule would not be applicable. Thus, the caustic rinse
would only be a hazardous waste if it exhibited one of the
hazardous waste characteristics [ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity]. Since your
caustic rinse water does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, as was demonstrated by your client's analytical
results, the caustic rinse water would not be considered a
hazardous waste under the Federal hazardous waste regulations.
If you require additional information, please contact Ed
Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
CHEM
SUITE 915 • 992 OLD EAGLE SCHOOL ROAD • WAYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 19087 • (215)687-8990
May 12, 1987
Mr. Matthew Stauss
Branch Chief
WH-562B 461 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Stauss:
CheraClear is a hazardous waste treatment firm. A
ChemClear for guidance regarding waste characterization,
Bob Scarberry of your staff.
customer contacted
which I referred to
According to the customer, metal parts are degreased in a solvent mixture
that is over 10% by volume trichloroethylene. Following degreasing, the parts
are dried to evaporate the solvent and then rinsed in an agitated caustic bath
(pH < 12.5) to remove metal shavings. The customer requested a ruling as to
whether or not the caustic rinse is hazardous waste. Analytical results show
that the caustic rinse is not characteristically hazardous. Mr. Scarberry
indicated that if the solvent is evaporated prior to the caustic rinse, then
the waste rinse water is not a listed waste. ChemClear would like to receive
confirmation of that ruling.
If you have any further questions regarding the wastestream,
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
please do
William S. Rarer
Environmental Engineer
WSH/dmp
-------
WASHINGTON. D.C.
9444. 1987(34)
PROTECTION AGENO
AM'- 7 OFFICE OF
AJO I it , ' SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Disposal of Wastes from the Environmental Chemistry
Laboratory in Bay^st.-^ouis,. Mississippi
/ •• .- .-f i
FROM: Marcia E. Williams/jtcir^ctot'M.^
Office of Solid Waste .(WH-562)
j J !
TO: Allen L. Jennings, Director
Benefits and use Division (TS-768-C)
This is in response to your July 1, 1987, memorandum in which
you requested our reaction and guidance on your plans to dispose
of wastes generated by the Office of Pesticide Program's Environ-
mental Chemistry Laboratory (ECL), located in Bay St. Louis,
Mississippi. ECL analyzes environmental samples foi trace levels
(ppm, ppb) of pesticides, herbicides, and related compounds, and
ultra trace levels (ppt) of chlorinated dioxias. You presently
have fifteen 35-gallon drums of miscellaneous laboratory wastes
contaminated with low levels of dioxin and the equivalent of
another seventy-five 35-gallon drums of environmental samples;
these drums are currently being stored in freezers and other
storage areas at ECL.
As a result of your July 24 meeting with my staff, it is my
understanding that the wastes in question are not the listed dioxin-
containing wastes under RCRA (40 CFR 261.31) and as such are not
subject to the special management requirements for the listed
dioxin wastes. These wastes, however, are likely to contain low
levels of dioxins and as such should be managed with care. High
temperature incineration is an appropriate means of disposal. We,
therefore, encourage you to proceed with your proposal to send
your laboratory wastes to ThermalKEM for incineration at their
interim status fixed hearth, dual chamber, high temperature unit
in Rock Bill, South Carolina.
If you have and further questions, please feel free to con-
tact me.
-------
9444.1987(36
UNITED STATES EMV»RONMENTAL PROTECTION A
WASHINGTON, O.C 204 «0
OPPICf OP
IOU6 WASTi AND IMtMOtNCY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Listing Program's decision on Chevron Chemical
Company's waste from Tower 201 in their polystyrene
production process in Marietta, Ohio.
FROM: Matthew A. Straus ^ **• *'K'S%
TO: Steve Hirsch
On July 28r you met with Barry Miliman (Dynamac), my staff,
and me, to discuss Region V's request for assistance in deter-
mining whether Chevron Chemical Company generates an POOS waste
in Tower 201 in their polystyrene production process in Marietta:,
Ohio. I assigned Chuck Lawhead with the task of gathering the
information necessary to enable us to make a decision. On
August 4, he submitted to me a summary of the arguments relevant
to the issue, as we defined it in the meeting mentioned above.
(See attached memo). The decision at which we arrived is out-
lined below. If you have any questions or comments, please sub-
mit them to me by August 26. We intend to write George Hamper
(Region V) to inform him of our decision.
Listing Program's Decision on the Chevron Issue;
The Listing Program has decided that toluene is used as a sol-
vent in Chevron Chemical Company's polystyrene production process
and, therefore, that waste from Tower 201 is the listed hazardous
waste, POOS, still bottoms from the recovery of spent toluene.
This decision was made, based on the following information:
1. In a document submitted by Squire, Sanders,- and Dempsey
on behalf of Chevron, it was stated that the toluene
is "added as a diluent" in the process. The toluene
is also used as a carrier, or diluent, for the additives
which are used in the process.
2. Both styrene and toluene are recovered in Tower 201;
they are separated from the tars in this column. There-
fore, the waste generated at this point in the process
qualify as still bottoms from the recovery of spent
toluene, an POOS waste.
-------
-2-
3. The closed loop recycling process exemption does not
apply to this process.
4. Chevron made several arguments that have not been ad-
dressed by this decision. We feel that the (3) deter-
minations above resolve the issue by themselves.
Support for the decision;
1. Peter Oxenbol of Chevron Chemical Company commented that the
term "d^uent" had been used by them before the^realized
that »• carried ilM^l such a weighty connotation (***+ >•«•»
use as a diluent constitutes use as a solvent.) He sug-
gested that a different word or description could be
used which would not be as sensitve as the work "dilu-
ent". The definiti^^^the word "diluent", however,
is quite clear, ano\Tt was chosen previously as an
accurate description of the role that toluene plays in
the reaction. Chevron wishes to use a different word
now, but toluene's function will not be changed by
doing so.
2. Of the feed that enters Tower 201, roughtly 83% is unreacted
styrene and 4% is toluene and they are both separated,
together, from the tars in the column. Toluene may not be
the major component in the feed stream to the column, but
it is nonetheless being recovered at this point in the
separated from the styrene.
3. The Federal Register excerpt on the closed loop recycling
process reads as follows: *It should be noted that, under
today's rule, although secondary materials stored in
closed-loop reclamation processes that fit within the
exclusion of 5261.4(a)(8) are not solid waste, wastes from
their management are solid wastes. Thus, still bottoms
from solvent reclamaton in a no exclusion applies for
another reason, and can be hazardous wastes if they are
identified or listed. In this regard, the Agency notes
that winy still bottoms from solvent reclamation are listed
wastes, as are the residual spent solvents themselves
(laxardoua Wastes F001-005)." (51 PR 25443)
4. Chevron's other arguments, that toluene is present in the waste
in the in only de minimis quantities, that toluene "is an
essential ingredient in the process fro* a kinetic stand-
point", etc., became moot points because it was decided
that the waste was the listed waste, POOS.
Attachments: ( 1 )
-------
PMTtCTWWA 9444.1987(37)
-> —" *~'
_. —_ / iK-Dt
Technical Manager „ ,
American Chrome and Chemicals, Inc. '"-' 9 --'<
Buddy Lawrence Drive
P.O. Box 9912
Corpus Chris*!, TX 78469
Dear Mr. Barnhart:
This letter is in response to your July 13, 1987 inquiry
regarding the status of the K006 wastes and the on-site disposal
unit containing these wastes at your Corpus Christi facility.
As mentioned in your letter, these wastes received a temporary
exclusion on May 25, 1982. Based on our evaluation of the
information submitted in support of your petition, however,
the temporary exclusion for this waste was revoked and a final
exclusion denied on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 41320-41321) with
an effective date of May 14, 1987.
The State of Texas has been authorized by EPA to administer
and enforce a hazardous waste management program pursuant to
Section 3006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 56926. In light of the State's
authority, the future status of this disposal unit should be
determined by the Texas Water Commission. This will ensure that
the use of the unit will be commensurate with ongoing and planned
waste management requirements at the facility.* In-a similar
manner, if this unit is to close in the future, all closure
requirements should be determined by the Commission*
I hope this explanation has addressed all of your concerns
regarding the status of your petitioned wastes and the on-site
disposal unit in which they are contained* Should you have any
further questions concerning the Federal regulatory compliance
for the petitioned waste, please feel free to contact Suzanne
Rudzinski of the Office of Solid Waste at (202)382-4206.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
ccs Allyn Devi*, Mgion VI Div. Oir.
Lee Hase, Region VI Delisting Contact
Sam Becker, Region VI BCajfc fnforceaent Contact
Randy Brown, Region VI flCBA. Brand. Chief
Bill Honker, Regie* VI
-------
9444.1987(37a)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
AUGUST 1987
8. Definition of Solid Waste and Reclamation
A distributor of a U-listed commercial chemical
product finds that the product is no longer saleable
(for example, it is past is shelf life). If the
distributor ships it back to the manufacturer for
reclamation, the material is not a solid waste under 40
CFR 261.2 because listed commercial chemical products
are not solid wastes when reclaimed. However, in many
cases the manufacturer will not know whether the
material can be reclaimed until a sample is analyzed.
Could the distributor ship the entire lot back to the
manufacturer, while not knowing whether the material was
a solid waste?
Yes. The distributor can ship the entire lot back
to the manufacturer, while not knowing whether the
material was a solid waste. There are no
provisions in the RCRA regulations restricting
shipments of commercial chemical products.
Technically, it remains a commercial chemical
product until such time as they are discarded or
intended to be discarded (Section 261.2 and Section
261.33). This decision is made by the
manufacturer. The U-listed commercial chemical
product would still be shipped pursuant to
applicable DOT and U.S. Postal Service regulations.
It would not need to be manifested as a hazardous
waste.
-------
9444.1987(38)
September 1, 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director (WH-562)
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Director
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
Our office has reviewed the information you provided in your
July 29th memo, in which you requested an interpretation of 40
CFR 261, as it applies to a still bottom waste generated during
the production of polystyrene at the Chevron Chemical Company,
Marietta, OH. We have decided that toluene is used as a solvent
in the process; therefore, the tower 201 still bottoms are a F005
hazardous waste that is generated during the recovery of spent
toluene.
The following information was used to make our decision and
to address the concerns outlined in your memo.
1. In a document submitted by Squire, Sanders, and Dempsey
on behalf of Chevron, it was stated that the toluene is
"added as a diluent" in the process. The toluene is also
used as a carrier, or diluent, for the additives which
are used in the process. The property of a RCRA solvent
is the ability to solubilize, or to act as a diluent.
2. Both styrene and toluene are recovered in Tower 201; they
are separated from the tars in this column. Therefore,
the waste generated at this point in the process are
still bottoms from the recovery of spent toluene, and
F005 waste.
3. The closed loop recycling process exemption does not
apply to this process. (See attached discussion)
4. Chevron made several arguments (e.g., the waste is not
ignitable and, consequently, not hazardous; the waste
does not contain toluene) that have not been addressed by
this decision. We feel that the three determinations
above resolve the issue of, whether the material in
question is hazardous waste.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Additional discussion on items 1-4;
1. Peter Oxenbol of Chevron Chemical Company commented that
the term "diluent" had been used by them before they
realized that it has carried with it such a weighty
connotation (that use as a diluent constitutes use as a
solvent.) He suggested that a different word or
description could be used which would not be as sensitive
as the word "diluent". The definition of the word
"diluent", however, is quite clear, and it was chosen
previously as an accurate description of the role that
toluene plays in the reaction. Chevron wishes to use a
different word now, but toluene's function will not be
changed by doing so.
2. Of the feed that enters Tower 201, roughly 83% is
unreacted styrene and 4% is toluene. They are both
separated, together, from the tars in the column.
Toluene may not be the major component in the feed stream
to the column, but it is nonetheless being recovered at
this point in the separation from the styrene.
3. The Federal Register excerpt on the closed loop recycling
process reads as follows: "It should be noted that,
under today's rule, although secondary materials stored
in closed-loop reclamation processes that fit within the
exclusion of §261.4(a)(8) are not solid waste, wastes
from their management are solid wastes. Thus, still
bottoms from solvent reclamation, if an exclusion applies
for another reason, can be hazardous wastes if they are
identified or listed. In this regard, the Agency notes
that many still bottoms from solvent reclamation are
listed wastes, as are the residual spent solvents
themselves (Hazardous Wastes F001-005)." (FR Vol. 51, No.
134, 25443).
4. Chevron's other arguments, that toluene is present in the
waste in only de minimis quantities, and that toluene "is
an essential ingredient in the process from a kinetic
standpoint", etc., became moot points because it was
decided that the waste was the listed waste, F005.
If you wish to discuss the above in further detail, please
call Yvonne Garbe on FTS 4/5-66/9 of my staff.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1987(39)
21987
Mr. John S. Ramsey
Hazardous Waste Section
Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Topeka, KS 66620-0001
Dear Mr. Ramsey:
This is in response to your recent letter which requested a
clarification of the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste F021, "Wastes
(except vastewater 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". In particular, you were concerned with the
regulatory status of wastewater generated from this production
process.
In a recent telephone conversation, I concurred with your
interpretation that this exclusion applies only to vastewaters from
hydrogen chloride purification. However, after researching the
issue, I learned that no wastewater is generated from by-product HC1
purification and that the Agency had intended the exclusion to apply
to all process wastewaters.
I apologize for this hasty determination. As you indicated in
your letter, an EPA memorandum dated March 29, 1985, also clarifies
that the RCRA "Dioxin" listing specifically excludes all wastewaters
resulting from the PCP manufacturing operations. I hope that my
error has not inconvenienced you in any way.
If you require additional information, please feel free to
contact me or Ed Abrams of my staff at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Scarberry
Chief, Listing Section
-------
9444.1987(40}
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENC
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
£ Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCE RfSPONSi
SEP 9
Mr. Alfred A. Levin
Manager
Toxics Substances Control
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
5600 River Road
Rosemont, IL 60018-5119
Dear Mr. Levin:
This is in response to your letter of July 16, 1987, regard-
ing whether certain materials contaminated with the registered
pesticides, chlordane and heptachlor would be considered hazardous
wastes. As stated in your letter, professional pesticide applica-
tors dilute the concentrated pesticides and apply them for use to
control structural termites.
You describe three scenarios that result in the contamination
of materials due to the accidental spilling or over-application of
these pesticides. In the first scenario, the pesticide solution
is applied around a home with a swimming pool. Water from the
swimming pool moves through cracks in the pool's wall and enters
the soil. Soil contaminants then move out of the soil into the
pool. The pesticide was then discovered to have migrated into
the pool. You want to know whether the water in the pool (when
discarded) is a hazardous waste. As stated in 40 CFR 261(d)(1)(3),
listed commercial chemical products are not wastes when applied
to land if that is their normal manner of use. Since the contami-
nation of the pool water resulted from the normal use of the
pesticide as a product, rather than from its disposal, the pool
water is not hazardous waste via the mixture rule.
In the second scenario, a professional applicator spills
some of the pesticide outside on the grass (soil) away from the
intended site of application, creating a very low-level contami-
nation of the sod. He collects the contaminated soil and you
wish to know whether it is a hazardous waste. The contaminated
soil that is collected is a hazardous waste; disposal is defined
at 40 CFR 260.10 to include spilling any solid or hazardous
waste into or on any land. Under 40 CFR 261.33(d), hazardous
-------
-2-
wastes are defined to include contaminated soil or debris resulting
from the cleanup of a spill on any land of listed commercial chem-
ical products, which includes chlordane and heptachlor. Thus,
the contaminated soil is subject to regulation provided you exceed
the small quantity generator limit (i.e. , clean-up more than 100
kg in a calendar month). If you clean up less than 100 kg per
month, you are subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 261.5(f)
(for heptachlor) or (g) for chlordane.
In the third scenario, a professional applicator either over-
applies or spills the pesticide, resulting in a residue on the
carpet or wallboard of a house. You want to know whether the
contaminated carpet and wallboard, after they are removed, are
hazardous wastes. Regardless whether it is spilled or overapplied,
contaminated carpet or wallboard should be safely managed. Depen-
ding on the individual circumstances, sound management is required
under the Federal insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (PIMA]
or RCRA. First, if the contaminated carpet or wallboard results
from overapplication of the pesticide, the carpet or wallboard
would not be a hazardous waste, since the contamination resulted
from the use of the pesticide. This would be a violation of
FIFRA, however, and the Agency could take proper action under
FIFRA to ensure safe disposal. On the other hand, if the carpet
or wallboard became contaminated as a result of spilling the
pesticide, the carpet or wallboard (after they are removed)
would be a hazardous waste, since this would be considered disposal
of the pesticides. The cleanup of this debris would be covered
by 40 CFR 261.33(d), as discussed above for the second scenario.
In response to your inquiry into the possibility of a delist-
ing of the dilute wastes generated by professional applicators,
we believe it is most appropriate to evaluate these materials on
a spill-specific basis. These materials can vary in hazardous
constituent concentrations, waste volumes, and exposure scenarios.
Consequently, we believe it is inappropriate to promulgate a
generic exclusion for spill residues and related materials.
You also requested the Agency's advice as to what information,
in addition to the requirements discussed in the Delisting Guid-
ance Document, would be useful for the evaluation of petitions
to delist dilute solutions or minimum concentrations of chlordane
and heptchlor. One requirement which is not listed in the current
-------
-3-
guidance document is that four quarters of ground water monitoring
data from a compliant system under Subpart F must be submitted
by the petitioner for any on-site land-based management unit.
Other available data which you submit will be considered, but be
aware that the current Agency policy is that delisting is waste-
specific, and site-specific factors (i.e. , intended management,
local hydrogeologic attenuation properties) are generally not
considered.
If you have additional questions/ please feel free to call
Ms. Wanda LeBleu-Biswas, of my staff, at (202) 382-7392.
Sincerely yours,
Mar e
Dire* tot
Office/of Solid Waste
-------
9444 .198 7(41)
Ms. Sharon Hillmer
Regulatory Coordinator
Colonial Printing Ink Corporation
180 Bast Onion Avenue
East Rutherford, New Jersey 07073
Dear Ms. Hillmer?
This responds to your Auoust 4, 1987, letter reauestino
clarification of the EPA Hazardous Waste Number for your waste
from ink formulation. You are uncertain whether the spent
solvents contained in the waste stream are included under the
K086 listing, or also must be designated as an P001-POOS spent
solvent.
As stated in an earlier phone conversation, there ia no
question that your waste meets the description for EPA hazardous
Waste Number K086 pursuant to 40 CPV 261.32. However, »s the
background document for the K086 listing (entitled •Poefcground
Document Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wast*") statesr
"... if these solvents are used in ink formulation and are
disposed of, they are considered hazardous wastes undeg- the
earlier listing as well as the present listing." Tn»r«?ore,
should your waste also meet the description* for tft« POftl-PQO^
spent solvent wastes, your waste must be designated as one (or
more) of the P001-POOS hazardous wastes, as well as beino
designated as K086.
Absent the K086 listing, most wastes from ink formulation
would be listed only as P001-P005 spent solvents, though not
necessarily (not all K086 wastes contain the listed spent sol-
vents, and therefore, would not be listed as such 5£ however,
the solvent listings do net address the constituents of concern
in the ink for anil at ion wastes (i.e., lead and hexavalent chromium).
Therefore, the) K086 listing is reouired to address these con-
stituents of concern, and the P-llsting Is reeuired to address
the spent solvents when appropriate.
in our initial discussions on the proper designation for
your wastes, the assumption was that the IOS€ wavte also contained
spent POOS solvent constituents. It this was the case, both
-------
the K086 and POOS designation* would be required. However,
upon further Investigation, it vac ascertained that the solvent
of concern im a idxture of cyclohexanone (an F003 solvent) and
a naphtha solvent.
A solvent Mixture containing cyelohexanone would be
designated as F003 when spent only if, before use, the mixture
contains only the solvents listed under F003, or a total of 10%
or eore (by volume) of the solvents included under the F001,
F002, F004, and F005 listings. Because the cyelohexanone used
in your process is nixed with only a non F001-FQ03 solvent, the
waste cannot be designated as an F003.
Therefore, your waste would only be designated as *0*£,
without a designation for the solvent constituents. The solvent
designation is not included because the solvent, before use, does
not neet the criteria for the F003 listing (net because the
solvents are included in the R086 listing).
T hope this has clarified the classification of your waste.
Should you have any questions or need further information, please
feel free to call M at (202) 382-4105.
Sincerely*
Hitch Kidwell
Environmental Protection specialist
-------
9444.1987(42)
Jill H. Blunoon
noppara Company, Inc.
Lagal Sarvicaa
4J* gavantn Ava.
Pittaourgn, PA 15219
Daar us. alundon:
la yotir July 10, 1»*7 lattar, you raquaat vrittaa coaiiraa-
tioo or tna raguiatory atatua unaar to* ftaaourca Conaarvation ant
B«cov«ry Act ot ••v«r«l «uo«tAnc«« coo c Alain? chloropo«fioJ,ic
coapounda.
you c«qu««t clarification of tne ra^ulatocy a&atua of
tn« cowMrcial product noxtan**, a coraulation tnat la &sla oy
iopp«ra aa an ant i-a taming material for luulationa of pantacnloropoaool» aucw a&
Moitaaa9 ara liatad basarooaa «aataa uadar Part icl.Jl Q£ taa
Coda of radaral *agttlatlona, aaaaly fUPA Masarooua waata no
(Diacaroao unuaao foraulatioaa containing tri-, tatra-, or
paatacnloropnanolf or dlacaroao unuaao roraulationa containing
coapounda darivao: fro* taaaa cnloropoaaoia ) .
you raquaat clariticatioa of tna ragulatory atatua or
wood cnlpa ajM aawauat d«riv«d rroa wooo vnicn naa oaaa traatao
witn paataaaueropnanol (iioxtaaa*). Tnaaa voou cnip ana aawouat
waata ara ••* carrantly liatad aa nasardoua waatv unoar aitnar
Part 2il.Jt or 2*1.32. Tnararora^ tnaaa waataa «oula oa daaignat*d
aa baxardoua undar ACKA only if taay aaaioitad ona or aora of tna
cnaractarlatlca uadar duopart C of part
-------
-2-
You should be awar* that the Office of Solid Waste is
currently considering listing as hazardous a number of wastes
from processes which use chlorophenollc compounds to prevent the
staining of wood including spent formulations as well as sawdust
and planar shavings. Although these wastes are not currently listed
as hazardous wastes, they do contain hazardous constituents and I
recommend that you dispose of them in an environmentally safe manner.
Finally, you inquire whether wood chips and sawdust is
prohibited under EPA regulations. Unless the materials exhibit
a characteristic of hazardous waste.then there are no EPA regula-
tions that prohibit their disposal or incineration.
If you have any Questions, please contact Or. Cat* Jenkins
of my staff at {202) 382-4786.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
944 4. 1987 (43)
OUT
Ms. Barbara E. Pace
Hogan & Hartson
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Dear Ms. Pace:
This letter is a response to your August 19, 1987, letter in
which you request an interpretation of 40 CFR Section 261.31 as
it applies to the filter cake waste generated during the produc-
tion .of methyldopa at a Merck and Company facility. Based on a
review of the process information that you have provided, we have
determined that the filter cake waste described in your letter is
not a listed spent solvent waste (F005) for the reason stated
below.
The waste in question is generated as a result of filter-
ing the product stream to remove iron. Although toluene is being
used for its solvent properties, (i.e., to mobilize or solubilize
the product), at this point in the process the toluene is not
spent. Thus, the iron cake is neither a residual from the treat-
ment of a spent solvent nor a mixture of a solid waste and a
spent solvent, but rather a waste that is contaminated with
toluene. Pursuant to the listing background document and the
preamble to the Federal Register notice, the FQ01 through F005
solvent listings do not apply to process waste streams that are
contaminated with solvents.
Please advise your client that our decision is based on the
information provided in your letter and that deviations to the
described process could result in a different interpretation. In
addition, the generator is responsible for testing this waste to
determine if the residual exhibits any RCRA hazardous character-
istics (e.g.. corrosivity, toxicity, reactivity, or ignitability)
as defined in 40 CFR Subpart C.
-------
If you wish to discuss tnis matter further, please call
Yvonne Garbe at (202) 475-6679, or myself at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Robert Scarberry
Acting Branch Chief
Waste Characterization
Branch
cc: Yvonne Garbe, WCB
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL P... fECTKJN AGENCY
9444.1987(44)
Phillip G. Retallick, Director
Division of Air and Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
State of Delaware
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
Dear Mr. Retallick:
This is in response to your October 1, 1987 letter requesting
EPA's interpretation of the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste as it
applies to Standard Chlorine's proposed thermal oxidizer and
hydrodechlorination processes. As you know, a panel of the
District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals held (in a "2-1 deci-
sion) in America/I Mining Congress vs EPA. No. 85-1206 (D.C.
Cir.), that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority in certain
respects by including within its definition of solid waste
certain types of materials not intended by Congress to be "dis-
carded materials" under RCRA section 1004(27). We are still
studying the court's opinion and we plan to issue an interpreta-
tion as to how the EPA regulations are affected by the ruling by
about mid or late November. We cannot comment on how EPA
regulations affecting standard Chlorine's processes are affected
by the court's ruling at this time.
Since Delaware has adopted under State lav rules equivalent
to EPA's, you have asked for an interpretation as to how standard
Chlorine would be regulated under EPA»s January 4, 1985, rules,
if the court's opinion did not exist. Based on the materials
that you sent to Mike Petruska in August and September, we have
reached the following conclusions:
(1) Standard Chlorine's "polychlor material11 is the
distillation bottoms from the production of chlorinated
benzenes, and therefore, is a by-product that meets the
listing description of hazardous waste No. K085. (We do
not agree that these bottoms are a co-product, as
Standard Chlorine claims.)
-------
- 2 -
(2) The Agency considers both the thermal oxidizer and
hydrodechlorination processes to be forms of reclama-
tion. These processes are designed to recover materials/
products (Muriatic Acid, chlorobenzenes, or benzenes)
from a listed by-product; and under Section 261.2(c)(4),
this constitutes reclamation.
(3) Pursuant to Section 261.2(c)(3), listed by-products that
are reclaimed are solid wastes.
In summary, our interpretation under the January 4, 1985
rules would be that the polychlor material is a solid waste
when reclaimed using either the thermal oxidizer or the hydrode-
chlorination process, and thus is a hazardous waste subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
If you have further questions in this area, please feel free
to continue to deal with Mike PetrusJca of my staff, at (202)
382-7729.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9444.1987(47)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204«0
"• O 2 "•""'"7 OFFICE OF
' 2 ' SOLID *AST6 AND EMERGENCY «iSPONS
Mr. Michael Mclaughlin
Vice President
SCS Engineers
11260 Roger Bacon Drive
Reston, VA 22090-5282
Dear Mr. Mclaughlin:
This is in response to your letter of September 1, 1987, to
Matt Straus, concerning regulation of supernatant liquid resulting
from treatment of spent pickle liquor (EPA waste K062).
In the situation you have described, the impoundment would be
a regulated unit under RCRA if it stores any supernatant liquid
from the lime-stabilization of waste pickle liquor. The super-
natant forms during clarification of the lime-stabilised mixture.
The preamble to the June 5, 1984 Federal Register (49 FR 23284)
states that "... sludge from the treatment of spent pickle liquor
(K062) is generated by a well known technique involving lime
neutralization, flocculation, clarification, and, in most cases,
dewatering of the resultant sludge.
According to Agency policy (see OSWER Directive number
(9441.12184) attached), the exclusion under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)
applies to the sludge generated from the treatment process, but not
the supernatant liquid. Because Section 261.3(c)(2)(ii) does not
address the supernatant portion arising from lime stabilization of
waste pickle liquor, that liquid portion would be derived from
K062, and thus a hazardous waste, per Section 261.3(c)(2)(i). A
surface impoundment holding this supernatant portion would be
subject to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C.
-------
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike
Petrusfca of my staff at (202) 382-7729.
Sincerely,
Mafcia £. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC 9 4 4 4 ' * 9 8 7 ( 4 8
WASHINGTON. D.C. 204«0
Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY NESFONS
Kevin Mouser, R.P.S.
Hazard Materials Specialist
Bureau of Environmental Health
Department of Water Quality and
Hazardous Materials Management
Marion County Health Department
22 East Ohio Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Dear Mr. Mouser:
This is in response to your September 25, 1987, letter to
Matt Straus concerning the dioxin-contaminated oils. This letter
explains the regulatory requirements for the used oil in question,
and then (as you requested) recommends additional management
practices you may want to consider.
First, from the information you provided, the contaminated oil
is not an EPA-listed hazardous waste, and would only be a hazardous
waste under RCRA if it exhibits any of the hazardous character-
istics. The only wastes listed as hazardous under RCRA duo to the
presence of dioxins are found in 40 CFR 261.31 under the h<>/-ardous
waste numbers F020-23 and F026-28. Most of the listed dioxin
wastes are manufacturing process wastes; the exception is F027,
which covers discarded unused formulations containing tri-, tetra-,
or pentachlorophenol or compounds derived from these chloro-
phenols. The waste in question is actually lubricating oil
contaminated with TCDD. The contamination resulted from use of the
TCDD as an analytical standard, rather than from mixing of the oil
with TCDD that is intended for discard. Therefore, the contam-
inated lubricating oil would not meet the F027 listing.
-------
Second, please note that all used oils, whether they are
hazardous by a characteristic or not, are subject to 40 CFR Part
266, Subpart F, if burned for energy recovery (or made into a
fuel). If you decide to manage the oil in some other manner,
however, no EPA regulations apply. You should check with the
appropriate State agency to determine if State regulations
apply.
Finally, you asked for storage and disposal recommenda-
tions. With regard to disposal, the most protective approach
would be to ship the oil to a permitted hazardous waste
incinerator. The regulations that EPA promulgated for small
quantity hazardous waste generators, which are summarized in the
enclosed handbook, contain recommended practices for storage.
(The handbook also includes the address and phone number of the
State regulatory agency in your area.)
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska at (202) 382-7729.
Sincerely
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9444 . 1987(49)
OCT
Ronald J. Senna
Director - Environmental Compliance
International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc.
800 Rose Lane
Union Beach, N.J. 07735
Dear Mr. Senna:
This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1987,
concerning the regulatory status of your fragrance ingredients.
Based on the information you provided and the subsequent phone
conversation with our consultant, Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc.,
EPA's understanding of the waste generation process is that
Acetone, ethyl acetate, and xylene solvents are periodically used
to clean out the reactor vessel. The spent solvents generated
from that cleaning operation are drummed and sent off site for
proper management as F003 wastes. A light coating or residue
consisting of fragrance oils and trace amounts of solvent remains
on the walls of the vessel. IFF then washes the vessel out with
soap and water. This waste washwater carrying the oil and
solvent residue then flows to an oil/water separator for
treatment.
Based on this scenario, the Agency's interpretation is that
the solvent-contaminated washwater is not within the scope of the
Hazardous Waste No. F003 listing for spent nonhalogenated sol-
vent. The subject waste stream is generated from the washout of
a reactor vessel containing residues of solvent and fragrance
oils. Therefore, the waste is not a spent solvent, but a process
wastewater contaminated with solvent constituents. This waste is
very different from a solvent stream that has been used and as a
result of contamination can no longer be used as a solvent
without further processing (see Section 261.2(c)(l) and 50 EB
53316). It is not the Agency's intent to regulate water from
washout of a reactor vessel as F003.
-------
-2-
If the washwater sent to the oil/water separator is ignit-
able, it would be classified as a D001 hazardous waste, and would
remain such for as long as it exhibits the ignitability charac-
teristic. According to 40 CFR Section 261.3(c) and (d), any
residues resulting from treatment of D001 are hazardous wastes
only if they continue to exhibit a characteristic found under 40
CFR, Part 261, Subpart C.
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael Petruska of my staff at (202) 382-7729.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director, Office of
Solid Waste
cc: Kurt Whitford, N.J. DEP
Sam Ezekwo
EPA Region II
Air and Hazardous Waste Division
-------
9-444.1987(51)
0EC-4 1987
Mr. joe Berkant
EMCO, Inc.
P.O. Box 2193
East Gadsden, Alabana 72H01
Hear Mr. flerkant:
Baaed upon our review of your original delisting petition
and additional information submitted to our office, as
well as information provided In conversations between Kenneth
Layton, P.E. (Roblson 4 Layton, Inc.) and Cecil Cross (SAIC), we
have re-evaluated the processes at your plant with respect to
EPA'a recent clarification of the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste
No. FOC6. On December 2, 1986, a redefinition of the P006
listing was published (see 51 PR U335C-43351) which exempted
electroless plating processes, among others, from coverage as a
listed hazardous waste. Since external currents are not used in
association with coating processes at your facility, and nono of
the manufacturing processes described in your petition fell into
the e**oup of processes currently defined aa electroplating pro-
cesses, we conclude that your wastewater treatr^nt sludge* an
described in your petition, is not included within the ace>pe of
EPA Hazardous Waste *.'o. P006. V'e, therefore, are clo*in£ your
petition file.
Although your wastewater treatrent sludge la not art rPA
listed waste, you are still required to periodically determine
whether the waste exhibits any of the hazardous waste
teristics defined by «0 C.P.H. Sections ?fil.21-2filc ?''. In
addition, future process changes, If any, could cnune ^
to be classified as hazardous.
Please call me at (202) 382-4206 if you have Any questions
concerning our evaluation.
Sincerely,
Terrance Crogan,
Variances Section
cct Cecil Cross, 3AIC
Trlcla Herbert, FPA Region IV
-------
December, 11, 1987 9444.1987(52)
Mr. Jordan Dern
Manager, Environmental Regulatory Programs
Koppers Company, Incorporated
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Dear Mr. Dern:
The Permits and State Programs Division has reviewed your
September 21, 1983 petition (#0528) requesting an exclusion from
regulation for sludges, presently classified as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K035, generated at the Koppers' Follanabee, West
Virginia facility. We will recommend to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that your
petition be denied. There are two reasons for this
recommendation: (1) groundwater monitoring data indicates that
the subject units and waste may be contaminating groundwater; and
(2) the waste has not been sufficiently characterized to
demonstrate that it is non-hazardous. (Note: We have not
previously requested some of the missing information because of
(a) confusion created by the petition as to which wastes are
treated in the system, and (b) the evolving requirements of the
Delisting Program). The specific bases for our recommendation
are further described below.
However, before further explaining our denial
recommendation, let us first address your contentions that the
waste to be delisted is not subject to regulation.
Your firm contended that its wastewater treatment system
does not generate or treat a listed hazardous waste.
Specifically, you argued that the waste is a sludge generated
from the biological treatment of creosote production wastewaters
and that the K035 listing (wastewater treatment sludges generated
in the production of creosote) is not applicable to this waste
because the listing background document does not include
biological treatment sludges.
The Agency disagrees. The KO35 listing background document
specifically includes biological sludges:
2. Creosote Wastewater Treatment Sludge
The wastewater treatment sludges that remain after
biological treatments are also hazardous. The carcinogenic
constituents of creosote, namely benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(a)pyrene, are specifically
likely to be present in the treatment sludge since these
constituents absorb to sediment at very high levels (App.
B). Where treatment is incomplete, creosote (which is,
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
however, somewhat amenable to biodegradation (App. B), is
projected to be present in the sludge as well. If these
sludges are placed in a leaking landfill, an unlined holding
pond, or an improperly sited facility (i.e., as in an area
with permeable soil), the waste constituents may be
released."
For this reason, the Agency concludes that the wastewater
treatment sludge generated at the Koppers1 Follanabee, West
Virginia facility is a listed hazardous waste K035.
In addition, your firm contends that the aeration basins are
tanks, not surface impoundments, and are therefore exempt from
regulation under 40 CFR 261.4(c). As explained in the attached
October 11, 1985 letter from Stephen Wasserang (EPA Region III),
EPA examined the structural details of the aeration units and
found that the units do not meet the criteria for tanks.
Therefore, the §261.4(c) exemption does not apply.
Because the units and waste are subject to Subtitle C
regulations, we evaluated the merits of your delisting petition.
As mentioned previously, our evaluation has resulted in our
decision to recommend the denial of your firm's petition. The
primary basis for this decision is that the submitted groundwater
monitoring data indicates that the waste units may have
contributed to groundwater contamination. Also, we are concerned
about the adequacy of your ground-water monitoring system.
Finally, you did not supply all of the data needed to fully
characterize the waste in the treatment system. We address each
of these concerns in more detail below.
It is EPA's policy not to exclude any waste until the
petitioner demonstrates that it poses no past or present threat
to the environment. For waste that has been treated, stored or
disposed of in a land-based unit, EPA will investigate the
potential for ground-water contamination. Our policy is to
request four consecutive quarters of groundwater monitoring data
from a groundwater monitoring system meeting the requirements in
the 40 CFR 265, Subpart F. These data must show no exceedance of
regulatory standards.
We reviewed the data that Koppers submitted and concluded
that two of the monitoring systems (wells in the R-A and R-B
series) were not adequate to monitor ground-water quality in the
uppermost aquifer underlying the aeration units because they were
installed in shallow fill materials that are typically dry. The
R-C series wells which are downgradient of the units and the
upgradient A-115 well, although not fully complying with the
Subpart F requirements, can be used to sample the uppermost
aquifer. Koppers submitted two quarters of data from these
wells. Data from the downgradient wells showed concentrations
exceeding background levels for the following hazardous
constituents, which are among those we would expect to find in
Thishas been retyped from the original document.
-------
K035 waste: cadmium, barium, phenanthrene, benzo(a)-pyrene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, anthracene,
chryzene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and phenol. In all cases,
concentration levels at the downgradient wells exceeded the
levels of regulatory concerns that EPA uses to evaluate delisting
petitions. In some cases wells at the background (upgradient)
well also exceeded these delisting levels. Moreover, the
downgradient wells also showed higher concentrations of TOC, pH,
and specific conductants, three of the four general indicators of
ground-water contamination measured under the Subpart F
monitoring requirements. Appendix I presents these data in
greater detail.
We discussed the need for data on ground-water contamination
with representatives of Koppers in 1986. At that time, we
focused primarily on a CERCLA action that addressed ground-water
problems at a different part of the facility. We were concerned
that releases from the wastewater treatment units might be
contributing to that problem. In response to our letter of March
1986, Koppers submitted information intended to show that the
wastewater treatment units were not contributing to the ground-
water contamination subject to the CERCLA response. We have
serious questions about this demonstration. More significantly,
that demonstration provides no basis for us to conclude that the
wastewater' units are not contributing to the contamination closer
to the units at the three R-C series wells. Because samples from
these wells contained a large number of constituents frequently
found in K035 waste, and because the wells are located
downgradient of the units, we have tentatively concluded that the
units are contributing to the contamination at those wells.
Accordingly, we must recommend that the Agency deny your
petition.
Furthermore, as mentioned briefly above, none of the wells
in the vicinity of the aeration units fully complies with the
monitoring standards in Part 265, Subpart F. For example, two of
the monitoring systems (the initial R series and the RR series)
were installed in fill materials that are typically dry, and have
been determined to be inadequate for monitoring groundwater
quality in the uppermost aquifer underlying the aeration units.
EPA's current delisting policy also requires us to recommend
denial of your petition on this basis.
Finally, we must again recommend denial because your
petition does not fully characterize the wastes in the wastewater
treatment units. Without a complete understanding of the
composition and nature of these wastes we can not exclude these
wastes or associated treatment units from regulation under the 40
CFR Parts 262 through 268 and 270. Each of these deficiencies
discussed below.
First, Koppers requested that the waste in all units of the
wastewater treatment systems (i.e., 2 aeration basins and 1
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
clarifier) be delisted. Among other things, delisting procedures
require that the petitioner (1) properly sample and characterize
the waste in all units seeking delisting; and (2) analyze the
waste for factors (including constituents other than those for
which the waste was listed) which may cause the waste to be
hazardous. The Koppers petition is significantly deficient in
both these areas.
Koppers provided sampling data only for the waste in the
clarifier. We do not consider the samples taken from the
clarifier to be representative of the waste that accumulated in
the two aeration basins because potentially hazardous organic
residues (that may be more dense than the wastewater) may be
settling out in the aeration basins. This may cause the waste in
the aeration basins to be substantially different from the
clarifier wastes. Therefore, the Agency has no basis to decline
the uncharacterized aeration basins.
Second, submitted data indicate that material other than
K035 waste was added to the wastewater treatment system. Your
firm added contaminated groundwater removed from other locations
at the facility (as requested under CERCLA) to the wastewater
treatment system before the units were sampled, but failed to
clearly document the source or contents of the added groundwater.
This information is essential'under EPA's definition of
"hazardous waste." Mixtures of listed hazardous wastes, such as
K035 and another solid or hazardous waste, are hazardous wastes.
See 40 CFR §261.3(b)(2) ("the mixture rule"). EPA would need to
evaluate all of the constituents in the resulting mixture before
granting a delisting petition. To succeed, your petition would
have to demonstrate that the ground water that you added to the
units contained no wastes. Even if you could show that the
ground-water contained no RCRA wastes, you would need to perform
a full Appendix VIII analysis if you wanted to demonstrate that
any of the constituents found in the samples from the R-C series
wells originated in the contaminated ground-water from the CERCLA
action rather than the K035 waste.
Third, the constituent analyses you conducted were limited
to the constituents for which the waste was originally listed.
However, available data indicate that other processes at your
facility use pyridine, picoline, cyclohaxane, or naphthalene. It
is not clear whether constituents from these processes may end in
the petitioned wastewater. Further, contaminated groundwater
containing these and/or other constituents has been added to the
wastewater treatment system. Consequently, your petition should
have included an evaluation of the aeration basin wastes
(including the volume of previously generated waste) and the
clarifier wastes for the total concentrations of the following
constituents as well as for other constituents that may be
present from these process waters and/or contaminated
groundwater:
This has been retyped fromthe original document.
-------
acenaphthylene 2-methoxy-4-methylphenol
arsenic dibenze(a,h)anthracene
barium >thyl benzene
benzene :luoranthene
benzo(a)anthracene .ndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene .ead
benzo(b)fluoranthene mercury
benzo (2-chloroisopropyl)ethernapthalene
cadmium nickel
chrysene phenol
chromium picoline
cyanide pyridine
cyclohexane silver
creosote selenium
2,4-dimethyl phenol toluene
Fourth, a petitioner must also provide data indicating the
waste to be delisted would not be hazardous based on any
characteristics of the waste. You failed to provide such data
despite our requests for it. The aeration basin wastes should
have been analyzed for corrosivity (pH), ignitability,
reactivity, and EP toxicity.
Finally, submitted data indicate that mercury, although not
expected to be present in K035 waste, is present in the waste.
This fact further supports the Agency's position concerning the
inadequacy of the waste characterization and analytical data you
provided. Specifically, we are concerned with the source of this
metal contaminant. The summary EP toxicity data submitted on
November 17, 1986 showed that the mercury concentration in the
March 12, 1986 sample, when subjected to the VRS model, exceeded
the regulatory level of concern (i.e., National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation for Mercury).
We recognize that we have not previously requested that you
submit some of these missing data (e.g., aeration basin waste
characterization data). As we explained above, however, your
groundwater monitoring data and the status of your groundwater
monitoring well network provide independent grounds for denying
your petition. Therefore, even if you had supplied the missing
data, and if it had allowed us to predict that no constituents in
the waste exceeded a level of regulatory concern, we would have
recommended denying your petition. The missing data, although
potentially useful, is therefore not needed to support our
decision.
For all of the above reasons, we consider the waste to be
hazardous and subject to regulation under 40 CFR Part 262 through
264 and to the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270.
Accordingly, we will recommend to the Assistant Administrator
that a denial action will be published in the Federal Register.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of
withdrawing their petition to avoid publication of a negative
finding in the Federal Register. If you prefer this option, you
must send us a letter withdrawing your petition and indicating
that the petitioned waste is considered hazardous and will be
managed as such. If you send such a letter, it should be
forwarded to me within two weeks of the date of receipt of
today's correspondence. If you choose not to withdraw your
petition, a denial decision will be published in the Federal
Register. You and other interested parties will be able to
submit comments if you disagree with the Agency's decision.
If you have any questions regarding our decision, please
contact Mr. Scott Maid of my staff at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Bob Greaves, Region III
Sharon Feldstein, Region III (Superfund)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Mr. Verrill M. Norwood, Jr. 9444.1987(53)
Director, Environmental Affairs
Olin Chemicals Group
P.O. Box 248
Lower River Road
Charleston, Tennessee 37310
Dear Mr. Norwood
This letter is in response to your June 3, 1987 letter,
concerning your petition (#0381) to delist the pyridine still
bottoms (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F005) generated from the
Thermolin 101 process at your Lake Charles, Louisiana facility.
On May 25, 1987, we informed you of our intention to deny
your delisting petition on the basis of predicted levels of
pyridine, at the compliance-point, that exceed the regulatory
standard for pyridine. On June 3, 1987, we received your letter
withdrawing your petition. Your basis for withdrawal was the
belief that the Agency's F005 listing is not appropriate for your
waste. Specifically, you stated that pyridine is used as a
catalyst and not as a solvent in your process and you contended,
therefore, that the residue generated during reclamation does not
constitute an F005 waste. Based on the information received to
date, however, we believe that pyridine functions as a solvent in
your process and that your recovery wastes are therefore
accurately listed under EPA Hazardous Waste No. F005. The waste,
therefore, should be considered hazardous and is subject to
regulation under 40 C.F.R. Parts 262 through 265 and to the
permitting standards of 40 C.F.R. Part 270.
Since you have withdrawn your delisting petition, my office
will not investigate this topic any further. However, since the
waste is hazardous, we are forwarding our files to appropriate
Region VI officials.
In the future, if you decide to submit a new delisting
petition to the Agency, in addition to the information requested
in the letter of May 26, 1987, you must provide the following
information.
o A complete description of the Thermolin 101 process.
o A description of all process equipment involved in the
Thermolin 101 process, including complete schematic
diagrams.
o A list of all materials used in the process and their
functions.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
o A complete description of all reactions involved in the
process. This should include a description of the most
likely chemical mechanisms of the reactions.
o Molar amounts (mass or volumetric amounts are also
acceptable) of all materials used and generated in the
process (including intermediates). Include a rationale
for use of specific ratios of raw materials used in the
process.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Scott Maid, or my staff at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Lee Haze, EPA Region VI
Bonny Romo, EPA Region VI
Bill Taylor, EPA Region VI
Bill Honker, EPA Region VI
Jim Anderson, Olin
Henry Huppert, SAIC
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
INITED STATES EWMfrMWENT^XJ»»TECTK»<»EHCY
9444.1987(55)
DEC 28 1987
Mr. R.P. Weiaer
Union Carbide Corporation
Linde Division
P.O. Box **
Tonawanda, Mew York 14151
Dear Mr. Welmer:
We have received your letter expressing your intention to
withdraw your delisting petition (toa^) for wastewater treat-
ment sludge generated at jour Tonawanda plant. Following your
conversation with Carolyn Bossemen of Science Applications
International Corporation, we were Inforned that contrary to the
process description In your original petition ("cleaning, *»tchin^f
and passivation of carbon steel, stainless steel, and altwlnwi"),
your plant does not perforp etching of either carbon steel or
stainless steel, but only pickles these oetals. Ve understand
that your plant performs etching of alumlnun, but aluminum etching
ia exempted; from the listing for FPA Hazardous Waste No. POO') and
your petition for this waste is therefore Root. Furtherncre, we
understand that the spent pickle liquor (PPA Hazardous *aat« ?'o.
K062) generated when the pickling baths are periodically dicpos*"1
is sent off-site to a licensed hazardous waste facility and do«s
not enter the wastewater treatment plant.
Please be advised that the decision to moot your petition 1-
based on the assumption that you will continue to s
-------
JfATES 6NV|RON*C*TAl PROTECWON
9444.1988(01)
JAN
Mr. John H. Lovgren, Jr.
Environmental Engineer
Leach and Garner Company
Attleboro, MA 02703
Dear Mr. Lovgren:
This is a response to your November 17, 1987, letter to me
regarding the regulatory classification of certain metal finishing
sludges. Your letter describes a number of processes used in metal
finishing, including pickling, tumbling, burnishing, heat treating
and contact cooling. In addition, during a recent phone conversa-
tion you provided my staff with further details regarding the
generation of several different wastestreams and sludges. Our
decisions on the regulatory status of these residuals are discussed
below.
On December 2, 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
clarified the scope of the F006 listing (See Federal Register
43350); this clarification narrowed the scope of EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006 to include only wastewater treatment sludges from
common and precious metals electroplating, anodizing, chemical
etching and milling and stripping when associated with, these
processes.
In addition, the F006 listing applies only to the sludge
generated from treatment of wastewaters associated with electro-
plating operations. Wastes resulting from treatment of spent baths
and solutions that are not wastewaters would not be considered
F006. However, sometimes these spent baths become mixed with
wastewaters from electroplating operations; in these cases the
sludges from treatment of the mixture would be F006. Also, depend-
ing on their composition, the spent baths and wastes derived from
their treatment may meet the listing descriptions of other EPA
hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 or exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste defined in 40 CFR 261.21 through
261.24.
-------
- 2 -
One wastestream you described is a spent solution from metal
burnishing and polishing that contains soaps and metals. In the
process, small pieces of metal are tumbled with rocks and soap to
smooth the metal pieces. Under the Clean Water Act, the spent
tumbling solution must be treated to remove the metals and soap
before discharge. As you have described this mechanical burnishing
and polishing process, it is not an electroplating,
anodizing, chemical etching and milling, or chemical etching and
milling, or cleaning and stripping associated with these
processes. Therefore, the metal hydroxide waste derived from
treatment of the spent burnishing and polishing solution would not
meet the F006 listing. If, however, the waste solution is mixed
with "electroplating" wastewaters, the wastewater treatment sludge
would be F006.
Another waste that you described was sludge from lime neutra-
lization of a spent pickling bath. The pickling bath is used to
remove oxide scale from precious metals and does not meet the
definition of the K062 listing. In addition, this spent bath is
neutralized, the resulting sludge would not be F006. If the metal
is subsequently rinsed, however, and this pickling process is a
cleaning or stripping operation associated with an electroplating
process, then sludge from treatment of the rinsewater would meet
the F006 listing.
A third process that you described (the manufacture of gold
beads) also generates a spent bath. In this process, nitric acid
is used to etch out the copper base metal in a gold bead. (The
bead is moulded from gold-plated copper tubing.) Treatment of the
spent nitric acid bath produces a metal hydroxide waste. The spent
acid is not a wastewater; thus, waste derived from direct treatment
of the acid would not be F006. However, sludge from the treatment
of wastewater associated with the etching process could be defined
as F006.
You also inquired about the status of sludge generated from
the treatment of contact cooling water. If the contact cooling
water is used only for cooling and is not, for example, also used
as a rinsewater in an electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching
and milling, or associated cleaning stripping operation, then the
treatment sludge would not be F006. If, however, the cooling water
is combined with other electroplating related wastewaters for
treatment, the resulting sludge would meet the F006 listing.
-------
•*- >
V (.
- 3 -
I hope this answers your questions. If you require additional
information, please contact Ed Abrams of my staff at (202)
382-4787.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
ATTLEBORO, MASSACHUSETTS 02703
November 17, 1967
Ms. Marsha Williams
Director of Solid Haste
Environmental Protection Agency
WH562, 401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Williams:
This letter is being submitted as a request for clarification of the F006
listing for hazardous waste from non-specific sources.
I represent the Leach & Garner Company wnich is in the precious metal product
industry. Our operations range from producing intermediate precious metal
products for furtner processing by our customers to the the production of
electrical contacts. These operations require a substantial amount of metal
finishing operations such as pickling, tumbling, burnishing, heat treating and
contact cooling. As a result of treating the effluent or wastewater, we
generate a variety of metal hydroxide filter cakes and sludges. Two of the
five operations which generate the wastewater sludges are involved with
electroplating. One of the operations generates its sludges by chemically
treating burnishing and tumbling solutions which contain soaps and metals.
The sludge generated during this process has been tested for EP tozicity and
has passed.
I have reviewed documentation from the Federal Register dated December 2, 1986
which refers me to the Effluent Guidelines for pretreataent standards for the
electroplating point source category.
I would appreciate your Interpretation as to the proper classification of our
metal finishing sludges. If you require any further information regarding
this request, pleas* feel free to contact me at 617-222-7400, ezt. 390.
Sincerely,
John H. Lovgren, Jr.
Environmental Engineer
JHL:bb
-------
9444.1988(02)
JAN 2 0 1988
J. Carter S. Gray
Secretary/Counsel
Earth Industrial Waste Management, Inc.
3536 Fite Road
Millington, Tennessee 38053
Dear Mr. Gray:
This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1987, to
Michael Petruska concerning classification of your solvent wastes.
The waste you describe appears to be a mixture of several
commercial chemical products that are listed in 40 CFR Section
261.33(f). In addition, you also indicate that at times the
solvent mixture would exhibit the ignitability characteristic —
referred to in your letter as D001. If the commercial chemical
products flushed from the line are intended for reclamation (i.e. .
solvent distillation) they would not be wastes under the hazardous
waste regulations and:, thus, would not be subject to any Federal
regulation, including labelling requirements. If however, the line
flushings are intended for discard, they are hazardous wastes
provided they contain a U-listed commercial chemical product or
exhibit a characteristic.
With respect to your specific concern, the Agency recognizes
that generators may have difficulty identifying and manifesting the
waste as a result of this multiple U-waste classification. One
possible means of reducing the generator's burden is to segregate
the wastestreams as they are generated, and thus limit the number
of different wastes in each drum. For example, chlorinated
solvents could be segregated from non-chlorinated solvents, and
solvents that are hazardous only due to their flash point
(ignitability) should be segregated from those that are listed as
hazardous due to their toxicity.
-------
With respect to proper identification of the multiple U-listing
wastes on the manifest, the generator should seek guidance from the
regulating State agency. The National Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest (EPA Form 8700-22, codified at 40 CFR Part 262, Appendix)
includes a continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) for multiple
waste shipments. Some states, however, prefer the generator to
simply use more than one manifest for multiple waste shipments;
either approach is acceptable to EPA.
If you have further questions, please continue to deal with
Michael Petruska at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerel
:ia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
unucu iiAici CHYikOHMiNTAL PROTECTKJM ACE we 9444.1988(03)
Mr. A. j. Heinze
AJH Environmental Consulting, Inc.
843 Claymont Drive
Ballwin, MO 63011
Dear Mr. Heinzet
This is in response to your November 7, 1987, letter to
Michael PetrusJca concerning the regulatory status of spent pipeline
filter cartridges. The status of the cartridges depends on whether
the solvents that pass through the filters meet one of the listing
descriptions at 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D.
If the solvent in question has been used and otherwise meets
one of the "F" listings in Section 261.31, then the filters are
hazardous waste under the "derived from" rule in Section
261. 3(c) (2) (i) . The filters would be hazardous waste unless a
delisting is granted by EPA under Section 260.22.
If the solvent contained in the filter is a discarded commer-
cial chemical product listed in Section 261.33(e) and (f), then the
filters are contaminated with, or contain, a hazardous waste and
must be handled as hazardous waste until it no longer contains the
hazardous constituent.
From the information you have provided, it appears that your
client has filters in both categories. As such, the filters are
subject to the regulations at 40 CFR Part 261-268, Part 270, and
the notification requirements of RCRA Section 3010.
If you have further questions, please continue to deal with
Michael PetrusJca at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9444.1988(02a)
NITED STATES EN VIRONMCNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20160
Ml
OFFICE 3i-
SOLID WASTE AND EMEl- CiENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: New Jersey Zinc Company
/ ft t'^.K^ut'-.'- •-
FROM- Marcia E; ^Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Robert E. Creaves, Chi2f
Waste Management Brancr (3HW30)
is in response to your nemo dated November 3, 1987, in
which you requested that the Off're of Solid Waste (OSW)
provide assistance on a number -jf regulatory issues surrounding
the N'2w Jersey Zinc Company site- .n Palmerton, PA.
AMC v. EPA.
A Federal Register notice (attached) interpreting the AMC
decision was signed by the Administrator December 31, 1987. Our
reading of the AMC opinion is that the New Jersey Zinc Compan/'s
operation is not affected by the AM£ opinion, i.e.. it still
involves solid waste management (at least up until it is bur .ed
in an industrial furnace) and the company must still obtain a
RCRA permit for their K061 storage pile. Further, we do not
think the opinion affects EPA's speculative accumulation
provisions at all. (You should note, however, that the
speculative accumulation provision determines when certain
secondary materials are solid wastes; it does not distinguish
between storage and disposal. "Disposal" is defined in the
regulations at Section 260.10.)
The last of your first set o* questions concerned partii..Liy
reclaimed zinc oxide that requires further reclamation.
Normally, a partially reclaimed solid waste remains a solid
waste as long as it must still be reclaimed before use, and the
Section 261.3(c)*(2) (i) "derived-from" rule would make the
partially reclaimed material a hazardous waste. As I understand
the situation at New Jersey Zinc, the partially reclaimed zi'ic
-------
-2-
oxide is both a solid and a hazardous waste. However, as is
discussed below in the context of the Waelz Kiln residue, i: New
Jersey Zinc were to change their process so that the only
hazardous waste they were to burn in the kiln was K061, the
residues from that kiln may then not be hazardous waste.
Regulatory Status of Waelz Kiln Residue
The regulatory status of the kiln residue (and the partially
reclaimed zinc oxide) depends on the type of feed to the kiln.
As I understand the process currently employed at New Jersey
Zinc. I concur with Sam Rotenberg's assessment that the residue
is a hazardous waste via the derived-frotn rule, and further,
that the residue has been a hazardous waste since 1980. Th&
following are the factors upon which this determination is
based.
o The kiln resiJue is. not exempt under RCRA Section
3001(b)(3)(A)(ii) because the K061 feedstock is a uaste
from the primary steelmaking industry. Steelmakinn
constitutes an alloying process, which the Agency 1 ^;s
determined not to bo "processing of ores or minera'-a."
Waste produced by reclamation of other minerals from
non-Bevill waste is no~c itself a Bevill Waste.
o The "indigenous secondary material" discussions that
have appeared in the Federal Register over the last 3
years (see 50 £E 630-1, January 4, 1985; 50 £B 49167,
November 29, 1985; and 52 ZB 16989-91, May 6, 1987) are
not applicable to this unit because I understand that
F006 and F019 are introduced to the furnace — these
wastes are certainly not indigenous to a zinc smelting
process.-*-'
I/ Your letter also stated that K062 is added to the furnace.
We would not view K062 as indigenous to zinc smelting either,
but as I understand it, what is actually introduced to the
furnace is sludge from lime stabilization from waste pickle
liquor that is exempt from the c'erived-from rule under Section
261.3(c)(2)(ii). Therefore, introducing this exempt sludge into
the furnace does not affect the regulatory status of the kiln
residue.
-------
You should note that New Jersey Zinc might be able to change
the status of the kiln dust by ceasing to add any hazardous
waste but K061 to the kiln. Under the May 6, 1987 proposal ;52
FR 16990), K061 would be considered indigenous to a zinc
smelting operation because K051 ic generated in furnaces useo '-n
primary steel production (i. e._, totn are forms of metal smelt-
ing). If this rule is finalized as proposed, then the derived-
from rula will no longer apply to residue from smelting of
K061. Of course, if New Jersey Line continues to add F006 -und
B'0l9 to the kiln, the kiln residue would continue to be hazard-
ous no matter what is decided concerning K061. In fact, as a
final point, the introduction of F006 and F019 to the kiln calls
into question the kiln's status ?9 a reclamation device. (IL-22.
50 FR 630-1, January 4, 1985.) That is, the F006 and F019
wastewater treatment sludges are not ordinarily associated with
zinc smelting, and these wastes may contain Appendix VIII
constituents different than normal zinc smelter feed materials.
(Id.. ) The kiln, as it is currently operated, may be more
properly classified as a hazardous waste incinerator as opposed
to a reclamation furnace.
Regulating Exempted Waste- Under RCRA Corrective Action
Your second set of questions concerned the applicability of
RCRA Section 3004(u) corrective action authority to releases
from exempt units. The units you asked about are:
1. Beviil exempt;
2. Pre-RCRA inactive units, and
3. AMC opinion exemptions.
(1) The question about units containing Beviil wastes we.;-'
settled recently when EPA issued the second HSWA Codifica-
tion Rule, signed by the Administrator on November 16,
1987. EPA determined that the RCRA Section 300l(b)(3)
exemptions (i.e^ r those established for "Beviil was'tes") do
not extend to Section 3004(u). This decision is explained
fully in the preamble of the second Codification Rule. (Seg
FR 45790, December 3, 1987.)
-------
- 4 -
(2) Releases from pre-RCRA inactive units are certainly
within the authority of RCRA Section 3004(u). 40 CFR
Section 264.101 provides that an owner or operator of a
facility seeking a RCRA permit must institute correction
action for releases from units at the facility,
"...regardless of the time at which waste was placed in such
unit."
(3) Releases from units excluded from RCRA jurisdiction
under the AMC opinion, should there be such exclusions,
would be handled the same as other product or process
releases. That is, the unit holding the product is not a
SWMU, but areas contaminated by "routine and systematic
discharges" from the unit are SWMUs.
if you have further questions in these areas, contact
Michael Petruska of my staff at FTS 475-9888.
Attachment
-------
UNITE STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO^GENC
9444.1988(05)
MAR | I 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Refractory Wastes at U.S. EPA Combustion
Research Facility
FROM: Jeffery D. Denit, Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Sam Becker, Chief
Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch (6H-C)
This is in response to your memorandum to Robert Scarberry
dated December 22, 1987, regarding the regulatory status of refrac-
tory waste at EPA's Combustion Research Facility (CRF). Solid
waste that is generated from the treatment of a hazardous waste is
a hazardous waste if it: (1) contains a listed waste, (2) is
derived from a listed waste, or (3) exhibits a characteristic of a
hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(c) and (d).
According to 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i) "any solid waste generated
from the treatment, storage or disposal of a hazardous waste... is
a hazardous waste." EPA interprets this provision to mean that the
"derived from* waste carries the same EPA Hazardous Waste designa-
tion as the original waste. (See 50 FR 37338 (Sep. 12, 1985); 50
FR 1995 n. 26 (Jan. 14, 1985)j d. 50 FR 619 n. 7 (Jan. 4, 1985)).
This is important because apparently dioxin-containing waste (F020)
was burned at the facility; and F020 is subject to special require-
ments in 40 CFR 264.317. (As you suggested, residue resulting from
the treatment of many different listed wastes should be handled as
the most restricted of the listed wastes.)
As related to us by Johannes Lee of CRF and Jerry Truitt of
your staff, the wastes generated from the rotary kiln incinerator
at CRF during the tine that the dioxin waste (F020) was incinerated
are the following: (1) removed refractory material, (2) dismantled
pieces of the former scrubber system, (3) departiculate air filt-
ers, (4) scrubber wastevater, (5) soil contaminated with scrubber
-------
- 2 -
wastewater, and (6) ash. Based on the following assessment, we
have determined that all of these wastes are acute hazardous (H)
wastes, or contain acute hazardous wastes, and are thus, subject
to the special requirements of 40 CFR 264.317.
The wastes listed above which are hazardous because they were
"derived from" waste are: (1) departiculate air filters, (2) scrub-
ber wastewater, and (3) ash. These wastes may be delisted under
Section 260.22: otherwise they must be managed as dioxin-containing
hazardous waste (i.e., under Section 264.317, as well as other
applicable requirements).
With regard to materials that are contaminated with listed
waste, and thereby contain hazardous waste (i.e., hazardous
constituents from the waste), EPA has determined that such
materials must be managed as hazardous waste for as long as they
contain any of the listed waste. (You should note that for
contaminated materials, a formal delisting is not necessary;
rather, the generator of the contaminated material must manage the
material as hazardous waste, or must be able to demonstrate that
the material has been decontaminated so that it no longer contains
any listed waste.) Following the same logic as cited above for
"derived-from" waste, material contaminated by a listed waste
carries the same designation as the most restricted listed waste
that it contains, i.e., in this case, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F020.
The wastes listed above that are designated as contaminated
materials includes (1) refractory material, (2) dismantled pieces
of the former scrubber system, and (3) soil contaminated with
scrubber wastewater. These wastes must be treated as acute
hazardous (H) wastes, unless and until they are decontaminated and
no longer contain the listed waste (i.e., F020).l/ A detailed
description of decontamination procedures should be a part of the
facility's closure plan as described in Section 264.ll2(b)(4) and
Section 264.112(e)
I/ If the material is decontaminated so it no longer contains
F020, but it still contains constituents from other listed wastes,
the material would be managed as nonacute hazardous waste.
-------
- 3 -
All hazardous waste generated at the CRT must be managed in
accordance with Section 262.34 or under the facility's permit. If
on-site storage of hazardous waste for time periods greater than 90
days is necessary, and is not addressed in the permit, then the
permit must be modified to address the on-site storage of these
wastes.
Please feel free to call Emily Roth, of my staff, if you have
any further questions; her telephone number is FTS 382-4777.
-------
UNITt. iTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.ACENCY 9444.1988(06)
MAR 31 868
Mr. Michael J. Fox, Manager
Chemical Engineering Services
Aptech
Post Office Box 3440
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3440
Dear Mr. Fox:
This is •«!- response to your letter of March 9, 1988, in
which you seek written confirmation of an opinion given you by
the RCRA/ Super fund Hotline concerning solvent/mixture blends.
The information you were given is correct. A spent solvent
mixture/blend that contains, before use, a total of less than ten
percent of the solvents listed in the F001, F002, F004, or F005
categories would not be considered a listed hazardous waste.
(See 40 CFR 261.31 and 50 £fi 53315-20.) The situation which you
describe in your letter falls within the realm of the above
regulation, so the clarification you were given by the Hotline is
correct. However, if the waste exhibits the characteristics of
corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity, or extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity (40 CFR 261.20-261.24) the spent solvent /mixture
blend would be considered a characteristic hazardous waste.
It should be noted that state regulations may be more
stringent. Therefore, please contact your state environmental
authorities to find out what their regulatory requirements are.
Than* you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions, please call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at
(800)424-9346 or 1202)382-3000.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Acting Director
Characterization and
Asseessment Division
-------
April 7, 1988 9444.1988(07)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Assistance Request
Determination for Viability of "F-Waste" Electroplating
(F007-F009) Listings at Lewis Industries, Inc.
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director (WH-562)
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Wagoner, Director
Waste Management Division, Region VII
This is in response to your memorandum dated December 31,
1987 in which you request guidance as to whether rinsewaters that
are generated by electroplating operations are regulated as
hazardous wastes under RCRA. Specifically, you describe the
electroplating process at Lewis Industries, Inc., located in
Kansas City, MO, and inquire if the rinsewaters generated by
their operations might be listed hazardous wastes according to 40
CFR 261.31. As your analysis of the listing background document
to 40 CFR 261.31 correctly indicates, rinsewaters from
electroplating operations are not within the scope of the F007,
F008, or F009 hazardous waste listings. Rather, these
rinsewaters would only be considered hazardous under these
specific listings if the F007, F008, or F009 is deliberately
mixed with the rinsewaters from electroplating operations. (See
40 CFR 261.3(b)(2).)
During the plating process, rinsewaters may be contaminated
with cyanides carried over from plating or cleaning bath
solutions. The mixture rule applies when a hazardous waste is
mixed with a solid waste. (See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv).) The
rinsewaters are not a solid waste when they become contaminated;
therefore, these rinsewaters would not be hazardous waste due to
the mixture rule. In addition, based on the available data that
you submitted, the rinsewaters do not exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste set forth in 40 CFR 261
Subpart C. Therefore, the rinsewaters generated by Lewis
Industries, Inc., would not be designated as a hazardous waste
under RCRA. Please feel free to contact Mr. Ed Abrams at FTS
382-4787 if you or your staff have any further questions.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1988(09)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 88
4. Spent Solvent Listings
The owner of a metal working facility uses a cutting oil to cool and lubricate metals during
a drilling process. The cutting oil, before use, consists of eighty percent (80%)
l^^trichloroethane and twenty percent (20%) lubricating oil. When spent, this fluid is
sent for disposal. Would this material meet the F002 listing found in Section 261.31?
Yes, Section 261.31 of 40 CFR describes the requirements for listing spent solvents.
These requirements were codified in the December 31,1985 Federal Register. The
December 31,1985 FR explains that: "the spent solvent listings cover only those sol vents
that are used for their solvent properties — that is, to solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize
other constituents." For example, solvents used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scour-
ing, as diluents, extractants, reaction and synthesis media, and similar uses are covered
under the listing (when spent). A solvent is considered "spent" when it has been used
and is no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise
reprocessed" (50 FR 53316). The 1,1,1, trichloroethane in this tircumstance, is being
used as a diluent for mobilizing the constituents in the lubricating oil and is therefore
covered by the F002 listing in 40 CFR Section 261.31.
Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475-8551
Research: Steve Campbell
-------
9444 1QR fl Mn i
IWITED 1 TES ENVIRONMENTS L PROTECTION A «TY ' '
M«f 3 S88
SUBJECT: Guidance on Chlordane and Heptachlor PestiJpfce Wastes
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562B)
TO: Su«an H. Wayland, Deputy Director,
Office of Pesticide Programs (TS-766C)
This is in response to your memorandum dated March 3, 1988,
in which you request guidance on the regulatory status of
chlordane and heptachlor pesticide waste under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. My staff has researched
the specific questions raised in your memorandum; our responses
are given below.
QUESTION NO. 1: Are products containing either chlordane or
•eptachlor, or both chlordane and heptachlor covered by the "P"
9T HU" listings of 40 CFR 261.33 (e) and (f) respectively?
Commercial chemical products or manufacturing intermediates
that contain any of the compounds listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (e) or
261.33 (f) are potential "P" or "U" wastes. For our purpose,
commercial chemical products or manufacturing intermediates are
defined as materials which contain either the pure or technical
grade.of the listed chemical, crude product, or a formulation in
which the listed chemical is t,ft e sole act i v^inyr«*a i «nt.. Also
included as potential "P" or "U" listed wastes are
off-specification products which, if they met specification,
would have the generic name included in either of these lists.
When two or more compounds listed in 261.33 are present as
active ingredients in a formulation, the formulation is oat a
-------
- 2 -
intended for the product). Fillers, solvents, propellants, and
other components with no pesticidal role are functionally inert
with regard to pesticide formulations and are therefore not
active ingredients. It is possible for a hazardous constituent
from 261.33(e) or (f) to be a functionally inert component of a
commercial chemical product, for example, a solvent carrier.
In these cases, its presence does not prevent the formulation
containing another "P" or "U" constituent as the sole active
ingredient from being a "P" or "U" listed waste.
With regard to chlordane products that contain small
amounts of heptachlor, these formulations are considered to
contain only one active ingredient. It is our opinion that the
small amounts of heptachlor, which are not economical to
extract from chlordane during its manufacture, do not
constitute a second active ingredient because heptachlor occurs
as an impurity in the synthesis of chlordane and is not mixed
vith chlordane to formulate a new product.
Finally, in order for commercial chemical products or
manufacturing intermediates to be subject to regulation as "P"
or "U" hazardous wastes, they must be discarded or intended for
discard as described in 40 CFR 261.2 (a)(2)(i). This
requirement is satisfied when materials are "abandoned" as
defined in 40 CFR 261.2(b), "when they are mixed with waste oil
or used oil or other material and applied to the land for dust
suppression or road treatment, when they are otherwise applied
to the land in lieu of their original intended use or when they
are contained in products that are applied to the land in lieu
of their original intended use, or when, they are produced for
use as (or as a component of) a fuel, distributed for use as a
fuel, or burned as a fuel."
QUESTION NO. 2: Is there a critical cutoff concentration or
percent active ingredient at which chlordane or heptachlor
product would fall under the umbrella of the listing?
N'o. Under the existing regulations, there is no critical
cutoff concentration or percent active ingredient at which
chlordane or heptachlor product vould fall under the listing.
The Agency is initiating a program that will establish
concentration thresholds for compounds listed at 40 CFR 261.33,
below which they win no longer be the listed waste. This
effort, however, will take a number of years to complete.
-------
9444.1988(11)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. William Lindberg
Regulatory Affairs Coordinator
SWI, Inc.
P.O. Box B
Saukville, WI 53080
Dear Mr. Lindberg:
This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1988 to
Mr. Steven Weil, in which you ask if paints containing solvent
constituents are subject to F listings (40 CFR 261.31).
You are correct in stating that "solvents that are used for
their 'solvent* properties—that is, to solubilize (dissolve) or
mobilize other constituents" (50 EB 53316, December 31, 1985) are
covered by the spent solvent listings. However, the Federal
Register notice goes on to state that "process wastes where
solvents were used as reactants or ingredients in the formulation
of commercial chemical products are not covered by the listing.
The products themselves are also not covered." (Id.) Paints,
which are included in the classification of such commercial
chemical products are, therefore, not F-listed spent solvent
hazardous wastes.
Thank you for your letter. If you have any further
questions, please call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at
(800)424-9346.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9444.1988(12)
UNITED *f ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ENCY
NVI9
Michael Fox
Chemical Engineering Services
APTECH
P.O. Box 3440
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3440
Dear Mr. Fox:
This letter is in response to your April 21, 1988 letter to
Mr. Matthew Straus in which you request clarification of the
hazardous waste listings.
The passage you cited from the Handbook for Snail Business
(EPA 1986) is correct. The remainder of this letter provides
some explanatory information-on the hazardous waste listings.
Discarded Connercial chemical products are hazardous wastes if
they are listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (the "P" and "U" lists) or if
they exhibit one or sore of the hazardous waste characteristics
of Part 261, Subpart C. A comment in Section 261.33 (d)
clarifies that the listing applies,to commercial and technical
grades of the product, and to formulations in which tha chemical
is the sole active ingredient. "Sole active ingredient" means
the active ingredient is the only chemically active component for
the function of the product. If the discarded product is a
formulation with more than one active ingredient, it would not be
within the scop* of the listing in Section 261.33.
The listing* of Section 261.31 for spent solvents apply only
to solvents which have become contaminated through use.
Formulations with many "active ingredients" may be covered by the
spent solvent listings in Section 261.31.
If a waste does not meet any of the listings, the generator
is required under Section 262.11 to either test the waste or use
his knowledge to determine if the waste exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic.
-------
UNITECTWATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INCY
- 2 -
In addition, the generator.should check with his state
hazardous waste agency for additional wastes which nay be
regulated under state laws or regulations.
If you have further questions, please contact Mike
Petruska at (202) 475-9888.
Sincerely,
Devereauz Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
UMR1D ITATIS MV1IONMEMTAI. «OTICTIQN ACIMCY 9444.1988(13
JUL28 1988
Mr. T. Wayne Vickers
V.P-., Marketing and Sales
Columbus Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 257
Ashville, Ohio 43103-0257
Dear Mr. Vickers:
I am responding to your letter dated June 27, 1988, in which
you requested information regarding the disposal of paint filters
and our opinion on the veracity of an advertisement for paint spray
booth filters. Specifically, your questions deal with an
advertisement for a styrofoam paint spray booth filter appearing in
the April, 1988 issue of FINISHER'S MANAGEMENT magazine.
We can not comment on the veracity of the advertisement, but we
can offer some information regarding the disposal and hazardous
waste classification of related wastes.
Used paint filters are not a RCRA listed hazardous waste (i.e.,
not listed in 40 CFR 261.31-33). However, they may be
characteristically hazardous if they exhibit any of the four
hazardous waste characteristics (ignitabiiity, corrosivlfcy,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity - see 40 CFR
261.21-24).
The advertisement claims that the filter is soluble in paint
thinner for easy disposal. If the thinner is one or more of the
solvents covered by the EPA hazardous waste listings F001-F005, and
the thinner has been used for its solvent properties (i.e., to
solubilize or mobilize another material such as in a cleaning
operation or in -dissolving the paint filter), then the resultant
solution of .the paint filter and the thinner will become a listed
hazardous wa«£e on disposal.
I hope this information will be useful to you.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
-------
9444.1988(14)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
•/; ? 6 P.™ OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Secondary Lead /Smelter Variances
- !
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowranqg,
Office of Solid Wast*
TO: Waste Management
Division Directors, Regions I-X
This memorandum provides guidance to assist you in handling
variance requests you may receive from secondary lead smelters.
Owners and operators of secondary lead smelters are likely to
request variances from being classified as a solid waste for
their lead plates and groups that are stored in storage piles.
More detailed information is included in the attached report
from Midwest Research Institute. Questions in this area should
be addressed to Filomena Chau or Mike Petruska at FTS 382-4795
or 475-8551.
A. General.
Section 260.30(c) provides that the Regional Administrator
may grant a variance from classification as a solid waste for
those materials that have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed
further before recovery is completed if, after initial
reclamation, the resulting material is "commodity-like." This
determination is to be based on five factors specified at
Section 260.31(c)(l)-{5), and "other relevant factors"
(paragraph (c)(6)).
Secondary lead smelters reclaim lead from spent lead acid
batteries (a characteristic hazardous waste). An intermediate
step in this reclamation process is the breaking and component
separation of batteries, which results in partially-reclaimed
lead-bearing material known as "plates" and "groups." These
materials may be stored in piles and subsequently fed to blast
or reverberatory furnaces for re-smelting. Under certain
conditions, these plates and groups may meet the criteria in
Section 260.31(c) and, therefore, would not be a solid or
hazardous waste.
-------
- 2 -
In some instances, the granting of a variance for plates and
groups could lead to a smelter becoming exempt from the need to
comply with the interim status requirements or obtain a permit.
For example, if a smelter can set up an operation where incoming
batteries are introduced directly into the recycling operation
without prior storage, and where emission control dust (K069) is
recycled either without storage or stored under Section 262.34,
the smelter would have no activities subject to permitting
(absent the plate and group storage pile).
B. Factors 1-4.
After analysis of a considerable body of information, OSW
has determined that secondary lead smelters on a national (or
"generic") basis meet the criteria of Section 260.31(c)(l)-(4).
The basis for this determination is summarized below. - (For more
details, see the attached draft report from Midwest Research
Institute (MRI).)
o The first factor (paragraph (c)(D) is the degree of
processing a material has undergone and the degree of
further processing that is required (for the resulting
material to be "commodity-like"). Available
information indicates that the battery-breaking and
component separation steps can be labor-intensive and
often represent a significant percentage of the
resources required to recycle a battery; we would view
these steps, then, to account for a substantial amount
of processing.
o The second factor (paragraph (c)(2)) is the value of
the material after initial reclamation, we have
determined that plates and groups do have significant
market value, i.e., prices for plates and groups are
listed in industry publications, and until recently
smelters have purchased-.large amounts of plates and
groups from independent battery breakers.
o The third factor (paragraph (c)(3)) is the degree to
which the reclaimed material is like an analagous raw
material. We have determined that plates and groups
are similar to galena ore in terms of lead
concentration, and based on available data do not
contain significant amounts of hazardous constituents
not found in galena. (Arsenic concentrations do appear
to be slightly higher in the plates and groups, but we
note that' small amounts~of arsenic are Viewed as
desirable in secondary lead smelting as an alloying
metal; therefore, our determination is that
-------
- -3 -
the slightly higher arsenic concentrations in lead
plates and groups do not change the conclusion that it
is substantially comparable in composition to galena
ore. )
o The fourth factor (paragraph (c)(4)) is the extent to
which an end market for the reclaimed material is
guaranteed. Typically, secondary lead smelters break
and separate batteries at the smelter site. This
arrangement provides an end market for the partially
reclaimed material because it is unlikely a smelter
would close without processing remaining plates and
groups. We do not, however, reach such a conclusion
for independent battery breakers. The end market value
for their broken batteries is heavily dependent on lead
prices, and has been very insecure for the past several
years.
C. Storage and Handling Practices.
Section 260.31(c)(5) identifies as a factor, "the
extent to which the reclaimed material is handled to minimize
loss." OSW reviewed information on plate and group storage and
handling practices at most secondary lead smelters in the U.S.
We are unable to reach any conclusions on a national basis for
this industry because the available information indicates a wide
variation in practices (i.e., some smelters store the lead
plates and groups in a manner that minimizes loss while others
do not). Each smelter facility will ha've to be evaluated
individually to determine if the standard in paragraph (c){5) is
achieved. Factors that Regional (or State) personnel may want
to consider include:
o Whether the storage pile is under a roof;
o Whether the pile is on an impervious base, e.g., coated
concrete;
o Whether runoff controls are in place, e.q_. , retaining
walls, drainage collection, etc.;
o Whether wind dispersion controls, e.g., sprinklers,
vents, etc., are in place.
Plate and group piles may be evaluated in a manner similar to
those hazardous waste piles considered for the limited exemption
under 40 CFR Section 264.250(c), which calls for consideration
of these same sorts of factors.
-------
Also relevant is a comparison of storage and handling
practices at the secondary lead smelters to handling practices
employed by primary lead smelters for galena ore. Available
information indicates that galena ore is always stored under
cover, but galena storage areas are not always totally
enclosed. Therefore, some outdoor plate and group storage areas
may meet the paragraph (c)(5) factor without being enclosed in a
building, but a plate and group pile without any cover would
appear much less likely to satisfy the "minimize loss"
criterion.
Finally, while concrete pads are the norm for plate and
c.oup storage areas, typically the top layers of these pads
(which may be an asphalt liner) become damaged by the acid
remaining on the plates and groups, and by front-end loader
traffic and, therefore, have to be periodically replaced.
Normal maintenance of a plate and group pad includes periodic
replacement of the top (i.e., "sacrificial") layers. Therefore,
part of the paragraph (c)(5) evaluation should include a review
of the smelter's pad replacement schedule. Consideration should
be given to requirements for coating the concrete pads with an
acid resistent material.
In summary, a plate and group pile that is stored under
cover, where run off and wind disposal is controlled, and where
pad replacement prevents soil contamination, would appear to
meet the paragraph (c)(5) "minimize loss" criterion.
D. Other Relevant Factors.
Under Section 260.31(c)(6), the Regional Administrator
may consider other relevant factors in the determination of
whether to grant the variance. These factors may be raised by
the petitioner, the Agency, or other interested parties. As OSW
has evaluated information on secondary lead smelters, the
following additional factors have been raised as potential
concerns. Although these factors, may not be directly applicable
to the Regional Administrator's decision to grant a variance,
they may be relevant in, for example, assigning priorities to
evaluate a facility's petition.
1. Economics of battery recycling. Recent EPA studies
indicate that national battery recycling rates, while apparently
stable at this time, have experienced a long term decline over
the past 30 years. The result is that more batteries are
disposed of, often in municipal landfills. In addition, loss of
recycling capacity (i.e^/ smelter closures) -has placed
generators in some* regions (e.g.,/ the Pacific Northwest) in the
position where they must transport batteries long distances to
recycle. This obviously adversely affects recycling rates.
-------
- 5 -
Environmental compliance costs may be a major component of a
secondary smelter's capital and operating expenses. The next
few years may be critical for many of these smelters, as they
face the choice of full RCRA compliance and permitting versus
facility closure. Prompt processing of variance petitions may
allow well-run operations, for example, to expand operations
without the need for a permit modification (or perhaps without a
permit at all), and thereby maintain or increase regional
recycling rates, even if other facilities close.
2« Corrective action. Facilities in the secondary lead
smelting industry have had problems in the past and some are
currently involved in clean-up activities. One implication of
granting a variance is that certain facilities, as noted above,
may become exempt from permitting and interim status
requirements and, therefore, the corrective action provisions of
RCRA Section 3004(u) and 3008{h) would no longer apply. (CERCLA
Section 106 and RCRA Section 7003 actions would not be affected
by granting the variance.) The Regional Administrator may want
to consider the need for clean-up at a site under paragraph
(c)(6), or at least in the timing of when a variance is
granted. For example/ final granting of a variance could be
considered as part of clean-up action at the facility.
In summary, disposal of spent lead-acid batteries is
becoming a serious national problem. One means to increase
battery recycling rates is to exclude plate and group storage
piles at those secondary lead smelter facilities that meet the
Section 260.31(c) criteria from classification as solid waste.
If a secondary lead smelter facility stores and handles its
plates and groups in a manner that minimizes losses and
otherwise runs a sound operation (as evidenced by, for example/
clean-up of past releases)/ OSW would deem it appropriate and
certainly consistent with national policy for the Regional
Administrator to grant the solid waste variance.
Attachment
-------
9444.1988(15)
•-'w 1
29]
Hazards in the Environment
Action League
HEAL-New Brighton
P.O. Box 12611
New Brighton, MN 55112
Dear Members of HEAL-New Brighton:
This is in response to your letter dated July 25, 1988, in
which you expressed your concern about the use of pentachlorophenol
as a wood preservative at two local sites in New Brighton, MN.
More specifically, you urged the Agency to reclassify
pentachlorophenol (PCP) as an acutely hazardous material and, if
possible, to ban its use in the United States.
Wastes from the production of or manufacturing use of PCP (EPA
hazardous waste F021) and discarded unused formulations containing
PCP (EPA hazardous waste F027) are currently designated as acute
hazardous wastes. (See 40 CFR 261.31). However, the Agency has
received a petition to reclassify these two wastes as toxic wastes
based on the results of a recent toxicological study. In April of
1988, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a draft report
on the results of a study of the toxicity of purified and technical
grade PCP, containing measured levels of HxCDD as well as other
dioxin homologs in lower concentrations. (See enclosed citation).
The Agency is in the process of reviewing these data and will
respond to the rulemaking petition in the near future. This
response will be a Federal Register notice and will request public
comment. At that time, HEAL may submit its comments on EPA's
decision.
Regarding the banning of PCP for use as a wood preservative, we
have forwarded your letter to our Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPTS) for separate reply. The banning of chemicals is
outside the purview of the Office of Solid Waste.
We look forward to your comments in the future.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
CITATION
McConnell, E.E., DVM, Chemical Manager. NTP Technical Report on
the Toxicology and Carcinoaenisis studies of Pentachloroohenol (CAS
No. .87.-8J5-.5) in B6C3F1 Mice. Peer Review Draft. National
Toxicology Program. Research Triangle Park, NC. April, 1988. NTP
TR 349.
-------
9444.1989(02
I T<»7
%-nmr
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BU6NCY
WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
NWR /
!.• ""CI _••
-r,*r. aso f.'l B~? '
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Pesticide Standards for Formaldehyde and
Paraformaldehyde
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director^ fU/
Characterization and Assessment Divisioln (n.«v 330)
TO: Chet McLaughlin, Chief
State Programs Section, Region VII
This is in response to your memorandum of July 26, 1988 to
Matthew Straus, in which you asked for our comments concerning
an Office of Pesticides Programs' (OPP's) manual entitled
"Guidance for the Reregistration of Pesticide Products
Containing Formaldehyde and ParaformaIdehyde as an Active
Ingredient." You asked about the effect of this manual on the
"sole active ingredient" clause regarding P and U listed
hazardous wastes included in 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f). You
also asked if many of the pesticides on the P and U lists would
no longer contain a "sole active ingredient" as a result of the
subject OPP document.
The intent of the regulations concerning sole active
ingredients can be found at 45 FR 78532, November 25, 1980.
The concept of sole active ingredient was used for the purpose
of "removing all trade names from the lists of 40 CFR 261.33(e)
and (f), but clarifying that the scope of the 40 CFR 26l.33(e)
and (f) includes, in addition to the commercially pure grades
of the chemicals, all technical grades and all formulated
products in which the listed chemical is the spJL£ active
inoredlent" (emphasis added). The Federal Register Notice
explains that "many of the trade products regulated under this
section are-pesticides or fungicides, produced for the express
purpose of destroying plant or animal life. It is evident that
such a substance, when discarded, meets the RCRA definition of
hazardous waste" (45 EB 78539). The Federal Register Notice
also states (45 ER 78538) that "the product is considered to be
the chemical comprising its active portion," and refers to the
-------
Farm Chemicals Handbook. which "lists all trade products having
a generically-named chemical as the sole active ingredient as
'other names' for that chemical." The Federal Register Notice
clearly states that, under RCRA, the term "active ingredient"
refers to the pesticide constituent on which the commercial
product and the 40 CFR 261.33 regulations are based, not "inert
ingredients which tend to magnify its toxic effects (e.g..
solvents and surfactants)" (45 FR 78539).
The OPP Guidance Manual states that formaldehyde and
paraformaldehyde, when added to preserve the formulation, in
the past had been classified as inert ingredients. However,
according to FIFRA Section 2(a), an active ingredient is "an
ingredient which will prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any
pest." Therefore, when these chemicals are added to preserve
the formulation by preventing deterioration by bacteria and
fungi, the Guidance Manual concludes that formaldehyde and
paraformaldehyde are active ingredients. The Guidance Manual
also directs that the following statement appear on the label
for such products: "Formaldehyde (or paraformaldehyde) is
present solely to preserve the pesticide formulation and does
not otherwise contribute to the product's pesticidal
activity." (p. 21)
When formaldehyde (or paraformaldehyde) is added solely to
preserve the activity of a pesticide formulation, it is not
considered an active ingredient for purposes of the sole active
ingredient requirement of 40 CFR 261.33. Thus, the OPP
Guidance Manual's determination that formaldehyde and
paraformaldehyde are pesticidally active and the requirement
that the labels state they are "pesticidally active when used
as a preservative in pesticidal formulations" does not affect
the determination of whether a waste is hazardous under
40 CFR 261.33.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions, please contact Ron Josephson at FTS 475-6715.
cc: Juanita Wills, OPP (H7505C)
-2-
-------
9444.1989(02a)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MARCH 1989
3. K061 Waste
Emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric
arc furnaces is listed as K061 waste under RCRA. A facility owner uses an
electric arc furnace (EAF) to make steel billets. Is the emission control dust
from this EAF a K061 waste?
On December 18, 1978, (43 FR 58959), EPA originally proposed the K061
listing under SIC code 3312 as "iron making: electric furnace dust and
sludge." The American Iron and Steel Institute commented that the
electric furnace process is only used for steel making and not iron and steel
making as listed in 1978. In response to this comment, EPA promulgated
the listing on May 19,1980, (45 FR 33124) as "emission control dust/sludge
from the electric furnace production of steel." The American
Foundryman's Society then pointed out that the Agency had insufficient
data to show that foundry electric furnace emission control dusts and
sludges were sufficiently similar in composition to warrant inclusion in the
same listing. Therefore, on -November 12, 1980, the Agency modified the
listing of K061 to what it is today clarifying that the listing applies to
"primary" steel producers only (see 45 FR 74892). The Agency intended only
to distinguish steel production from other metal production processes (i.e.,
foundry operations) when it added the word "primary" to the November 12,
1980, listing (45 FR 74892). Foundry emission control dust is excluded from
the scope of K061 listing (see Figure 1 attached).
In summary, steel producers using scrap metal in an EAF will generate
K061 waste from their emission control equipment. For example, emission
control dust generated from EAFs used to produce "semi-finished goods"
such as steel billets or rolled steel, is regulated as K061 waste when
disposed. However, emission control dust and sludge from foundry
operations that use EAFs remain excluded from the context of the K061
listing and may only be identified as a hazardous waste if it exhibits any
characteristics of hazardous waste per 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MARCH 1989
.061 Waste (Cont'd')
SCRAP
METAL*
Oust/Sludg*
K061
Figure 1
STEEL PRODUCTION
Bteom Bflljt
•ndSlab
Roiling
Air Pollution
Control Equip
(w«t.dry)
Finish
Product
Pro«Ming
FOUNDRY:
RAW.
MATERIALS
Mold
Pouring and
Cooling
Emissions
I
Excluded
from K061
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MARCH 1989
4. Spent Solvent* in Scintallation Cocktails
9444.1989(02b)
A nuclear power facility owner/operator generates a low level radioactive
wastewater. In order to measure the activity of the radionuclides in the
wastewater (a measurement of radioactivity), the owner mixes four parts
radioactive wastewater to 19 parts of a scintillation cocktail (xylene with traces
of p-terphenyl). In the resultant mixture, beta particles from the
radionuclides excite the p-terphenyl, which emits photons. The photons are
detected in a scintillometer which amplifies and counts the photons on a
photomultiplier tube. This count provides a measurable level of radioactivity.
The xylene contributes nothing to the above-described reaction and counting
mechanism, other than providing a suspension media. After the testing
procedure, the cocktail becomes a solid waste when it is discarded. Is the
liquid waste identified as a F003 listed hazardous waste or only as a D001
ignitable characteristic waste?
Radioactive
Water
Scirtiilatbn
Cocktail
Scirtfllometer
Hazardous
Waste
Radionuclides
Xylene +
/>terphenyl
With
photomut^lter
tube
F003
Spent
Solent
In this particular process, the xylene is serving as a reaction media, in
which the p-terphenyl and radioactive wastewater are suspended in order
to allow a reaction to occur. The reaction in the xylene medium permits
actual photon counting to determine radioactive levels. The preamble
language of the December 31,1985, Federal Register (50 FR 53316) clarified
the listing of spent solvents, F001-F005: tfce spent solvent listings cover
only those 'solvents' that are used for their solvent properties—that is, to
solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents. For example, solvents
used for degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants,
reaction and synthesis media... ." A December 6, 1988, letter from
Devereaux Barnes, Director, Characterization and Assessment Division,
Office of Solid Waste to Arthur Moretta, EPA, Revion V, reiterated this
point: "The spent solvent listings cover those streams that are used to
solubilize or mobilize other constituents." An argument that the xylene is
used as a reactant or ingredient in the formation of a commercial chemical
product and therefore not covered by the listing is not sound; the xylene is
neither a reactant nor an ingredient in a commercial chemical product.
The used scintillation cocktail containing xylene is defined as EPA listed
hazardous waste F003.
-------
9444.1989(020)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MARCH 1989
2. Definition of Spent Solvent
The owner of a metal working facility uses a cutting oil to cool and lubricate
metals during a drilling process. The cutting oil is purchased as a product
and consists of 80% 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 20% lubricating oil. When spent,
the fluid is sent for disposal. Would this material meet the F002 listing found
in 40 CFR Section 261.31?
This question was addressed originally in the RCRA/ Superfund Industrial
Assistance Hotline Monthly Report for April, 198S. At that time, the
Agency viewed the material in question as an F002 hazardous waste in
accordance with 40 CFR Section 261.31. Since that time, the Agency has
amended the answer previously given to read as follows: The December 31,
1985, Federal Register (53 FR 53316) specifies which materials are covered
by the spent solvent listings in 40 CFR Section 261.31. One of the key factors
in meeting the F001-F005 hazardous waste listing is determining how or for
what the material was used. In order to meet listings, the material must
be used for its solvent properties. More specifically, the December 31,1985,
Federal Register specifies that "the spent solvent listings cover only those
solvents that are used for their solvent properties, that is, to solubilize
(dissolve) or mobilize other constituents. For example, solvents used in
degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants, reaction
and synthesis media, and similar areas are covered under the listings
(when spent). A solvent is considered 'spent' when it has been used and is
no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise
reprocessed (50 F_R 53316)." However, the December 31, 1985, Federal
Register also specifies that "process wastes where solvents were used as
reactants or ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical
products are not covered by the listing. The products themselves are also
not covered (50 FR 53316)." The 1,1,1-trichloroethane, in this circumstance
is being used as a cooling ingredient in the formulation of product cutting
oil. The metal working facility is using the cutting oil to coat and lubricate
metals during their drilling operation. When the cutting oil can no longer
be used, it meets the definition of a spent material in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(l).
However, even though the cutting oil meets the definition of a spent
material, it does not meet the spent solvent listing because the cutting oil
formulation was not used as a solvent as described by the December 31,1985
Federal Register. Likewise, the 1,1,1-trichloroethane is an ingredient in
the cutting oil and this is not a use covered by the F001-F005 spent solvent
listings found in 40 CFR Section 261.31. Therefore, the spent cutting oil in
this circumstance does not meet the spent solvent hazardous waste listings
found in 40 CFR Section 261.31.
-------
9444.1989(03)
JUN 281989
SUBJECT: Classification of Solvent and Commercial Chemical
Product Waste Streams
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: Howard Wilson, Manager
Environmental Compliance Program
Environmental Health and Safety Division (PM-273F)
This memorandum is in response to an inquiry you sent to
Ron Josephson of my staff, dated June 8, 1989, and to questions
presented at a meeting, on June 14, 1989. Specifically, you
request a definitive classification of solvent-contaminated
vastestreams in order to prepare a guidance document for EPA
laboratories. We will answer each of your concerns point by
point in order to ensure clarify.
1) During organic liquid-liquid extractions, solvents
(e.g. methylene chloride) are used, which are minimally «2%)
soluble in water. Thus, after the extraction, the aqueous
phase contains trace amounts of solvent. Does this aqueous
phase need to be disposed of as F002 spent solvent, since the
"before use" solvent concentration was greater than 10%?
The aqueous phase from this separation is considered to be
analogous to a process stream which has become
contaminated with solvent constituents; this waste is not
a spent solvent stream and would therefore not be
classified as F002.
2) In.other analyses, the extraction of an organic
analyte is'performed with solvents contained only in the F003
listing, such as methane1. Should the aqueous waste be
classified as F003 spent solvent even if it is not ignitable?
Again, the scope of the listing did not include aqueous
r+vr\r*fLot! Tj^p4-a e^ i~aame f*r\n+ ami n
-------
3) in a memorandum dated December 6, 1988, the Agency
states that solvent-contaminated aqueous streams resulting .from
liquid-liquid extractions are no_t spent solvent and need be
managed as a hazardous waste only if they exhibit one of the
four characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21 - 261.24. is
this still true and is this applicable to the above situations?
Yes. The memorandum you reference pertained to processes
at a pharmaceutical production facility. However,
sufficient analogies exist among these situations that the
process waste interpretation may be used in these cases.
4) A laboratory buys a commercial chemical product in
order to formulate standards for quality assurance (QA)
purposes. The QA standards are then sent to other laboratories
for analysis. If excess standard solutions existed which were
not needed for analysis but need to be disposed, would these
formulations be considered commercial chemical product wastes
under 40 CFR 261.33 (assuming that there is a sole active
ingredient)?
Yes. Dilution of a commercial chemical product with water
is not considered use of a commercial chemical product in
this case. Thus, the excess QA standards intended for
disposal would be listed hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
261.33.
5) A laboratory synthesizes a chemical to be used as a QA
standard. The lab then distributes this chemical (or diluted
QA standards) to other laboratories for analysis. Would excess
quantities of these materials be considered hazardous wastes
under section 261.33 (assuming that there is a sole active
ingredient)?
Yes. Materials synthesized in a laboratory in lieu of
buying a commercial product (because of cost savings or
because the product is difficult to obtain) are equivalent
to commercial chemical products, and therefore would be
regulated under 40 CFR 261.33 when disposed. Again,
excess QA standards made by diluting these compounds are
also covered by the listings, when disposed.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any other
questions on these topics, please contact Ron Josephson at 475-
6715.
-------
9444.1989(04)
Jtt. 13
KEMORAHDOK
SUBJECT: Characterization of BTL Specialty Resins Corporation
Waste as to Whether It Is RCRA Listed Hazardous Waste
K022
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: David A. Ullrich, Associate Director
Office of RCRA
Waste Management Division, Region V
This is response to your memorandum of March 22, 1989, in
which you asked whether a waste produced by BTL Specialty Resins
Corporation is RCRA Listed Hazardous Waste K022. Our
determination is based on information sent by your office and
subsequent telephone conversations between Walter Francis of your
staff and Ron Josephson of my staff.
Based on our review of the information that you provided, we
have determined that the waste produced by BTL is RCRA waste K022
("Distillation bottom tars from the production of phenol/acetone
from cumene"), as listed in 40 CFR 261.32. The process
generating BTL's waste meets the listing description and is not
different in any significant respect from exemplary processes
described in the listing background document. The argument
presented by BTL's counsel, Mary Bryant, that BTL does not
generate K022 because their waste is a "liquid" and not a "tar,"
is clearly erroneous. Tars are defined, e.g.. in Webster's
Dictionary, a* "viscous liquids." Moreover, the process
information provided by your staff indicates that more than one
wastestream i* mixed in the waste tank in question which, along
with the temperature and pressure in the tank, explains why BTL's
tar may be less{. rather than more viscous.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions on this topic, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff
at FTS 475-6715.
-------
9444.1989(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SOLID WASTF. AND EMERGENCY
JUL 2 I :-33
Shirlee Schiffman, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous Waste
Regulation and Classification
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
CN 028
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0028
Dear Ms. Schiffman:
This is in response to your letter of April 5, 1989, and the
subsequent conversation my staff had with you and your staff on
April 20. Specifically, we are answering several questions on
the applicability of hazardous waste regulations under
40 CFR 261.31 and 261.33 to situations enumerated in your letter.
In the first situation, you asked if the regulatory
interpretation provided in a letter sent by the former Office of
Solid Waste Director, Marcia Williams, dated October 26, 1987, is
still valid in the case of acetone-contaminated water from the
washout of a reactor vessel after removal of spent solvent. The
Agency has not changed its interpretation.
In the second situation, you state that a company uses
methanol and acetone to wash a product in order to remove water.
From the telephone conversation, your staff indicated that the
solvent mixture is 50% acetone and 50% methanol before use. To
answer this question, two questions must be answered: 1) does use
as a drying agent constitute use as a solvent? and 2) does the
solvent mixture meet the listing description? First, use as a
drying agent does meet the definition of solvent use because the
material is used to extract water. Second, methanol and acetone
are listed ignitable solvents under F003; therefore, the F003
listing applies because the solvent mixture consists solely of
F003-iisted solvents.
You asked during our telephone conversation whether the
mixture rule under 40 CFR 261.3(a)<2)(iii) would apply to this
situation. The Mixture rule applies after the waste has been
generated and is tfifia mixed with a solid waste. The mixture rule
specifies that if the mixture no longer exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability, then the waste is no longer
considered hazardous. In this situation, the spent F003 solvents
collected after the washings are EPA hazardous waste F003 until
-------
they are subsequently mixed with solid waste and no longer
exhibit any hazardous waste characteristic.
In the third example, a transporter delivers P and U wastes
in tanker trucks. The heels are drained, and the collected
materials are drummed and manifested as hazardous waste. Once
the tank trucks have been drained, subsequent washes may still
contain small quantities of the original chemical. The answer to
this question depends on whether the truck at the time of rinsing
qualifies as an empty container, under 40 CFR 261.7. The wash
waters generated after draining, assuming the commercial
chemicals have been removed by reasonable means and less than one
inch or less than 0.3% of the tank volume remained, would not be
hazardous wastes. If these conditions are not satisfied, then
the wastewater would be hazardous waste because they contain
unused discarded commercial chemical products. (See
47 EB 36092 -36097, August 18, 1982.)
The fourth situation involves a company that uses toluene as
a solvent in a chemical production process. After the product is
made, most of the toluene is recovered. However, the wash water
is contaminated with traces of toluene, which then contaminates
the plant's process wastewater and settling tank sludges. The
wash water may be considered a process stream that is
contaminated with a solvent constituent and not a listed spent
solvent. The wastewater and settling tank sludges also are not
listed spent solvent wastes.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any other
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at
(202)382-4770.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: George Meyer, EPA Region II (2AWM-HWC)
-------
9444.1989(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 89
1. Clarification of F009 Listing
Title 40 CFR Section 261.31 describes the hazardous waste listing F009 as "spent
stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations where
cyanides are used in the process." Does this listing include all spent stripping
and cleaning baths from cyanide electroplating processes or only those stripping
and cleaning baths used at seme point after the cyanide bath?
Discussion of the scope of F009 in the RCRA Listings EJac>ground Document
indicate* EPA's intent is to regulate wastes that contain cya -ude. A cleaning
and strapping bath used prior to the cyanide plating bath wou'd not contain
cyani^Bwtamination from carry over. Spent cleaning and stripping baths
that feBDvr cyanide plating baths at some point in the dip ssquevse would
have levels of cyanide in them due to dragout Therefore/ it is EPA'/'In tent >?
regulate only those spent cleaning and stripping baths from electroplatui-;
processes that are used at some point after the cyanide bath. However, if
cleaning and stripping baths are commingled with other baths occurring
during or after cyanide plating baths or if cyanide containing solutions or
wastes are introduced or recycled in the process upstream of the cyanide
plating baths, then these cleaning or stripping baths would be F009.
Source: Robert Scarberry (202)382-4770
Research: Gwen Herron (202) 382-3112
-------
•IBS* STATCS BfWMMtfMTAL PROTCCTON4
9444.1989(07}
Mr. Thomas- R. Mastalerz
Technical Sales Representative
GSX Services, inc. flJS 21
P. 0. Drawer c
Greenbrier, Tennessee 37073-0903
Dear Mr. Mastalerz:
This letter is in response to your letter dated July 31,
1989, in which you asked for clarification of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations as they pertain
to "U" and "P" listed wastes found at 40 CFR Section 261.33U)
and (f).
When characterizing any commercial chemical product (CCP) as
a hazardous waste under subtitle C of RCRA, a person must first
determine if the CCP can be defined as a solid waste (see 40 CFR
261.2). If the CCP is a solid waste, the CCP would also be a
hazardous waste if it is either a "U" or "P" listed waste in 40 .
CFR Section 261.33(e) or (f) and/or if it exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR Subpart
C of Part 261. If the CCP is not defined as a solid waste, it
cannot be a hazardous waste.
As stated in 40 CFR Section 261.33(b), "The following
materials or items are hazardous wastes if and when they are
discarded or intended to be discarded...any off-specification
commercial chemical product or manufacturing chemical
intermediate which, if it met specifications, would have the
generic name listed in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section."
Section 261.33(d) provides that commercial chemical products on
the "U" and "P" lists would also include commercially pure grades
and technical grades of that chemical.
The July 28, 1989 Federal Register (54 EB 31336) explains
that the "U" or "P" lists do not apply to chemicals that have
been uasd for their intended purpose. If the laboratory's
"chemical A (U???)" described in your letter is "unused" and
stills remains a technical grade of that chemical after the 0.5%
- 5.0% contaaination you indicated, then the chemical must be
classified as a U listed waste when discarded or intended for
discard/disposal. In addition, if the laboratory's "unused"
chemical A was no longer considered a technical or commercially
pure grade d*ie to contamination, it would be considered an off-
specification species of that chemical. As the November 25, 1980
Federal Register (48 £R 78540) explains, "off-specification
-------
materials that, if they met the specification, would be
commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates" would be listed hazardous wastes when discarded or
intended for discard/disposal.
If you have a CCP that has been used, then it would not be a
"U" or "P" listed waste. It may, however, still exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste defined in 40
CFR Part 261 Subpart C. It is the responsibility of the
generator to make this determination.
You should also be aware of the fact that if the CCP were a
solvent (i.e.r used for its solvent properties) and it was spent,
it may meet one of the spent solvent hazardous waste listings
found at 40 CFR Section 261.31 (Hazardous Waste Nos. FOOl through
F005).
Finally, please be advised that States may have regulations
that are more stringent or broader-in-scope than those of the
Federal government. You should always check with the appropriate
state agency.
If you have any further questions, please call the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800-424-9346.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9444.1989(08)
August 21, 1989
Mr. Stephen J. Evans
Environmental Engineer
Modine Manufacturing Company
1500 De Koven Avenue
Racine, Wisconsin 53403
Dear Mr. Evans:
This letter is in response to your letter dated August 3,
1989, in which you ask for classification, under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), of wastewater treatment
sludges resulting from your metal cleaning process.
Your first and foremost question is whether the sludge
generated from the treatment of process wastewaters resulting
from your metal cleaning process meet the listing description for
RCRA Hazardous Waste No. F006. Based on the information in your
letter, Modine's cleaning operation is not associated with
electroplating. If this is the case, then the sludges generated
from treating these cleaning baths (in a wastewater form) are not
considered RCRA Hazardous Waste No. F006. This is based on the
fact that cleaning is a separate and distinct process from
chemical etching and milling. (See EPA's publication Development
Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the
Electroplating Point Source Category. August 1979, publication
No. EPA440/1-79/003, pages 41 and 42 for the definitions of
chemical etching and milling. Note that this document was
referenced in the background document for the F006 listing). As
the December 2, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 43350) states, "The
F006 listing included only common and precious metals
electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching and milling, and
cleaning and stripping when associated with these processes."
This continues to be EPA's policy; cleaning must be associated
with one of these three processes in order to be included in the
listing description for Hazardous Waste No. F006.
Your second question relates to whether an electrical
current is a prerequisite for a process to generate an F006
sludge. The application of an electrical current is not a
prerequisite; chemical etching, for example, does not involve the
application of an electrical current, but sludges generated by
treating wastewater from a chemical etching process are included
in the F006 listing. Unfortunately, the interpretation mentioned
in your letter that you received from the RCRA Hotline on May 15,
1989 relative to this question was incorrect.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
As you mention in your letter, however, the sludge generated
in your wastewater treatment process may be characteristically
hazardous (e.g.. EP toxic); it is the generator's responsibility
to determine whether his/her waste exhibits one or more hazardous
waste characteristics as defined in 40 CFR Subpart C of Part 261.
Please be aware that many states have been authorized to run
their own RCRA programs. State regulations may be more stringent
or broader-in-scope that Federal regulations so you should always
contact the appropriate state agency.
Should you have any additional questions, please feel free
to contact David Topping of my staff at (202) 382-7737.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1989(09)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMHARY
AUGUST 89
1. Waste Identification of Discarded Thermometers
A manufacturer of mercury thermometers produces a batch of contaminated
thermometers that must be discarded. If the manufacturer discards the
unused thermometers intact, would the waste need to be managed as U151 or
would the manufacturer need to test the waste to see if it exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic?
40 CFR Section 261.33 contains a listing of commercial chemical products
that are hazardous wastes if and when they are discarded. Under Section
261.33(d), the phrase "commercial chemical product is defined as a
chemical substance which is manufactured or formulated for commercial
or manufacturing use ...." Furthermore, according to the final rule
preamble in the November 25, 1980 Federal Register (45 gR 78541), the
Agency did not intend for the phrase commercial chemical product to
apply to manufacturing articles that contain a chemical listed in Section
261.33. The intent was to regulate only those commercial chemical
products and manufacturing chemical intermediates that are known by
the generic name listed in Sections 261.33(c) or (f). Thus, a thermometer
containing mercury is not itself a commercial chemical product and would
not meet the U151 listing. The manufacturer would then need to check
the discarded thermometers for the hazardous waste characteristics,
specifically to see if the waste would exhibit EP toxicity and thus need to be
managed as RCRA hazardous waste D009. Waste not subject to federal
regulations may be regulated under specific state requirements which are
more stringent
Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475-6715
Research: Mary Beth Clary
-------
ThanJc you for your inquiry. If you have any additional
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my office at
FTS 475-&715.
cc: Susan Bromm, OWPE (OS-520)
John Smith, OTS (TS-798)
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I, II, IV - X
-------
9444.1989(11)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OCT 3 1989
Mr. Jeffrey 0. Cerar
Squires, Sanders, and Dempsey
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, B.C. 20004
Dear Mr. Cerar:
This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1989,
concerning the petitions of the Ferroalloy Association and
Macalloy Corporation to withdraw the K090 and K091 hazardous
waste listings.
As indicated in your letter and our meeting on July 17,
the Agency does believe that trivalent chromium is a more
serious health concern than previously believed. Recent
evidence suggests that Chromium (III) may be a potential
carcinogen.
The toxicokinetics of chromium have been well studied and
are documented in the literature. Chromium (both III and VI)
have been found to be absorbed in humans and animals following
inhalation, oral, and dermal exposure (Tox Profile for
Chromium, 1987). Chromium (VI) is taken up through the cell
membranes and reduced to Chromium (III) intracellularly. In
addition to the Chromium (III) metabolites, several other
potentially genotoxic chromium metabolites are formed such as
chromium (V and IV) as well as reactive peroxides and oxygen
radicals. (Tox Profile for chromium, 1987). However, it is
thought that chromium (III) may be the predominant genotoxicant
producing DMA-protein cross links and DNA strand breaks
(Beyersmann and Koster, 1987).
Until recently it was assumed that chromium (III) was
unable to permeate the cell membrane due to negative results
from in vitro genotoxic assays and positive results with
isolated nuclei and purified DNA (Tox Profile for Chromium,
1987). Recent studies, however, have shown that chromium (III)
complexes can penetrate biomembranes and induce DNA damage (de
Flora et al., 1984; Beyersmann and Koster, 1987).
-------
In light of the existing studies showing absorption of
Chromium (III) via inhalation, oral and/or dermal exposure;
permeation of chromium (III) across cell membranes, and
evidence that chromium (III) is a genotoxicant, chromium (ii:
should be regarded as a potential carcinogen. Our
toxicologists would be happy to meet with you to discuss thii
further.
Because of our toxicological concerns with trivalent
chromium, the Agency is also rethinking the appropriateness c
the exclusion under section 261.4(b)(6) for wastes which
contain chromium which is nearly exclusively in the trivalent
form. As you stated in your letter, however, we will need tc
go through rulemaking to amend the regulations.
In addition, the Agency remains concerned about the
conversion of trivalent chromium to the more toxic hexavalent
form under certain plausible mismanagement scenarios, which v.
the original basis for the listing of K090/91. Thus, data
submitted by the Ferroalloy Association on the K090/K091
proposed listing regarding valence did not affect the Agency'
listing determination. Given these concerns with both
trivalent and hexavalent chromium, we believe that the decisi
to list K090 and K091 on the basis of total chromium was
appropriate.
In your letter you indicated your concern with how the
Agency lists wastes based on the presence and concentration o
Appendix VIII constituents. It has always been the Agency's
practice to consider the factors outlined in 40 CFR
261. ll'(a) ( 3) when listing a waste as hazardous. For the
reasons described above, EPA believes that the listing of K09:
and K091 was appropriate after considering all the relevant
factors.
You also expressed concern over the variability of the
waste covered by the K090 and K091 listings and indicated tha-
the Agency should not regulate them if the wastes are not
consistently hazardous. Although the technologies which
generate the waste differ and chromium levels vary within the
ferrochromium industry, the wastes are all generated by air
pollution control devices from furnaces used in the manufactui
of ferrochromium or ferrochromium silicon and all wastes
contain sufficiently high levels of chromium to warrant
listing. We believe that the individual wastes covered by th*
listings are typically or frequently hazardous if mismanaged.
In regard to data obtained from the extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity characteristic, EPA has always maintained that
the EP levels are concentrations which are clearly hazardous
based on the simulated leaching of certain toxic constituents
from a waste. Concentrations below the EP levels also may pos
-------
a substantial hazard to human health and the environment; thus,
the Agency will not remove a listed waste from regulation based
solely on data utilizing the EP toxicity characteristic.
Finally, you stated that delisting employs different
criteria than listing and is not an appropriate option for your
Association's members due to the timeframe and because you
believe that the Agency should withdraw the listings. First,
delisting requires the Administrator to determine, among other
things, that the petitioned waste does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed. Thus, although
delisting may consider additional factors, it is not accurate
to say that delisting applies different criteria. As stated in
our previous letter of June 16, 1989, EPA does not presently
intend to withdraw its listings. We must, however, go through
proposed and final rulemakings to respond to your members'
petitions as well as the petitions regarding the other 4
hazardous smelting wastes. Completing this process may take at
least another year. Therefore, delisting may still be an
option for your consideration. If the Agency were to apply its
VHS delisting modeling tool, chromium bearing wastes may be
delistable if the total chromium concentration does not exceed
between 0.315 ppm and 1.6 ppm depending upon the annual volume
of waste generated and assuming the waste does not exhibit
other factors (e.g., additional toxic constituents) which would
make the waste hazardous. See the description of the VHS
model, 50 FR 48896 (November 27, 1985) for details.
I would like to emphasize that this letter contains only
•tentative reactions to the issues you have raised. A final
determination on your members' petitions to withdraw the
listings will be made only after notice in the Federal Register
and a full opportunity for public comment. We will also make
your August 16th letter, this response, and the technical
materials cited above a part of the public record for your
petition.
I hope this letter has provided further clarification on
the Agency's position. As indicated earlier, our toxicologists
would be happy to meet with you to discuss our health concerns
with trivalent chromium. Please feel free to contact Dr. Susan
Griffin at (202) 382-4295, if you would like to arrange a
meeting.
Sincerely
Robert M. Scarberry, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
UNITED STATES EFWRTONMEHTAL PROTTCTTOH AGE*
9444.1989(12)
9CT05S59
Ms. Sonya E. Shashoua
Supervising Environmental Specialist
Bureau of Hazardous Waste Regulation and Classification
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN-028, 401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0028
Dear Ms. Shashoua:
This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1989, in which
you asked several questions related to specific waste codes under
40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f). As you requested, this office will
clarify the points you have raised so your own hazardous waste
lists are consistent with the technical corrections to §261.33
the EPA published on April 22, 1988 (53 FR 13382). We will
answer your questions in the order you raised them.
1. The chemical name "3-(alpha-Acetonylbenzyl)-4-
hydroxycoumarin" (P001, CAS #81-81-2) was dropped from
40 CFR 261.33(e) while the name "Warfarin" was retained.
was the reason for this deletion?
What
Warfarin is the common name for this substance, and the name
in the 9th Collective Index (CD of Chemical Abstracts was
changed.
2. There were two chemicals on 40 CFR 261.33(f) with the number
U126; Glycidylaldehyde (CAS #765-34-4) and l-propanol-r 2,3-epoxy
(CAS #556-52-5). After July 1, 1986 the latter chemical was
dropped from 40 CFR 261.33(f). Why wasn't it retained with a
different "U" number?
Glycidylaldehyde appears to be correct and l-propanol,
2,3-epoxy was added as an incorrect synonym in 1981. When
the Agency again addresses the issue of making technical
corrections to §261.33, we will review the old support data
to confirm the correct entry.
3. Can you verify that the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
number for U136 Cacodylic Acid is 75-60-5? The source I am using
as a double check lists the number as 75-50-6.
may
OATO
tnt
CAS Keg
s try,
UXitZ £1
j s i y
BPA POT 13204 (12-70)
OFFICIAL
-------
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH).
4. What is the correct name and CAS number for U036: Chlordane,
technical (CAS #12789-03-6) or Chlordane, alpha and gamma isomers
(CAS #57-74-9)?
Chlordane, alpha and gamma isomers (CAS #57-74-9) are the
commercial products associated with the 9th CI name;
Chlordane, technical (CAS #12789-03-6) is associated with
the 8th CI name, since no commercial grade of Chlordane is
a pure compound, any formulation in which Chlordane is the
sole active ingredient is probably regulated under §261.33.
5. What are the correct listings for creosote and coal tar? I
have found:
U051 Creosote -
U051 Creosote CAS # 8021-39-4 (40 CFR - July 1, 1987 edition)
Appendix VIII Coal tar creosote CAS # 8007-45-2
Appendix VIII Creosote No CAS # U051
Appendix VIII Coal tar creosote CAS #8001-58-9 (40 CFR, July 1,
1987 edition)
Creosote, U051, with no CAS Number is correct since the
Agency wants to include all forms of creosote under the
listing. See enclosure for more details.
6. What is the source for the CAS numbers for "nitrogen
mustard" and Nitrogen mustard N-oxide?" These compounds are not
listed in the reference book I have.
The CAS Registry and RTECS are both sources for the CAS
numbers for these substances.
7 The listing for U161 "Pentanol, 4-methyl" appears to be in
error. The name "2-Pentanone, 4-methyl" has the CAS #108-10-1
and would agree with the other two entries for U161: "Methyl
isobutyl ketone" and "4-Methyl-2-pentanone" both having the CAS
#108-10-1. Could you please clarify this listing?
You are correct in the statement that 4-Methyl pentanol is
an incorrect name for U161. Methyl isobutyl ketone and
2-Pentanone, 4-methyl (CAS #108-10-1) are both correct names
for U161.
Thank you for your inquiry. Many times the Government
Printing Office makes typographical errors and omissions when it
publishes our regulations in the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations. Such mistakes cause many people to send in
inquiries about the accuracy of our listings and force us to
publish technical corrections to the listings from time to time.
You may also be interested in checking the accuracy of the CAS
-------
numbers used in §261.33 and Appendix VIII by contacting the
Chemical Abstracts Service (a part of the American Chemical
Society) in Columbus, Ohio at (614)447-3600.
Sincerely,
Ron Jose^hson
Environmental Engineer
Listing Section
Enclosure
cc: George Meyer, EPA Region II (2AWM-HWC)
-------
9444.1989(13)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 2 0 1989
or net CH
SOLID WASTC ANO EVE RGENCV RESPONSE
Mr. Kevin Anthony
Environmental Assistant
MagneTek Ohio Transformer
1776 Constitution Avenue
Louisville, OH 44641
Dear Mr. Anthony:
Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1989, in which you
requested information concerning the handling of "F". series solid
wastes. More specifically, you requested that we send you
information on handlers and alternate disposal or reclamation
processes for rags and similar materials, which have absorbed
various volatiles and "F" wastes through wipe down and cleaning
processes. In general, the EPA Regional Offices are responsible
for this type of inquiry. However, because you have indicated that
Region 5 referred you to my office, my staff has coordinated with
them to prepare the following response for you.
Rags and similar materials may be incinerated and the residue
landfilled. Laundering these rags is an alternative to
incineration, for those rags which can be laundered. Dan Patulski
of Region 5 did not have any additional information on handlers and
alternate disposal or reclamation processes for rags and similar
materials.
If you have any further questions, you can contact
Mr. Patulski at (312) 886-0656. He has your letter and will be
given a copy of this reply.
Sincerely,
-------
U.TtoH ASiacr 9444.1989(10)
SEP 22 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Regulation of a Spill of Tetrachloroethylene
Contaminated with Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of solid Waste (OS-300)
TO: Steven Wassersug, Director
Waste Management Division, Region III (3HH-00)
This memorandum is in response to a June 9, 1989 letter from
Lawrence Falkin of the RCRA Enforcement General Section to Pat
Carter of the Headquarters Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
(OWPE). In this letter? your staff asked for a determination of
whether tetrachloroethylene contaminated with PCBs from the
washout of transformers is a RCRA-regulated hazardous waste.
Specifically, the tetrachloroethylene was used as a temporary
transformer dielectric and to remove residual PCBs from
transformers.
Although use as a dielectric does not meet the description
of a solvent use, it is clear that the primary reason that the
tetrachloroethylene is used is to remove the PCBs from the
transformer. Use of tetrachloroethylene (where the before-use
concentration is at least ten percent by volume) in "decreasing,
cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants, reaction and
synthesis media, and similar uses" is a solvent use covered by
the F002 spent solvent listing description. (See 50 FR 53316,
December 31, 1985.) Here, the before-use concentration of the
tetrachloroethylene is close to 100%. Spent tetrachloroethylene
contaminated with PCBs is a spent solvent (F002) under
40 CFR 261.31 and is subject to all RCRA waste management and
corrective action requirements. Further, the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) in no way supersedes RCRA requirements
applicable to such wastes. If a conflict between RCRA and TSCA
authority were to be found, the more stringent requirements would
apply. (See, e.g., 52 FR 25769 - 25770, July 8, 1987.)
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9444.1989(
NOVEMBER 1989 *i
3. 40 CFR Section 261.33: Spills of Commercial Chemical Products
Arty residues or contaminated soils, waters or other debris ". . . resulting from
the cleanup of a spill into or on any land or water of any commercial chemical
product or manufacturing chemical intermediate having the generic name listed
in paragraph (e) or (f) . . ." of Section 261.33 are hazardous wastes if and when
they are intended to be discarded. (40 CFR 261.33 (d» Does 40 CFR 261.33 only
apply to spills "into or on any land or water/' or are other types of spills covered
(i.e., debris that result from a cleanup of a spill wholly contained within a
building)?
In the November 25,1980 Federal Register. EPA states that the purpose of 40
CFR Section 261.33 is to regulate the listed chemical products (and spill
residues thereof) as hazardous wastes when they are discarded or intended
to be discarded. (45 FR 78540) Although not specifically stated in Section
261.33 (d), EPA intends that this section apply to all spill residues, regardless
of where the spill occurs. The scope of this regulation includes not only
spills on land or into water, but also other types of spills.
Source: Ron Josephson, OSW (202) 475-6715
Research: Sean White
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SO* 9444.1990(01)
JANUARY 1990
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—JANUARY 1990
A. RCRA
1. Two Parts to the Definition of Treatment
To facilitate disposal, a generator consolidates two spent solvents, which
are listed in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D, into a single container. Is the
mixing of these wastes considered to be treatment of hazardous waste
under RCRA? Would a person consolidating waste need a RCRA permit
or interim status designation for treatment of hazardous waste?
The definition of treatment is a two-part definition. The definition
includes "any method ... or process ... designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous
waste so as to neutralize such waste, or so as to recover energy or
material resources from the waste, or so as to render such waste non-
hazardous; less hazardous; (or) safer to transport, store, or dispose of
(40 CFR Section 260.10).
Putting two RCRA hazardous wastes into one container with the
purpose of facilitating disposal is treatment if, for example, the
mixing makes one or both of the wastes less hazardous or safer to
transport. (OSWER Directive 9432.05-84; November 6, 1984) Any
person, unless otherwise excluded from regulation, consolidating
wastes needs a RCRA permit or interim status designation for
treatment if the mixing results in treatment according to the
definition in 40 CFR Section 260.10. (Certain generators accumulating
wastes and treating the wastes in tanks and containers may not be
subject to permit requirements (51 FR 10168, March 24,1986).)
Regardless of whether or not the person is treating hazardous waste,
he may need a RCRA permit for storage. A generator would need a
permit or interim status designation for storage if waste is stored
longer, or is accumulated in amounts greater, than the limitations in
40 CFR Section 262.34. A transporter also would need a storage
permit if, for example, he stores waste at a transfer facility for longer
than ten days (40 CFR Section 263.12).
Source: Jim Berlow, OSW (202) 382-4627
Mitch Kidwell, OSW (202)382-4805
Richard Kinch, OSW (202) 382-7917
Chet Oszman , OSW (202) 382-4499
Research: Monica Genadio
-------
9444.1990(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 22 1990
OFFICE OF
_ . . . . SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCV RESPONSE
Richard A. Jamison, Jr.
Micron Diagnostics, Inc.
Point Breeze Business Center
2200-c Broening Highway
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
Dear Mr. Jamison,
This letter responds to your March 14, 1990 correspondence
regarding the regulatory status of your product, Micro-Clear.
In order for a material to be defined as a hazardous waste
subject to regulation under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) , it must first be defined as a solid waste
according to the requirements set forth in 40 CFR 261.2. Unused
commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates do not qualify as solid waste unless they are
discarded or intended to be discarded, burned for energy recovery
or used to produce a fuel (if this is not their normal manner of
use) , or applied to the land (if this is not their normal manner
of use). If a commercial chemical product is used, reused,
recycled or reclaimed in lieu of being discarded, it does not
qualify as a solid waste and cannot be a hazardous waste subject
to regulations under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Your letter does not indicate the final disposition of the
Micro-Clear, but you do state that Micro-Clear is a commercial
product. Provided this commercial product is being used for its
intended purpose, it would not qualify as a solid waste and would
not be subject to RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction. However, if this
product could no longer be used for its intended purpose (e.g., it
is off-specification or outlives its expiration date) and is
intended for disposal, it would be a solid waste and could be
subject to RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction.
A generator of solid waste is required to perform a hazardous
waste determination for his solid waste pursuant to 40 CFR 262.11.
This regulation requires the generator to determine if his waste
meets a listing of hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261.
If the waste is not listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261, he must
determine whether the waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261.
-------
Assuming that a quantity of Micro-Clear was intended for
disposal and that you have previously determined that it does not
meet a listing of hazardous waste, the test data supplied with your
letter appears to demonstrate that Micro-Clear does not exhibit any
of the characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C
of 40 CFR Part 261. You should be aware, however, that although
your data indicates that Micro-Clear does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, each individual generator is
responsible for evaluating his own waste and making this
determination. Furthermore, the EPA recently finalized the
Toxicity Characteristic rule. This rulemaking amends 40 CFR 261.24
(Characteristic of EP Toxicity) by adding an additional 25 organic
constituents of concern and establishes regulatory thresholds for
these constituents. Your letter indicates that a sample of Micro-
Clear was evaluated for most of the constituents found in Table l
under 40 CFR 261.24 (cadmium is not included with the metals which
were found to be non-detectable). However, after the effective
date of the Toxicity Characteristic regulations, generators must
evaluate their solid wastes for the presence of these additional
toxic constituents.
Should you have further questions regarding the regulatory
status of your Micro-Clear, I encourage you to contact the
appropriate Regional office or authorized State regulatory agency.
The regulatory interpretations provided in this letter apply to
Federal requirements. State and local regulatory agencies may have
regulations that are more stringent than those at the Federal
level. You may want to contact the appropriate State regulatory
agency to determine what, if any, additional requirements apply.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9444.1990(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR -5
/f*
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Chuck Kreider
BASF Corporation
8 Campus Drive
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
Dear Mr. Kreider:
This is in response to your letter of February 22-^1990 to
Mr. Jace Cuje of Geo-Resource Consultants, Inc. (the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline) concerning the commercial chemical
product listing (40 CFR 261.33) for xylene (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. U239). Specifically, you wanted to know if the listing for
dimethyl benzene (a chemical synonym for xylene) was listed for
ignitability and toxicity, or ignitability only.
On April 22, 1988, the Agency promulgated technical
corrections to the §261.33 listings. (See 53 FR 13382.) In the
process of doing this, the Agency added Chemical Abstracts
Service (CAS) numbers to the listed chemicals, as well as
chemical synonyms, to make understanding these regulations easier
on the regulated community. After these corrections appeared in
the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations, we
realized that a few typographical errors had been made. The case
of dimethyl benzene is one of them. The listing for "benzene,
dimethyl" (U239, CAS No. 1330-20-7) should be only for
ignitability. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have
caused you.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any additional
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at
(202)475-6715 or the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)424-9346.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Scarberry, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
frmud on Rtcycltd Paptr
-------
9444.1990(04}
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-Z 1990
Mr. Frank Jaronik
Coral International, Inc.
135 LeBaron Street
Waukegan, Illinois 60085
Dear Mr. Jaronik:
This is in response to your letter of March 27, 1990,
concerning the exclusion from the F019 hazardous waste listing
which was finalized on February 14, 1990 (55 FR 5340). You
wanted to know whether this exclusion applies to wastewater
treatment sludges from zirconium' phosphating of two-piece
aluminum food cans in addition to aluminum beverage cans.
The F019 exclusion would apply to sludges from this process
on aluminum food cans provided the conditions outlined in the
February 14 Federal, Register are met. The conversion coating
process must involve the exclusive use of zirconium phosphating
solutions that do not contain cyanide or chromium. Further, this
process must not be associated with electroplating or conversion
coating steps where hazardous constituents are used.
Should you have any additional questions, please contact
Ms. Denise, Wright of my staff at (202) 245-3519.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Scarberry
Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444.1990(05)
Mr. James B. MacRae, Jr.
Acting Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
New Executive Office Building
Room 3019
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. MacRae:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the Agency's
response to issues raised in OMB's review of the petroleum
refinery sludge hazardous waste listing regulation. Since
receiving your letter on September 6, 1990 the Agency has spent
considerable time reviewing the issues raised, re-analyzing the
data that support the rule, and developing written responses, the
most recent of which we sent to you on October 5. Both the
Deputy Administrator and I have spent significant amounts of time
personally on this matter; we have both been briefed by staff on
the issues, we have formulated the Agency's response, and we have
met with you or talked personally on the phone. As late as the
morning of October 16 EPA and OMB staff were engaged in detailed
discussions on the text of the preamble. I am sure you will
agree that -the Agency has been quite responsive to your concerns.
As you know, the fundamental purpose of this regulation is
to complete the work begun in 1980 when the Agency listed the
first group of primary wastewater treatment sludges from
petroleum refining. A major weakness in the original listing was
that it failed to capture all of the primary sludges generated at
petroleum refineries. This final listing regulation simply
completes RCRA coverage of the these primary wastewater treatment
sludges, all of which have the potential to present significant
risks to human health when mismanaged. I therefore strongly
encourage you to complete your review of this important
regulation. Your speedy action is particularly important since
the Agency is now under order of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia to promulgate this rule by October 22, 1990.
-------
Following is a summary of the Agency's responses to your
concerns in the order presented in your letter.
EPA's Decision to List Is Based on Arbitrary Distinctions Betveen
Waste Types
Your September 6 letter raised two concerns about the scope
of the listing determination. Your first concern is that the
preamble fails to document the distinction between primary
separation and biological separation sludges and thus calls into
question the Agency's rationale for listing.the former but not
the latter. You provide data to support your conclusion that the
levels of hazardous constituents in the two types of sludges are
similar enough to justify the listing of both. Your second
concern is that the listing determination fails to account for
the variability in levels of hazardous constituents in the
primary sludges and thus over-regulates.
With respect to your first concern, the Agency has never
intended to include biological sludges in this listing nor have
we published any documents suggesting that we were considering
such an action. Our intent has always been simply to regulate
the primary sludges that were not captured by the 1980 listings.
Since biological sludges were not within the scope of the
rulemaking, we have never undertaken a major sampling effort and
therefore have only limited data. This limited data and our
engineering judgment lead us to believe that biological sludges
contain significantly lower levels of many hazardous constituents
than primary sludges and thus pose less of a risk to human health
and the environment. In attempting to re-create the figures
shown in the table on page 4 of your letter, we realized that
your figures for the concentration of hazardous constituents in
biological treatment sludges include data from some units that
would be regulated as primary treatment units under this listing.
Your figures therefore overstate the concentration of hazardous
constituents in aggressive biological treatment sludges and do
.not by themselves provide a rationale for listing biological
treatment sludges. In our October 5 letter we transmitted new
preamble language and data that more clearly explain why the
Agency cannot justify the listing of biological sludges at this
time.
Your letter also states that the levels of hazardous
constituents in primary sludges vary by orders of magnitude
across facilities and between units and thus the listing is over-
inclusive. The Agency's data do not support this conclusion.
While it is true that individual constituent concentrations vary,
virtually every sample of primary separation sludge collected by
the Agency contains one or more hazardous constituents several
orders of magnitude above the applicable health-based levels.
-------
Thus, notwithstanding variation among constituent concentrations,
these data clearly demonstrate that all primary sludges have the
potential to pose a risk to human health.
Selective Application of the Factors for Consideration in
S 261.11 fa) (3)
Potential for Human Exposure
Your letter states that the Agency has not provided evidence
of contamination in drinking water wells down-gradient of
petroleum refineries. In response, we have provided preamble
language documenting evidence found in Region VI of contamination
of RCRA groundwater monitoring wells by currently listed primary
separation sludges. As we stated in our earlier written response
and in our October 4 meeting, it would be time-consuming and
costly for the Agency to monitor drinking water wells (as opposed
to monitoring wells) for the purposes of regulation development.
Even if the monitoring data were collected, it would also be
difficult to identify the specific source of any contamination
detected due to the prevalence of contaminants surrounding
petroleum refineries. The same limitation on identifying
contamination sources applies to monitoring conducted by public
drinking water treatment utilities. Therefore, as a standard
practice, we rely heavily on modeling of constituent fate and
transport to predict the potential for drinking water
contamination from particular wastestreams. In the case of this
industry, we have an unusually large database containing real-
world information on toxic constituents, current management
practices, site hydrogeology, and distances to public and private
wells. It is our view that the fate and transport model, coupled
with extensive real-world data inputs and the Region VI damage
cases provide clear evidence of the potential for these sludges
to contaminate down-gradient drinking water sources when they are
mismanaged.
Factors Inadequately Addressed in the Draft Preamble
Risk Reducing Effects of Drinking Water Regulations
Your letter suggests that the benefits analysis and the
decision to regulate should take into account both the effects of
existing regulations under the Safe Drinking Water (SDWA) and the
effects of contaminant taste and odor on drinking water use. You
imply that it would be less costly to society to rely on SDWA
regulations to prevent human exposure to any groundwater
contamination through public drinking water treatment systems and
to rely on contaminant taste and odor to prevent human exposure
through private wells.
The Agency views this approach, which focuses on cleanup, as
contrary to both the statutory goals of RCRA and the Agency's
pollution prevention strategy. Prevention of pollution often has
-------
proven to yield long-term benefits. The Agency nonetheless
agrees that the existence of drinking water regulations for some
of the hazardous constituents of primary separation sludge is
relevant to the quantitative benefits calculation. However,
drinking water regulations do not exist for all of the hazardous
constituents, most notably the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
that are common in the petroleum sludges at issue here. The
Agency did not therefore invest its limited analytical resources
in a further refinement of the benefits analysis to measure the
exact impact of drinking water regulations. We did provide in
our October 5 letter additional language for the preamble and the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that qualitatively addresses
this limitation in the analysis.
Contaminant taste and odor would be an unreliable approach
to protection of private well users. The concentration threshold
at which people taste and smell contaminants varies, and in the
case of benzene, the threshold is several times higher than the
drinking water regulatory level. Such an approach would
obviously not be effective for contaminants that have neither
taste nor odor.
The Agency also does not dispute the fact that treatment of
contaminated groundwater is less costly in the short term than
full implementation of RCRA Subtitle C. We are not convinced
however, that the long-term costs to society would indeed be
lower, given the mandates of both RCRA and CERCLA to clean up
contamination and the essentially unquantifiable value of an
uncontaminated natural resource. The policy and legal
implications of implementing a treatment approach are profound,
and would require the Agency to undertake a comprehensive re-
thinking of the RCRA and CERCLA programs. We do not believe that
it is appropriate to undertake such an effort at this time or in
the context of this individual rulemaking. We would welcome the
opportunity to discuss the environmental implications of relying
on groundwater treatment instead of prevention and remediation
later this fall as we begin to prepare for the reauthorization of
RCRA.
Other Appropriate Considerations
1) Alternative Means of Achieving Equivalent Risk -
Reduction Benefits at Less Cost
You suggest that EPA should have given further consideration
to a range of alternatives for the regulation of primary
separation sludge. Examples given include a de. minimis approach,
a Subtitle "D" or "D+" approach, and the more novel idea of
regulating only when contamination in drinking water wells has
actually been detected and the refinery has failed to provide
either treatment or alternative water supply. Your letter goes
on to state that full implementation of Subtitle C dampens
-------
pollution prevention incentives by regulating all of the sludges
to the same degree of stringency regardless of their level of
toxicity.
Based on further analysis, we have found first that
petroleum refinery primary wastewater treatment sludges are
unlikely to qualify for a de minimis exemption from Subtitle C
regulation. Since 1980 the industry has been unable to lower
constituent levels to meet even the hazardous waste delisting
levels, so we do not consider a de minimis approach to be viable.
Second, we do not have statutory authority to develop or enforce
Subtitle D regulations for this industry at this time, nor are we
aware of the legal authority under which your final regulatory
alternative could be implemented. We therefore did not pursue
analysis of these options in our RIA.
The Agency could consider pursuing a concentration-based
listing or tailoring existing Subtitle C requirements to this
particular industry in hopes of reducing the costs of compliance.
However, neither approach is likely to produce dramatic savings
in this industry. The toxicity and mobility of these sludges
would probably prevent the Agency from establishing
concentrations that would allow substantial volumes to escape
regulation. It would also be difficult to justify significant
deviation from established Subtitle C engineering standards.
Both approaches would require a new data collection and analysis
effort as well as a re-proposal of the rule. We do not think it
is appropriate to consider a fundamental change in our regulatory
approach for petroleum refining waste at this late stage in the
process, particularly when the standards for newly listed sludges
would vary in approach from standards that apply to virtually
identical sludges that have been listed since 1980. We do
believe, however, that both concentration-based listings and
tailored standards are worthy of consideration in the future for
those wastestreams where it is appropriate. There are policy,
legal, and resource issues to be evaluated before the Agency can
fully implement either approach. We would be happy to discuss
these issues with you at your convenience.
We do not agree with your statement that listing discourages
pollution prevention. Our experience has been that listing under
Subtitle C creates a strong incentive to reduce waste volume, to
improve the efficiency of wastewater treatment systems, and to
recycle and re-use waste materials. Based on this experience and
information provided to us by the refining industry, we would
expect the same incentives to exist for these petroleum sludge
listings.
-------
2) Upper-Bound Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk is Within
EPA's Acceptable Risk Range
Your letter indicates that the excess cancer risks presented
by primary treatment sludge are within the 10"* to 10"'
"acceptable" range. Your letter fails to point out that OMB used
average upper-bound cancer risks to the exposed population to
document this statement as opposed to the cancer risks posed to
the maximally exposed individuals (MEI's) at individual
refineries. Historically, EPA has set standards to protect
against MEI cancer risk levels in the 10"* to 10"* range.
3) Costs Exceed Benefits by at Least an Order of
Magnitude
EPA is aware that the projected costs of complying with the
petroleum refinery sludge listing exceed the benefits we have
been able to quantify. It is extremely difficult to quantify the
health and environmental benefits of prevention regulations and
we would welcome any advice OMB may have on improving our
techniques for benefits estimation. We provided in the
attachments to our October 5 letter a discussion of the factors
that have caused us to under-estimate benefits. These include
exposure pathways not analyzed, constituents not included in the
analysis, and future populations not accounted for. We believe
that the incentives to reduce waste volumes and upgrade
wastewater treatment systems, the closing of a long-standing gap
in RCRA regulatory coverage, and the consistency with previous
listing decisions are all factors in addition to the cost/benefit
ratio that must be considered in this final regulatory decision.
In closing, I would like to say that EPA appreciates the
time and effort that you and your staff have devoted to the
review of this regulation. You have pointed out some issues
which required fuller discussion in the preamble and have raised
broad policy issues that clearly merit further consideration as
we look to the future of the hazardous waste program. However,
given the existence of a gap for 10 years in RCRA regulatory
coverage of primary separation sludges and the court order
requiring the Administrator to take final action on this rule by
October 22, the Agency finds there is a compelling need to
complete our work on the petroleum refinery sludge listing and
promulgate this final rule.
Sincerely,
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
cc: F. Henry Habicht, II
-------
9444.1991(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUHMARY
FEBRUARY 1991
*' Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Treatment Sludge Classification
A petroleum refinery produces large volumes of process and oily coolin*
wastewaters. Prior to discharge into the facility's privately owned treatment works,
the wastewater undergoes treatment to meet applicable dean Water Act discharge
limits. At various points throughout the wastewater treatment process, the facility
generates a sludge which is disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D lartdfill. The
November 2,1990 Federal Register (55 FR 46354), promulgated two new petroleum
refinery wastewater treatment sludge listings, F037 and F038. After May 2,1991 the
effective date of this rule, which of the facility's treatment sludges will need tote
dasafiad according to the new designations and therefore become subject to RCRA
Subtitle C requirements?
In developing the new listings, EPA concluded that sludges resulting from
various petroleum refinery wastewater treatment sources contain similar
levels of hazardous constituents as those generated in Dissolved Air Rotation
(DAF) units and American Petroleum Institute (APD separators, which are
already designated as K048 and K051, respectively. Consequently, the
Agency promulgated the nonspecific source F037 and F038 waste listings to
ensure that regulatory coverage was extended to all petroleum floats and
sludge resulting from primary wastewater treatment that are not covered
under more unit-specific K designations. (55 FR 46356)
To determine the applicability of the F037 and F038 listings, the facility must
ascertain the origin of the wastewater treatment sludges. Petroleum refinery
process and oily cooling wastewaters are generally treated in two phases:
primary treatment and secondary (biological) treatment Primary wastewater
treatment in the petroleum refining industry covers only the two initial stages
of treatment which are designed to use physical and chemical processes to
separate oil, water and solids from the wastewater stream.
Specifically, the F037 listing description is assigned to sludges resulting from
the first stage of primary treatment where gravitational oil/ water/solids
separation is performed. The F038 designation pertains to floats and sludges
that arise from the second stage of primary treatment in which physical and
chemical processes are employed to separate emulsified oil/water/solids
from refinery wastewaters. (55 FR 46363) PLEASE NOTE: sludges resulting
from secondary wastewater treatment, which are distinguished by the active
biological degradation phase that follows primary treatment, are not covered
by the new petroleum refinery sludge rule.
-------
A final consideration when determining the scope of the F037 and F038
listings are the exemptions for sludges generated from specific situations.
These include (1) sludges generated from stonnwater units that do not
receive dry weather flow; (2) sludges (or floats) generated from aggressive
biological treatment units; and (3) sludges resulting from specific wastewater
treatment units already designated as K048 and/or K051. (55 Fg 46358) The
exemptions ensure that only sludges and floats resulting from previously
unregulated activities or activities within the scope of the new listings (i.e.,
only primary treatment) are identified as hazardous under the F037 and F038
waste codes.
Source: John Austin, OSW (202)382-4789
Research: Stephen Buchanan
-------
-J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444. 1991 (02)
Gaynor Dawson
Vice President
ICF Kaiser Engineers
601 Williams Blvd., 4th Floor
Richland, WA
Dear Mr. Dawson:
I am writing to respond to your August 17, 1990 letter
requesting clarification of the circumstances under which lead
shielding for radioactive waste is a solid waste under RCRA.
In your letter, you refer to the June 26, 1987 correspondence
between the Director of the Office of Solid Waste, Marcia
Williams, and Terry Husseman, Chair of the Northwest Interstate
Compact Committee, which states in part: "...lead whose primary
use is shielding in low-level waste disposal operations is not
subject to Federal hazardous waste regulations when placed on
the land as part of its normal commercial use." This policy is
unchanged.
Most recently, this policy was echoed in the October 4,
1989 Agency guidance to NRC licensees, "Guidance on the
Definition and Identification of Commercial Mixed Low-level
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste and Answers to Anticipated
Questions." In question 6, on page 4 of the guidance, the issue
is raised: "Are lead containers, whose primary use is for
shielding in disposal operations, hazardous waste under RCRA?"
The first paragraph of the response follows:
No. While lead containers and lead container liners
may exhibit the hazardous characteristic for lead,
those containers whose primary use is for shielding in
low-level waste disposal operations are not
considered hazardous wastes and thus, are not subject
to the hazardous waste rules. These same containers
and liners if disposed of or discarded would be
considered wastes and if they exhibit the hazardous
characteristic, would be subject to the hazardous
waste rules.
In summary, your statement that "... lead containers or
container liners [are] not solid wastes when the radioactive
waste [is] disposed because the lead shielding continue [s] to
fulfill this intended use as shielding" is a correct.
interpretation of Agency policy. While the lead shielding is
rio i
.- __ __ — _
iU'lor to i disposal in 01? o»cHffli Iffife fee pggvenfe fehq ohiclding
-------
UNI STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiuN AGENCY
from leaching. When this is done, the environment will be
protected from radiation by the lead shielding, and from the
leaching of lead by the macroencapsulation of the entire waste
package. Please note that this macroencapsulation is not
required by the land disposal restrictions, but represents best
management practice. Of course, if the shielding is no longer
serving its intended use as a commercial product and is
discarded, and exhibits a characteristic, it is a solid waste
and must meet all Subtitle C requirements, including
macroencapsulation before being placed in or on the ground.
Your letter asks several questions regarding lead
shielding, some of which were discussed over the phone with Rod
Larang of your staff. The first question asks if lead shielding
for radioactive wastes is a solid waste when it is disposed
under certain conditions.
The first condition is when the shielding is part of an
object being disposed, and while necessary for radiation
protection during waste handling prior to its disposal in or on
the land, is not necessary for radiation protection after the
object has been placed in or on the land. Since the shielding
is not necessary for radiation protection once the object has
been disposed, it becomes a solid waste upon disposal, and
therefore must meet all applicable treatment standards.
The second condition concerns lead shielding that is part
of a disposed waste package and is necessary for radiation
protection after the object has been buried. Here, the lead
shielding is fulfilling its intended use as a commercial
product, and is not considered a solid waste.
The third condition involves the introduction of shielding
during the packaging of radioactive waste in preparation for its
disposal. As the lead shielding is necessary only during waste
handling in this example, once the shielding is disposed, it
becomes a solid waste.
The fourth condition concerns the introduction of shielding
during the packaging of the radioactive waste for disposal; the
shielding being necessary for radiation protection after the
waste package has been buried. Here the shielding is not a
solid waste as long as it is fulfilling its intended use as a
commercial product.
QuebLiau Lwu leeiils.—llL..-lil>ad. shielding ia a aolid waate
u . TULA A* f l .44 AH^-,1 ^rTr^T??* .1, l^r, .1 .. „ .1.1 ,-TIJ, OJCK
wnen piiacea rorj aisposaj, Is it. \ suujeuu juu%uc^K Zoo
-------
UNITeD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
treatment standards (i.e., encapsulation for D008 waste lead
shielding), or are these standards inapplicable because the
shielding is not a solid waste until disposal is completed?"
As indicated above, if the lead shielding itself is discarded
and is no longer fulfilling its intended use as a commercial
product, it is a solid waste, and is subject to all applicable
treatment standards.
Question three describes a situation where a waste package
with nonencapsulated shielding disposed in the past is retrieved
in the future in order to treat the waste. In this case, as
long as the shielding is fulfilling its intended use, it is not
a solid waste. Once the shielding is discarded, however, the
shielding becomes a solid waste, as it would no longer be
serving the function for which it was intended. As the land
disposal restrictions apply prospectively, it is important to
know when the shielding was discarded. If it was discarded
before the applicable effective land disposal restrictions date
for the RCRA hazardous waste, the land disposal restrictions
would not apply until it was dug up.
Question four in your letter provides two more examples of
the use of lead shielding: radioactive materials passing through
a lead pipe, and nonradioactive materials being protected from
a radioactive environment by lead. To respond to the subparts
of question four, first, the abandonment of buried lead-lined
piping which transported radioactive materials and the
radioactively contaminated lead-shielded phone cable constitutes
disposal of a solid waste. See 40 CFR 261.2 for the definition
of solid waste. This lead would be subject to treatment
standards under the Land Disposal Restrictions program. Lead
contaminated with radioactivity must be macroencapsulated before
disposal (55 FR 22628). The piping and cables are wastes once
abandoned; redisposing the waste elsewhere would not affect its
status as a solid, waste. Again, because the land disposal
restrictions apply prospectively, if the material was abandoned
before the-: land disposal restrictions effective date for the
hazardous waste(s), the land ban would not apply unless the
material was dug up. Liability for the improper disposal of
hazardous waste would occur immediately upon such disposal.
Violations of the land disposal prohibitions may result in the
issuance of an order assessing a civil penalty for any past or
current violation, requiring compliance immediately or within
a specified time period, or both. (RCRA section 3008 (a)(D).
To reiterate, HSWA requires hazardous wastes to meet promulgated
treatment standards prior <&ftcufafr^s^^^a
-------
UNITtD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Question 5 of your letter asks if, under Section 6001 of
RCRA, federal agencies are immune from regulation by authorized
states. Section 6001 of RCRA spells out clearly that any part
of the Federal government engaging in waste disposal operations
is subject to all federal, state, interstate, and local
requirements. Moreover, Executive Order 12088 states that the
Federal government will comply with all environmental statutes
and regulations, including the environmental statutes and
regulations of authorized states. Thus, under Section 6001 of
RCRA, Federal agencies are not immune from regulation by
authorized states.
We hope that this letter answers your concerns regarding
the circumstances under which lead shielding for radioactive
wastes is or is not a solid waste under RCRA. If you have
further questions on this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Richard Kinch, Chief
Waste Treatment Branch
-------
9444.1991(03)
RCRA/SUPERFOND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 1991
1. Comparative Definitions of F001 and F002
Tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, and 1,1,1-
trichloroethylene are listed in the definitions of both F001 and F002 in 40 CFR 261.31.
The listing for F001 reads "the following spent halogenated solvents used in
degreasing...", while the F002 listing begins with "the following spent halogenated
solvents...". Although F001 applies specifically to solvents used in degreasing
according to the December 31,1985 Federal Register, the F001-F005 listings cover
only those solvents used for their solvent properties. A solvent used in degreasing
is considered to be used for its solvent properties. (50 FR 53316) Thus, a solvent,
which is listed in both F001 and F002 (e.g., methylene chloride) and is used in
degreasing, could be both F001 and F002. Would such a spent solvent be
appropriately classified as F001, F002, or both?
It was not the intent of the Agency to apply both listings to a solvent
constituent which is listed in both F001 and F002, The waste code that the
spent solvent receives depends on the type of degreasing involved. Page 6
of the "Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR 261.31 and 261.323; Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste Under RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3001" (also
known as the Background Listings Document) clarifies the intent of the F001
listing as opposed to other spent solvents. Specifically, the F001 listing is
appropriate when tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, methylene chloride,
and 1,1,1-trichloroethane are used in large-scale industrial degreasing
operations [e.g., cold cleaning, vapor degreasing (open top and
conveyorized), and fabric scouringl. Alternatively, tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane used in
equipment cleaning or in smaller scale degreasing operations involving repair
work (that do not employ industrial degreasing processes as described
above), such as industrial maintenance and repair, commercial service and
repair, and consumer-performed maintenance and repair, receive the F002
listing.
Source: Ron Josephson, OSW (202) 475-6715
Research: Peter LeTourneau
-------
9444.1991(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUG 3 0 1991
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Residual Materials Contaminated with Trace Solvents
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
EPA Region VIII
This memorandum is in response to your requests for guidance
on trace solvent issues dated December 20, 1990 and February 11,
1991. In the particular case cited, a facility degreases metal
parts in an FOOl-listed solvent, air dries the parts, and then
blasts the parts. Some of the blasting grit has been found to
contain solvent constituents. According to your first memo, a
conflict between Region VIII and the Utah Department of Health
has arisen on interpreting the scope of the listing regulations.
The conflict appears to be centered on whether previous
Headquarters memoranda are valid and applicable to this
situation.
Upon review of the specific situation and your initial
response, research into previous Headquarters correspondence, and
discussions with your staff, we concur with the memorandum sent
b.y Terry Anderson to James Wickemeyer on October 29, 1990 (i.e.,
the blasting grit generated by the facility in question does not
meet the F001 spent solvent listing description). This letter is
consistent with previous Headquarters interpretations as to the
scope of the spent solvent listings or the mixture rule, which
state traces of solvents left on equipment after cleaning are not
spent and therefore do not meet the listing description. Such
wastes may be hazardous because they exhibit one of the
characteristics of hazardous waste described in 40 CFR 261
Subpart C (particularly the toxicity characteristic of §261.24).
If solvents are used for cleaning in excess of amounts
needed for that purpose, however, the excess solvent residues
-------
could be spent, and therefore listed hazardous waste. No set
quantity has been established for excess amounts of solvents
which would cause the residual in question to be subject to
regulation. The nature of facility operations will dictate
whether the amount of solvent released, inadvertently or
deliberately, would cause the waste in question to meet the
listing description. The applicability of such an interpretation
would depend on the nature of the operation, the quantities of
solvents used and disposed in the operation, and the manner in
which they are used/disposed.
Please note that some state agencies have the authority to
interpret Federal regulations more strictly than EPA, if desired.
In this particular case, such an interpretation may ease the
regulatory flexibility of State agency personnel.
Thank you for your memorandum. If you have any additional
questions on this topic please do not hesitate to call me or have
your staff contact Ron Josephson at FTS 260-4770.
cc: (w/incoming) Ken Gigliello, OWPE (OS-520)
Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I - VII, IX, X
-------
9444.1991(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
November 26, 1991
Mr. James C.R. Lee, P.E., Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer.
CEPOJ-ED,
APO San Francisco 96343-0061
Dear Mr. Lee:
Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1991. Please accept
my apology for the delay in answering your letter, which was
referred to our branch from the Kansas City regional office.
In response to your first question, discarded wastewater at
a corrosion control facility is considered a solid waste. (40 CFR
261.2). Whether a solid waste is also a hazardous waste depends
on whether the solid waste contains any listed hazardous waste or
exhibits any hazardous waste characteristics.
Methylene Chloride is listed in 40 CFR 261.31 as a hazardous
waste. Unfortunately, the information you provide about the way
in which the methylene chloride is used is not enough to allow me
to say, conclusively, whether the waste you describe is
hazardous. Methylene chloride is listed as both an F001 and F002
hazardous waste. I refer you to the following paragraphs:
40 CFR 261.3 Hazardous wastes from non-specific sources
E001...The following spent halogenated solvents used in
decreasing: Tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
Mthylen* chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon
tetrachloride, and chlorinated fluorocarbons; all spent
solventa mixtures/blends used in decreasing containing,
before use, a total of ten percent or more (by volume)
of one or more of the above halogenated solvents or
those solvents listed in F002, F004, and F005; and
still bottoms from the recovery of these spent
solvent and spent solvent mixtures.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-2-
We appreciate the input and cooperation of the Navy and
Department of Defense in resolving this issue and look forward to
your continued support in securing passage of the Administration
bill.
Sincerely,
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
cc: Jacqueline Schafer
Department of Navy
Robert Grady
OMB
-------
9444.1991(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 1991
1. Multlsource Leachate (F039) Waste
Code as it Applies to Contamination
From Spills
The hazardous waste code F039, known as
multisource leachate, is defined in 40 CFR §261 Jl
as leachate resulting from the disposal of more
than one hazardous waste listed in 40 CFR Pan
261, Subpart D, which is also a restricted waste
under the Land Disposal Restrictions program in
Part 268. Rainwater has percolated through soils
contaminated with spills of several different listed
hazardous wastes. Could the resulting
contaminated water now receive the F039 waste
code?
The January 31.1991. Federal Register (56 FR
3865) states that in order to determine whether a
waste meets the criteria of F039, it is necessary to
first determine that the waste meets the definition
of leachate. This definition, found in 40 CFR
§260.10, is "any liquid, including any suspended
components in the liquid, that has percolated
through or drained from hazardous waste." The
preamble of the January 31,1991, notice also
clarifies that only liquids that have percolated
through land disposed wastes ("land disposal"
having the meaning of RCRA Section 3004(k)) are
considered to be leachate for the purposes of
making this determination. The definition of land
disposal in Section 3004(k) states that land
disposal "shall be deemed to include, but not
lirrited to any placement of such hazardous waste
in a landfilJ, surface impoundment, waste pile,
injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome
formation, salt bed formation, or underground mine
or cave" (emphasis added). Spillage and
drippage are also forms of land disposal, albeit
improper and illegal Since spills and drips of
hazardous waste which have collected in the soil
are normally land disposed wastes, water that has
percolated through soils contaminated with more
than one listed hazardous waste for which Pan
268 treatment standards are in effect is normally
F039.
-------
9444.1992(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
MARCH 1992
2. Commercial Chemical Product
Definition In §261.33
A manufacturer intends to discard an
unused formulation which contains two
chemicals that serve as active ingredients.
Only one of the chemicals is listed in 40 CFR
§26133. A comment in §261J3(d) states that
H[t] he phrase 'commercial chemical product
or manufacturing chemical intermediate
having the generic name listed in...' refers to a
chemical substance which is manufactured or
formulated for commercial or manufacturing
use and which consists of the commercially
pure grade of the chemical, any technical
grades of the chemical that are produced or
marketed, and all formulations in which the
chemical is the sole active ingredient."
(Emphasis added.) Does the term "sole active
ingredient" refer only to chemicals which are
listed in §§26133(e) and (f)? If a product
contains two active ingredients, only one of
which is listed, would the discarded product
be regulated as a P- or U-listed waste?
The discarded formulation would not be
regulated as P- or U-listed waste when
discarded In order to be regulated as a P- or
U-listed waste, a waste must meet all of the
listing criteria. The listings in §261.33 do not
include chemical mixtures where the listed
chemical is not the sole active ingredient, and
do not apply to chemicals that have been used
for their intended purpose (54 FR 31335;
July 28,1989). In the scenario described
above, while the discarded formulation meets
the criterion of being unused, it contains more
than one active ingredient It is not 'necessary
for a chemical to be listed in §§261.33(e) or
(f) in order to meet the definition of an active
ingredient. An active ingredient is defined as L
a compound or mixture that performs the
function of the product "Sole active
ingredient" means the active ingredient is the
only chemically active component for the
function of the product If a formulation has
more than one active ingredient, the
formulation, when discarded, would not be
within the scope of the listing in §261.33,
regardless of whether only one or both active
ingredients are listed.
Generators, however, must be sure to
correctly determine whether a particular
constituent performs the function of the
product, or only serves an ancillary function,
such as mobilizing or preserving the active
ingredient For example, fillers, solvent
carriers, propellants, and other components
with no pesticidal role are functionally inert in
pesticide formulations and therefore are not
active ingredients. In cases where a hazardous
constituent from §§261.33(e) or (0 is a
functionally inert component of a commercial
chemical product, e.g., a solvent carrier, its
presence does not prevent the formulation
containing another P- or U-listed constituent
as the sole active ingredient from being a P- or
U-list waste (internal Agency memorandum
dated May 3,1989).
-------
jadej pspfoay uo pa;uiy
tn
,^Hk^M^^^K^MA^0^B
II EU STATE
1 EMVIROMME
C3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444 *1992 < °3)
OCT 201992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by Mclaughlin
Gormley King (MGK) Company in Minnesota
FROM: David Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: Joseph Boyle, Chief
RCRA Enforcement Branch (5HR-12)
EPA Region V
The purpose of this memorandum is to answer a part of a
memorandum sent by you on July 23, 1991 to Michael Petruska in
which you asked for determinations concerning the applicability
of spent solvent listings. Specifically, you wished to know if a
waste generated in the production of a pesticide by McLaughlin
Gormley King (MGK) Company in Chaska, Minnesota is regulated as a
listed hazardous waste.
As we understand the process, a solvent (toluene) is used to
carry the reactants into the reactor. Subsequent to the
formation of the product, the toluene is removed from the
product-bearing stream. After the removal of the toluene, the
product is distilled off and the residual is sent for disposal.
The waste in question is that residual.
The Agency agrees with the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MCPA) in not classifying this waste as an F005 spent
solvent waste. The toluene that is removed from the product-
bearing stream is not considered a spent material because it is
still in use as a reactant medium and is not "spent." Thus, the
product-bearing stream remaining after the toluene is removed
would not be derived from a waste meeting the F005 listing
description. The residual remaining after a product distillation
would then be considered a solid waste, but not an F005 hazardous
waste or a waste derived from the treatment of an F005 waste.
If the waste in question exhibited any characteristic of
hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity characteristic), it still could be a hazardous waste.
waste does not
However, your memorandum
EPA Form I320-) 02*70}
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
State may decide to regulate this waste more stringently than the
Federal law requires.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any additional
questions on this interpretation, please contact Ron Josephson of
my staff at FTS 260-4770.
cc: Ken Gigliello (OS-520)
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - IV, VI - X
-------
9444.1992(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
OCTOBER 1992
1. Perchloroethylene UsedJn Dry
Cleaning
A dry cleaner uses a 50 per cent
perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene)
mixture in her cleaning process. Since
tetrachloroethylene appears in the listing
descriptions for both F001 and F002, would
the spent solvent mixture be classified as FOOl
orF002?
Spent tetrachloroethylene used in dry
cleaning is classified as F002 (40 CFR
§261.31). The background listing document
for F002 identifies certain industries that
generate spent halogenated solvents meeting
the F002 listing (Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste. SS261.31 and 261.32 -
Listing of Hazardous Waste, page 41).
According to this document,
tetrachloroethylene used in laundry and dry
cleaning operations is regulated as F002. Of
course, the spent solvent formulation must
meet the 10 percent (by volume) before-use
criterion in the F002 listing. Furthermore, the
FOOl listing is, by its terms, limited to spent
solvents "used in degreasing."
-------
9444.1992(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOV 41992
Mr. Janes V. Holes
General Manager, Remedial/ Removal Operations Group
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.
3107 South Elm-Eugene Street
P.O. Box 16590
Greensboro, North Carolina 27416-0590
Dear Mr. Noles:
This is in response to your letter of August 1, 1992, in
which you asked several questions related to the classification
of F003 wastes (ignitable non-toxic spent solvents).
Specifically, you presented us with two scenarios: 1) the
spilling of containerized spent solvent onto soil, and 2) the
proper classification and applicable treatment standards for
paint cleaning wastes in which xylene and acetone were used as
solvents.
In the first situation described in your letter, xylene and
acetone (F003) spent solvent wastes were containerized in drums
for storage and ultimate incineration at a permitted treatment,
storage, and disposal (TSD) facility. During loading of the
drums for shipment, some of the spent solvent waste was spilled
onto soil. The affected soils were excavated, containerized,
sampled, and analyzed. You presented us with two questions
concerning this incident:
1) Would this spent solvent contaminated soil be regulated as a
hazardous waste?
ANSWER: Under Federal regulation, contaminated soils and other
environmental media, when they contain a listed hazardous waste,
must be handled as a hazardous waste until the medium no longer
contains the listed wasjte. The determination as to whether or
not the medium "contains" the listed waste or what treatment
would be sufficient to remove the waste is decided by the EPA
Region or authorized State agency. Please be aware that a
state's laws and regulations may differ from the Federal program.
In this case you-should contact the State of North Carolina.
2)
If yes, please explain why the waste mixture rule as defined
in 40 CFR 261. 3 (a) (2) (iii) would not apply. The rule
basically states that a solid waste (in this case, the
is-
fir,
SURNAME
DATE
••**••*/•••••
EPA Perm 13204 02-70)
TT
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
it exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste as
identified in Subpart C, would no longer be a hazardous
waste should the mixture (the contaminated soil) not exhibit
a hazardous characteristic.
ANSWER: Environmental media (such as soil or ground water) are
not considered wastes, and, therefore, the "mixture rule"
(40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)) does not apply. However, under the
Agency's "contained-in" policy, such media contaminated with
listed hazardous waste must itself be treated as listed hazardous
wastes until the listed waste has been removed. Please note that
with regard to your reference to §261.3(a)(2)(iii), the
procedures in that section have been updated in.accordance with
Land Disposal Restrictions rules (see answer to #4 below).
In the second situation, according to your letter, xylene
and acetone are used as solvents to clean excess paint and paint
sludges from tools and equipment. The wastes generated, as
described in your letter (classified as F003) are subsequently
placed in a drum for disposal. An analysis of the waste reveals
that the waste contents from these drums do not exhibit any
characteristic of hazardous waste; however, the waste has
constituent levels above those specified in the Land Disposal
Restrictions treatment standards for xylene and acetone (0.15 ppm
and 0.59 ppm, respectively). You presented us with two questions
concerning this scenario:
3) Would this spent solvent paint waste be regulated as a
hazardous waste?
ANSWER: Yes. Given that this waste is a spent solvent waste
that meets the listing description, it is classified under
current regulations as a listed F003 waste. The listing
description applies to the containerized waste, which includes
both the spent solvents and the paint residual removed by the
solvents in the containers.
4) If this spent solvent paint waste sludge is a hazardous
waste, how would you apply the fact that this type of spent
solvent (F003) is listed in 40 CFR 261, Subpart D, due to
its ignitability, and this waste no longer exhibits the
ignitability characteristic?
ANSWER: From your letter and discussions our staff has had with
you, we understand your question to concern the applicability of
the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards to this
waste and mixtures involving this waste. Thus, our response is
based on this understanding of your question. The LDR treatment
standards are applicable to wastes as generated. As described
above, the waste as generated in the situation you present, since
it has not been mixed with another solid waste, is a listed
hazardous waste because of the use of solvents identified in
-------
F003, and their disposal subsequent to their being spent. The
fact that the waste does not exhibit the characteristic of
ignitability after storage does not alter its status as a listed
waste when generated. As the Agency recently reiterated
(57 FR 37210, August 18, 1992), "... such wastes cannot be land
disposed until treated to meet the applicable treatment
standards, and cannot be diluted to meet those treatment
standards (56 FR 3871). This would also be true of mixtures
involving such listed wastes, since otherwise the prohibitions
would have no real meaning." Thus, the waste you have described
above must be treated to meet the Land Disposal Restrictions
treatment standards for constituents such as xylene and acetone
if they contain levels of these constituents higher than those
prescribed in the regulations and are destined for land disposal.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any questions
concerning the solvent listings, please contact Mr. Ron Josephson
of my staff at (202)260-6715. For answers to policy questions
concerning the Land Disposal Restrictions, please contact
Ms. Rhonda Craig at (703)308-8434.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Ken Gigliello, OWPE
Rhonda Craig, WMD
Waste Management Division Directors, EPA Regions I - X
-------
9444.1992(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
NOVEMBER 1992
3. Beryllium Dust (P015); Applicability
Beryllium is listed in 40 CFR §26U3(e)
as an acutely hazardous waste (P015). Does
the P015 listing apply to all forms of unused
beryllium that are discarded?
The hazardous waste listing P015 applies
only to unused commercial chemical product
beryllium dust that is discarded (see
§261.33(d) for a definition of commercial
chemical product). On May 19, 1980,
beryllium dust was listed in an interim final
rule as an acutely hazardous waste in 40 CFR
§26L33(e) because of its acute toxicity to
humans when inhaled (45 FJL 33084). The
listing was finalized on November 25, 1980
(45 F.& 78532). In the April 22, 1988,
Register, which made technical corrections to
the list of commercial chemical products in
§§261.33(e) and (0, the word "dust" was
inadvertently omitted from the listing (53 ER
13382). Despite this omission, the
applicability of the listing remains unchanged.
The April 22, 1988, Federal Register was
intended only to amend certain typographical
errors in the hazardous waste lists. EPA never
proposed to change the listing from "beryllium
dust" to "beryllium" and does not intend the
listing to apply to beryllium. Therefore,
despite this typographical error in 40 CFR
§261.33(e), the scope of the listing remains
unchanged, and the hazardous waste code
P015 applies only to beryllium flpsi
-------
9444.1992(07)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
NOVEMBER 1992
2. Reclaimed Commercial Products:
Regulatory Status
The owner of a facility collects used
railroad ties that were treated with a wood
preservative containing creosote. When the
owner has accumulated a sufficient amount of
railroad ties he bakes them to draw out the
creosote. Once this process is complete, the
reclaimed creosote can be used as a wood
preservative without further processing. A
drum of this creosote leaked into the soil.
How is the resulting contaminated soil
regulated upon disposal?
The creosote-contaminated soil must be
managed as U051. The recovered creosote
formulation is classified as a product because
the creosote has been reclaimed from the
railroad ties and requires no additional
processing before it can be beneficially used
<40CFR261.3(c)(2)). Upon leaking into the
soil, the creosote is classified as a solid waste
pursuant to §261.2(b). The generator must
then determine whether this solid waste is a
hazardous waste. Sections 261.33(e) and (f)
designate certain commercial chemical
products as hazardous wastes when discarded.
Specifically, §261.33(d) defines commercial
chemical product in part as any commercial or
technical grade of a product, or any
formulation in which the listed chemical is the
sole active ingredient Assuming the
reclaimed creosote is the only chemically
active component for the function of the wood
preservative (i.e., the sole active ingredient),
and the discarded material meets the definition
of a solid waste per §261.2(b), the discarded
creosote is classified as U051. Since the soil is
contaminated with U051, it is subject to
regulation as a hazardous waste in accordance
with EPA's "contained-in" policy, which
requires all media (i.e., debris, soil,
groundwater, sediment) that contain listed
hazardous wastes to be managed as listed
hazardous wastes. The soil, therefore, would
have to be handled as a hazardous waste
(U051) until it is decontaminated or until the
hazardous waste is delisted (see, for example,
56 ER 24444,24456; May 30,1991).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1992(08)
I I 1992
Mr. H. Michael Dorsey, Assistant Chief
Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement Section
Office of Waste Management
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, WV 25301-1401
Dear Mr. Dorsey:
This reply is in response to your letter of September 25,
1992 in which you requested clarification of EPA's hazardous
waste listings pertaining to wood preserving operations.
You first ask for a definition of a "wood preserving
process". The Agency considers a "wood preserving process" as
any process intended to preserve wood from structural attack.
The definition, therefore, is not based on the type of process
used, i.e. pressure treatment or non-pressure dip treatment, but
on the intent of the treatment, itself. Therefore, "dipping"
operations are not excluded from wood preserving if the intent of
the operation is to preserve wood. As the Agency stated in its
initial proposed wood preserving hazardous waste listing,
"Wood preservatives are used to delay deterioration and
decay of wood caused by organisms such as insects,
fungi, and marine borers. Surface discoloration
(sapstaining) during short term storage can be
adequately controlled by a superficial application of
preservative, but for long lasting effectiveness,
penetration of preservative to a uniform depth is
required. This deep penetration is usually
accomplished by forcing preservative into the wood
under pressure, so that 'pressure treated1 is often
used as a synonym for 'preserved'." (53 FR 53282,
December 30, 1988)
Next, you ask if wastes generated by the use of sodium
pentachlorophenate would be considered hazardous wastes under the
F032 hazardous waste code (see 40 CFR § 261.33(f)). As mentioned
above, the intent of the process must be examined in making this
hazardous waste determination. Typically, sodium
pentachlorophenate is used for sapstain control on lumber
following cutting. Sapstain control is considered surface
latod
auc v
acteo-i—The Agancy
SURNAME
DATE
urface^pi
otection
wastes a£
hazardous in its
£PA
} 320-!
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
1988 proposed rulemaking (see 53 FR 53282, December 30, 1988).
The final rule listed only wastes from wood preserving
operations, deferring action on surface protection wastes to a
later dcte... The Agency is currently examining these wastes.
L&> >*Jux£uAtJ£ -fa rrwxj&x CU "l^aJU c^^ni^talZ^/^ ^U^j^nJuUj/^9 ^ ••
If a facility is treating wood with sodium
pentachlorophenate with the intent of preserving the wood, it
would be considered a wood preserving operation, and the wastes
generated would be chlorophenolic wastes from a wood preserving
facility designated as F032. We believe that it would be very
unlikely that a facility would use sodium pentachlorophenate to
preserve wood, since the preserving solution is aqueous and would
wash off the treated wood and render the treatment ineffective.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please
contact Mr. Rick Brandes, Chief, Waste Identification Branch at
(202) 260-4770 or have your staff contact Mr. David J. Carver of
my staff on extension (202) 260-6775.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9444.1992(09)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
DEC 24 1992 SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Jackie Moles
Operations Manager
Laidlaw Environmental Services (TS), Inc.
208 Wellington Industrial Drive
Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
Dear Ms. Notes:
This letter is a reply to your July 20,1992 letter to the Agency in which you requested
clarification on what constitutes dioxin related materials. I understand my staff has been in
contact with you about the lateness of our response, and I appreciate your patience.
Your first question addresses the regulation of dioxin- containing wastes. Specifically,
your question asks under which waste codes are dioxins regulated. Your letter asks if F020,
F021, F022, F023, F026, F027, F028, D017, D041, and D042 (as defined at 40 CFR §§
261.31, 261.24) are the waste codes under which dioxin is regulated. You are correct.
These waste codes apply, but are not the only waste codes which may apply to dioxin-
containing wastes. For example, F032 wastes (wastes generated at wood preserving
processes which use chlorophenolic formulations) contain dioxin. Wastes which have Land
Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards for certain dioxins and furans include F039
(multi-source leachate), K043 (2,6-dichlorophenol waste from the production of 2,4-D), and
K099 (untreated wastewater from the production of 2,4-D).
Your second question relates to proper characterization of dioxin-containing wastes
based on known process information. Specifically, your question states that if any
constituents exist in a material for which it was listed, but no identifiable process exists which
would generate one of the above listed wastes, would the waste be regulated, provided that
no other EPA codes apply? The "F" waste codes (hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources) would not apply if a waste contains dioxin but does not meet the listing descriptions
for the dioxin listings in 40 CFR 261.31. The "D" codes (codes which correspond to the toxic
contaminant causing a solid waste to meet the characteristic of toxicity) would only apply if
the levels of the respective constituents are above the regulatory level. The "D" codes listed
above may contain impurities of dioxin.
The third question asks if the processes do apply, but the constituents listed in
Appendix VII are not present in the waste, would the F020-F023 and F026-F028 waste codes
apply? The waste codes would apply if the waste did not meet a specific exemption as
specified in 40 CFR 261.4. This is true even if no Appendix VIII constituents are present.
Please note, however, that any person may, pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22, petition the Agency
to exclude the wastes at a particular facility from regulation as a listed hazardous waste.
Printed on Recycled P«jps r
-------
The fourth question asks what wastes generated from products which are derivatives
of pentachlorophenol would be classified as F021? Any substance which is related
structurally and can be made from pentachlorophenol in one or more steps is a derivative of
pentachlorophenol. Examples include, but are not limited to, sodium pentachlorophenate,
octachlorodibenzodioxin, octachlorodiphenyl ether, and potassium pentachlorophenate.
The fifth question asks what wastes generated from products which are derivatives
of tri- and tetrachlorophenols would be classified as F021? Derivatives of tri- and
tetrachlorophenols include tri- and tetra-chlorophenoxy derivatives of carboxylic acids which
include the most common tri- and tetra-chlorophenoxy acetic acids and their salts as well as
the tri-and tetra-chlorophenoxy derivatives of other acids such as propionic acid, butyric acid,
etc. Ester and ether derivatives include methyl., ethyl, propyl, butyl esters and ethers as well
as phenolic esters and ethers. Amine salts and other salts include all derivatives of tri- and
tetra-chlorophenoxy acids reacted with various bases.
Your sixth question asks whether 0017, D041, and/or D042 wastes can be landfilled
in a Subtitle C landfill. It is important to emphasize that no matter what the hazardous waste
is, the landfill must first be permitted to accept that specific hazardous waste. D017 is a
restricted waste and must be treated to reduce the concentration of silvex to 7.9 mg/kg or
less, prior to landfilling. Although LDR standards for dioxin containing wastes are based on
concentration levels, the dioxin listing rule (50 FR 1978) requires special management
standards for certain types of units which manage F020-23 and F026-28: (1) Incineration in
accordance with 40 CFR 264.343 and 40 CFR 265.352; (2) Thermal treatment to 99.9999
percent Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) in accordance with 40 CFR 265.383.
D041 and D042 wastes can be landfilled if the landfill is permitted to accept the waste.
With regard to your last question, you ask if samples identify the presence of
constituents listed in Appendix VII, but the original process generating the material and any
previously applicable wastecodes are unknown, would the samples be excluded from RCRA
regulation at the time of disposal, unless it is found that characteristic codes D017, D041,
and/or D042 or other characteristic codes apply? If the waste in question cannot be traced
back to an original process that would generate a waste meeting any listing description, then
it is exempt from regulation providing that it does not fail a hazardous waste characteristic
test. Please be advised that State regulations may be more stringent than federal regulations,
and that TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) is a hazardous substance under CERCLA,
regardless of its source.
If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Rick Brandes, Chief, Waste
Identification Branch at (202)260-4770.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
birector
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Judy Sophianopolis, Region IV
-------
9444.1993(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL PHUI fctl ION AGENCY _.. -. ortntf
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 C I 3 fc h U I Y
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FEB 23 1993
Mr. N.G. Kaul, P.E.
Director
Division of Hazardous Substances
Regulation
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Dear Mr. Kaul,
Thank you for your letter dated November 9,1992, concerning the definition of
solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In your letter,
you raised two specific issues involving certain secondary materials: 1) clarification of the
definition of commercial chemical products that are not found on the U- or P-lists in 40
CFR 261.33, and 2) the status of these non-listed commercial chemical products when
recycled. I hope that this response will help clarify the federal regulations regarding
these issues.
In addition, you may already be aware that the Director of the Office of Solid
Waste (OSW) has recently formed a Definition of Solid Waste Task Force to re-evaluate
the definition of solid waste. The Task Force is soliciting input from ASTSWMO,
individual states, industry, and others on implementation issues such as the one raised in
your letter. Overall, the Task Force is looking at ways to reduce the complexity of our
current definition of solid waste, reduce disincentives for safe recycling and innovative
technology development, and address concerns regarding the use of recycled hazardous
waste in products. I understand that some of your staff have already met with the Task
Force (prior to your letter being sent). Again, this response to your questions is based
on the current federal regulations.
Definition of Non-Listed Commercial Chemical Products
Presently, the Agency interprets "non-listed commercial chemical products" under
RCRA to include all types of unused commercial products that exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste, whether or not these products would commonly be considered
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
chemicals (e.g., unused circuit boards, batteries, etc.). Of course, these determinations
are not always straightforward regarding certain types of commercial products, such as
machinery, electronics, and other items containing various components, only some of
which cause the overall item to exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic. We would
expect these determinations to be site-specific.
Recycling Non-Listed Commercial Chemical Products
You stated that you were uncertain as to what types of "recycling" would quality a
non-listed commercial chemical product for the solid waste exemption in §261.2(c)(3),
which is further clarified in the April 11, 1985 Federal Register (50 HE 14219). As you
know, EPA defines "recycling" as including use/reuse, and reclamation (see 40 CFR
261.2(c)(4),(5), and (7)). Reclamation is further defined to be either regeneration, or the
recovery of a usable product. With regard to the use/reuse provisions, any type of
secondary material recycled in this manner would not be a solid waste, provided that the
applicable conditions listed in §261.2(e) are met, and that the recycling is legitimate (see
§261.2(f)).
With regard to the reclamation of non-listed commercial chemical products, their
status is the same as that for listed commercial chemical products, as we stated in the
April 11, 1985 Federal Register. This has been the Agency's position since publication
of that clarification, and has remained unchanged. However, we do recognize that the
universe of non-listed commercial chemical products could present some recycling
activities which require careful analysis to verify that the recycling is legitimate; the
burden of proof, however, remains with the person claiming that a material is not a solid
waste (§261.2(f)).
You provided an example of off-specification paint, produced by a manufacturer
and never used; we would define this material as a non-listed commercial chemical
product. You then described this paint as being reclaimed to recover the solvent,
resulting in a stillbottom containing the pigments and associated metals. We would view
the off-specification paint, to be reclaimed, as excluded from the definition of solid
waste. Although the reclamation process is recovering a usable product from the paint
(i.e., solvent), and is not regenerating the paint to make new paint, this activity is
nevertheless reclamation and therefore the off-specification paint is not a solid waste.
Of course, the residual stillbottoms generated during reclamation, if characteristically
hazardous, would be subject to Subtitle C requirements at the point of generation (i.e.,
•when removed from the distillation unit), assuming they are to be discarded.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that if a person is claiming that a material is
excluded or otherwise exempt because it is going to be recycled, the burden of proof
rests with that person to show that the recycling activity is legitimate. For example, if a
reclamation process recovers only a minimal amount of material, of questionable value,
while the remaining residue is discarded, this would appear to be more like regulated
-------
waste treatment than recycling. If non-listed commercial chemical products, exhibiting a
hazardous waste characteristic, are being processed in order to treat them (and not to
recover a usable product or to regenerate them), then the material is not excluded from
the definition of solid waste under §261.2(c)(3).
If you have any other comments or questions, please call me, or you or your staff
could talk with Ross Elliott of my staff at (202) 260-8551. Thank you very much.
Sylv
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1993(02)
APR 20 1993
Mr. David P. Novello
Freedman, Levy, Kroll, and Simonds
Washington Square
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5366
Dear Mr. Novello:
This letter is in response to your November 12, 1992 inquiry
to the Agency concerning the regulatory status of a "centrifuge
underflow" waste generated by your client, Aristech Chemical
Corporation. Sp"<~i^ioally, you wanted to know if the waste met
any of the listing descriptions of hazardous waste recently
promulgated for coke by-product wastes published August 18, 1992
(57 FR 37284 - 37306).
As we understand the process, crude coal tar (received from
a neighboring coke producer) is dewatered and sent to a tank,
where quinoline insolubles (QI) content is determined. The QI
content, if too high, may adversely affect the quality of the
products (such as creosote or pitch) made from the coal tar that
your client sells. If the QI content is found to be too high, a
centrifuge is used to remove some of it before the tar is
distilled. This removed QI material is the "centrifuge
underflow" in question.
After reviewing the written material you sent and discussed
with my staff on January 27, 1993, we have concluded that the
centrifuge underflow, consisting mainly of quinoline insolubles,
does not meet any of the listing descriptions as promulgated in
the August 18, 1992 coke by-products rule. Specifically, the
Agency does not believe that your client's material fits the K148
description because it is not a distillation residue; i.e.,
centrifuging takes place prior to distillation. In addition, the
underflow cannot be characterized as K147, because the
centrifuges are process units, not storage tanks.
However, please be aware that the material may exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or toxicity characteristic) as defined in 40 CFR 261
Subpart C. In addition, your State may regulate wastes more
stringently than the Federal government, so you should check with
the applicable authorities.
COHCUMHHCfS
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any additional
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at
(202)260-4770.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Ron Josephson
Dawn Messier, OGC (LE-132S)
Ken Gigliello, OWPE (OS-520)
David Friedman, EPA Region III (3HW53)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9444.1993(03)
-9 1993
OPPICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
eraSted Along Natural Gas
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of D
Transmission Pipelin,
FROM: Jeffery D. Denit,
Office of Solid Waste
TO: William E. Muno, Acting Director
Waste Management Division (H-7J)
US EPA Region V
This memorandum responds to your June 9, 1993 request for
assistance in a regulatory determination regarding drip gas
generated along natural gas transmission pipelines. Specifically,
you ask whether drip gas that is poured down the well for use as a
solvent to remove paraffin buildup is a legitimate use or the
disposal of a hazardous waste. Your staff has previously discussed
this issue with Mitch Kidwell of my staff.
As Mr. Kidwell discussed with your staff, if the drip gas is
considered a by-product, pouring the material down the well as a
solvent would be considered a use constituting disposal, meaning
that the drip gas would be a solid/hazardous waste. However, if
the drip gas is considered a product, the use would not be
regulated under RCRA. The issue then hinges on whether the drip
gas is considered a by-product or a product.
Based on earlier discussions, the drip gas does not entirely
fit our understanding of a commercial product (e.g., it is not
intentionally produced, there are no product specifications that
ensure its quality for a given use, and it is not marketed to ths
general public). However, since there is no specific definition
for "product" in RCRA or our regulations, Regions and authorized
States have discretion to look at a number of factors that bear on
whether a material is a waste. Considerations that may be
considered in making a determination include: whether it is as
effective in its identified use as an alternative product, whether
there are hazardous constituents in the drip gas that would not
otherwise be found in an alternative solvent, and whether it is
managed in a manner commensurate with a product having market
value.
-------
Therefore, if the generating company can demonstrate that the
drip gas is more product-like than waste-like (explained below), a
Region or authorized State could consider the use of the drip gas
to be a product used in its normal manner of use. We would expect
the generator to demonstrate that the drip gas:
1) is as effective as the alternative solvent that would
otherwise be used (e.g., that the drip gas actually displaces
the solvent in roughly similar amounts, such that the
analogous solvent is not also used),
2) contains no more hazardous constituents than would otherwise
be found in the analogous product (i.e., that there are no
hazardous constituents present at significantly higher levels
than are found in the analogous solvent), and
3) is managed in a manner that is commensurate with the
management of a valuable commodity (e.g., sufficient records
of inventory and use are kept, no more of the drip gas is used
than is necessary, and the drip gas is stored and maintained
in a manner consistent with the solvent that would otherwise
be purchased).
I hope this has helped to clarify whether the drip gas is
subject to regulation as a hazardous waste. While there is no
straightforward answer, I believe that meeting the criteria listed
above should ensure that the use of the drip gas as a solvent in
the wells does not constitute sham recycling, but rather is
considered to be an environmentally sound use.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9444.1993(04)
-:~: ••; OFFICE OF
- ^ SOLO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Honorable Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator McConnell:
Thank you for your letter of July 15, 1993, regarding the
concerns of Charles Hotchkiss about the possibility of lead
contamination in the Ohio River, resulting from skeet shooting at
the Ohio County (Indiana) Sportsman's Club.
Due to concerns about the potential for adverse impacts of
lead ammunition on the environment, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) would encourage a pollution prevention approach for
ammunition use. Specifically, in those instances where
substitute materials other than lead can be used for ammunition,
we would encourage their development and use. We understand that
Mr. Hotchkiss has been informed by sporting goods dealers that
steel shot is an unsuitable substitute for lead shot in skeet
shooting. However, from the limited research my staff has
conducted, it is possible that shot composed of substances other
than lead, in at least some circumstances, may be appropriate as
a substitute for lead shot. Steel shot is widely available, and
there has been at least one recent report (Field and Stream.
March 1993) that a shotshell with bismuth shot pellets is now on
the market.
With respect to legal options for addressing such sites,
there have been recent developments in case law concerning lead
ammunition used at a skeet shooting range in Connecticut.
On March 29, 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit decided a case concerning a Connecticut skeet shooting
range's use of lead ammunition, which landed in Long Island Sound
fConnecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association v. Remington Arms
Co.. Inc.. 989 F.2d 1305 (2d Cir. 1993). Among other things, the
court's decision addressed the applicability of certain
provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
to lead ammunition used at the skeet shooting facility. The
court affirmed the district court's decision that the lead
ammunition deposited into Long Island Sound is "solid waste"
under RCRA's statutory definition of solid waste, and that it is
Recycled/Recyclable
Prtnttd with Soy/Canon Ink on piper m»t
eonUIni it ItMt 50% recycled liber
-------
also "hazardous solid waste" under the statute. Accordingly,
under the Second Circuit opinion, where such materials pose an
"imminent and substantial endangerment" to health or the
environment, a citizen may bring a lawsuit under RCRA section
7002 (a)(1)(B) [42 U.S.C. 6972 (a)(l)(B)].
With respect to the "clay pigeons" Mr. Hotchkiss mentioned
in his letter, the district court addressed these targets, for
skeet and trap shooters. While the district court did not
determine whether the targets at the Long Island Sound site were
hazardous wastes, the appeals court did find that they are "solid
wastes" under RCRA, and subject to suits by citizens if they are
found to present an imminent and substantial endangerment.
I hope this information is helpful. If you would
like further information, specifically concerning the
Ohio County Sportsman's Club in Indiana, please contact
Norman R. Neidergang, Associate Division Director for RCRA in
U.S. EPA Region 5, at (312) 886-7435, or David Wersan, Assistant
Commissioner for the Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management,
at (317) 232-3210. We appreciate your interest in the
environment.
Sincerely yours,
f
Jeffiery D. Denit, Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9444.1993(05)
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
September 1993
RCRA
1. Nitroglycerine Pills as Commercial
Chemical Products
A pharmaceutical company manufactures
pills that contain a low percentage of
nitroglycerine, with inert ingredients making
up the remainder of the content. The
manufacturer must throw away a batch of pills
that has exceeded its shelf life. When
discarded, are the pills a hazardous waste? If
so, what waste cock would apply?
The pills discarded by the manufacturer are
a hazardous waste with the waste code P081.
Several hundred commercial chemical
products are listed in 40 CFR §§261.33(e) and
(f). Nitroglycerine is listed in §261.33(0 with
the waste code P081. The Comment in
§261.33(d) defines the term "commercial
chemical product" as unused chemicals that
are either (1) pure or technical grades, or (2)
formulations that contain the listed chemical as
the only active ingredient The P- and U-
listings apply to such unused formulations of
commercial chemical products regardless of
the concentration of the sole active ingredient;
except for the listings for warfarin and salts
(P001 and U248) and zinc phosphide (PI22
and U249), there is no critical percentage or
cut-off concentration of the sole active
ingredient that will cause a waste to fall
within, or be excluded from, the listing. In this
example, the pills constitute a formulation
containing nitroglycerine as the sole active
ingredient. Since the pills have not been used
for their intended purpose (simply incorporating
the nitroglycerine into the formulation does not
constitute use), and nitroglycerine is the only
component serving the function of the product
(i.e., as medicine), the discarded pills are
appropriately classified as hazardous waste
P081.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9444.1994(01)
JAN I 2 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Sharon L. Crawford
Project Manager
Pro-Act
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Pollution Prevention Division
8106 Chennault Rd., Bldg. 1161
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5318
Dear Ms. Crawford
This letter responds to your request for information on the
proper disposal methods for hydraulic fluid filters used in
aircrafts.
You ask whether hydraulic fluid filters are regulated in the
same manner as used oil filters destined for disposal. Non-terne
plated used oil filters from light duty vehicles and destined for
disposal, are exempt from identification as a hazardous waste
under regulations promulgated on May 20, 1992 (40 CFR
261.4(b)(15)). Light duty vehicles include automobiles,
passenger vans, and light duty trucks (e.g., small pickup
trucks). EPA decided to categorically exempt non-terne plated
used oil filters destined for disposal from being identified as a
hazardous waste based upc. available toxicity characteristic
data. However, EPA did r..t receive hydraulic fluid filter data
to make a determination on hydraulic fluid filters in aircrafts.
Therefore, hydraulic fluid filters are not included in the used
oil filter exemption at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(15). However, a
hazardous waste determination can be made for the hydraulic fluid
filters (40 CFR 262.11). If the hydraulic fluid filters are
determined not to be hazardous and cannot be recycled under Part
279, the hydraulic fluid filters must be disposed in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258. See section
279.81(b).
As stated in your letter, hydraulic fluid is regulated as
used oil. Materials containing or otherwise contaminated with
used oil (e.g., hydraulic fluid filters), from which the used oil
has been properly drained or removed to.the extent possible are
not considered used oil under the Part 279 used oil management
standards. There is one exception to this provision; hydraulic
fluid filters from which used oil has been removed continue to be
regulated as used oil if they are to be burned for energy
recovery, regardless of the degree of removal (see page 26425 of
Printed on fl«-vc-«J
-------
the May 3, 1993 Final rule). Otherwise, once the used oil has
been removed, the hydraulic fluid filters are no longer subject
to the used oil regulations, but may be regulated as hazardous
waste if they are listed or exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste. Used oil that has been removed from the hydraulic fluid
filters continues to be regulated as used oil and must be managed
according to the Part 279 used oil management standards.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please contact Bryan Groce of my staff at (202) 260-9550.
Sincerely,
.Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1994(02)
JAi, 26 1994
Donald D. Lain
Department of the Navy
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Indianapolis, Indiana 46219-2189
Dear Mr. Lain,
This letter is in response to your November 15, 1993, letter requesting EPA to
review the Navy's proposed procedure to decommission aluminum chaff roving
bundles.
The reactivity characteristic includes solid waste which "forms potentially
explosive mixtures with water", see 40 CFR 261.23(a)(3). Aluminum chaff roving
bundles can release hydrogen gas when exposed to moisture. Hydrogen gas is
flammable and therefore aluminum chaff roving bundles could carry the D003
wastecode, see §261.23(b). EPA has promulgated Land Disposal Restriction (LDR)
rules requiring hazardous waste to be "treated" prior to land disposal. For the D003
wastecode, the treatment standard is a technology-based standard requiring
"deactivation", see 40 CFR 268.42. Deactivation is the removal of the characteristic.
Your Materials Lab Report (No. 24-92) indicates that an acidic solution accelerates the
chemical reaction. Therefore, you should consider using an acidic solution to soak the
chaffs in the demilitarization procedure. Using an acidic solution would provide a
greater level of assurance that the reaction has gone to completion, as well as shorten
the amount of time necessary for the reaction to go to completion.
Although, the Navy's proposed method of deactivation appears reasonable, the
generators responsibility lies in "fully removing the hazardous characteristic" of D003
waste prior to land disposal. Even if the Navy chooses to incorporate EPA's
comments impliance with the regulations at §268.42 will be determined based on
full and complete deactivation of any and all D003 waste, and not on following a
specified method of deactivation.
-------
We believe it is likely that other Divisions in the Department of Defense use
aluminum chaff roving bundles. Our comments would be applicable to anyone
disposing of this type of waste, and we hope that your Division shares this information
with other Offices within the Department of Defense. If my office can be of any
further assistance in this matter please contact William Morrow of my staff at 202-
260-3657.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
S WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
% c?
"i'*olt 9444.1994(03)
MAR 31 19U
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
Subject:. Response to Request For Interpretation on Regulatory Status of Mercury
Relays and Switches When Reclaimed
From: Michael Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch (5304)
Office of Solid Waste
To: Karen Schwinn, Chief
Waste Compliance Branch (H-4)
Region IX
In response to your October 29, 1993 request for guidance on the regulation of
mercury wetted relays and switches that are recycled, the Office of. Solid Waste has
recently completed a memorandum (see attached March 24, 1994 memorandum from
Michael Shapiro to Regional Division Directors) clarifying the definition of spent material.
The March 24 memorandum clarifies that used mercury switches sent for reclamation are
classified as spent materials (see page 4 of the March 24 memorandum). Therefore, these
materials are solid wastes and also hazardous wastes.
I hope that this responds to your request for guidance. If you have any additional
questions, please contact Paul Borst of my staff at (202) 260-6713.
Attachment
-7 Recycled/Recyclable
f\ Primed with SoyCanola Ink on paper tnal
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN -3 1994 9444.1994(04)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert L. Duprey
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region VIII , ^
FROM: David Bussard ' ^
Director, Characterization and Assessment Division
SUBJECT: Definition of RCRA Waste K050
This responds to your memorandum dated November 12, 1993
requesting an interpretation regarding the applicability of the
K050 waste code to sludges from double pipe (referred to as
single pipe in the State of Utah letter) heat exchange units.
A double-piped unit consists of a concentric pipe
configuration with the inner pipe having either a bare tube or a
tube with longitudinal fins on the outside for improved heat
transfer. As you know, the description of the K050 waste code
(at 40 CFR 261.32) is "heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from
the petroleum refining industry." This description is supported
by the "Listing Background Document: Petroleum Refining,"
prepared as part of the May 19, 1980, final rule.
Our interpretations on the applicability of RCRA waste codes
are based on the consideration of 1) the descriptive regulatory
language and 2) the regulatory intent of the original listing,
and 3) facts specific to the waste stream at issue.
The inclusion of the word "bundle" in the K050 description
suggests that the waste code is specifically applicable to
cleaning sludge from shell and tube heat exchanger units. These
units consist of a "bundle" of tubes which are bound together and
inserted into a "shell" which makes up the outer part of the
unit. Since the applicability of a RCRA waste code is determined
in the first instance by the descriptive regulatory language, it
may be difficult to interpret the K050 waste code to apply to
double-pipe units. The key consideration regarding this
interpretation is whether the inside tube of a double-pipe unit
is considered a "bundle" or not. In our opinion, it is not a
"bundle" based on the dictionary definition of the word "bundle"
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canota Ink on paper thai
contain* at leaat 50% recycled fiber
-------
[a group of things bundled together for convenient handling]; the
double-pipe unit consists of a single tube inside an outer
concentric tube and is not consistent with the definition.
This interpretation is also consistent with the intent
behind the original listing of the K050 waste code. The toxicity
concerns on which the K050 listing were predicated do not appear
to be present for the sludges from double-pipe units.
As described in the listing background document, K050 was
listed because of concerns posed by its chromium content; 40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix VIII lists hexavalent chromium as the sole
hazardous constituent for which K050 was listed. Based on Agency
experience, most of the chromium present in heat exchanger sludge
is derived from the chromate-based corrosion inhibitors utilized
in cooling water. It is our position that the concern behind the
K050 listing was to regulate chromium-bearing sludges derived
from units in cooling water service.
Because double-pipe units are typically used in non-cooling
water service where chromium-based corrosion inhibitors are not
present, the relative chromium toxicity of the sludges derived
from double-pipe units is expected to be significantly less than
that from those derived from shell and tube units in cooling
water service. Typically, a shell and tube "bundle" unit is used
for low-pressure, high efficiency (more tubes for maximum surface
area) applications such as coolers and condensers which use
cooling water. A double-pipe unit is typically used for high-
pressure, high-temperature, low-efficiency non-cooling water
applications such as in lube oil wax extraction service.
In conclusion, based on both the descriptive regulatory
language of the listing description and our position that the
listing is intended to regulate chromium-bearing sludges from
heat exchangers in cooling water service, our interpretation is
that the K050 waste code does not apply to the double-pipe units
described in your letter. This interpretation should have
minimal impact on refinery hazardous waste management because of
the smaller number of applications for the double-piped units in
petroleum refining and the fact that these units will typically
be managed the same as shell and tube units at most refineries.
Furthermore, the sludges at issue are likely to be TC hazardous
(benzene and other heavy organics), and therefore subject to RCRA
Subtitle C standards even if they are not K050 listed hazardous
wastes.
If you have any questions or further concerns, please
contact Max Diaz at (202) 260-4786.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
MOV I 2 I993
Ref: 8HWM-HW
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
FROM: Robert L. Duprey,
Hazardous Waste
SUBJECT: Definition of RCRA Waste K050
We have recently received a request from the State of Utah
for a determination regarding the applicability of the waste code
K050 (heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum
refining industry) .
Specifically, during a recent inspection of a Salt Lake City
petroleum refinery, the State inspector observed finned heat
exchanger pipe(s), removed from a double pipe heat exchanger, on
a heat exchanger bundle cleaning pad. For enforcement purposes,
the State has questioned whether the sludge present on the finned
heat exchanger pipe(s) meets the definition of K050 (heat
exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining
industry.) A copy of Utah's letter is attached. As background
information, it appears that this refinery does not use
hexavalent chromium compounds as a corrosion inhibitor in the
cooling water (review of the RCRA Background Document indicates
that these chromium compounds are the constituents for which this
waste was listed. ) The State has not conducted hazardous waste
characterization testing of the sludge on these pipe(s) to date.
From our recent discussions with Max Diaz of the Waste
Identification Branch, it appears that a formal policy does not
exist on this issue. We believe that double pipe heat exchangers
are capable of producing sludge similar to that produced by shell
and tube heat exchangers, so that the sludge in question would be
considered a K050 waste. We would appreciate a formal written
interpretation on this issue as soon as possible, to allow the
State of Utah to proceed with the appropriate enforcement action.
Please contact Mindy Mohr at (303) 293-1840 for further
information on our request.
cc: Max Diaz (OS -333)
Dennis Downs, UDEQ
Attachment
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Michael O. Leaviu
Oovenor
Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Exflcutiva Director
Dennis R. Downs
Director
t-8.19
~N —
Ul
CL-L-L
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF SOLED AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 144880
Silt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
(801) 538-6170
(801) 538-6715 Fax
(801) 536-4414 T.D.D.
October 26, 1993
Larry Wapensky, Chief 2 3
Utah/North Dakota Section .
U.S. EPA Region VIII _
8HWM-HW
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver CO 80202-2405
Dear Mr. Wapensky:
Representatives of the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste conducted a
compliance evaluation inspection of the Big West Oil Company Flying J Refinery. 333
W. Center St., North Salt Lake, Utah, on September 24, 1993. During the inspection,
fin heat exchangers were observed at the bundle cleaning pad at the refinery. The
unit is composed of a single pipe, but serves the same function as a heat exchanger
bundle. The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste would like to know if sludge
present on the fin heat exchangers meets the definition of K050 (heat exchanger
bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry).
Please address any questions to John Waldrip at (801) 538-6170.
Sincer
Dennis Downs, Director
Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
DRD/JTW/jtw
Pnnfed on recycled paper
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
June 1994 9444.1994(05)
RCRA
1. Technical Grade Solvent
Formulations and the F003 Listing
The F003 listing in 40 CFR §26131
includes "all spent solvent mixtures!blends
containing, before use, onfy [certain specified]
spent non-halogenated solvents." This
language implies that, to meet the hazardous
waste listing, the solvent mixture must be pure
before use (U., contain 100% F003-listed
solvents). In the process of manufacturing
some of these solvents however, small amounts
of chemical impurities or contaminants may be
generated, and remain with the product when
distributed for use. For example, incomplete
chemical reactions which take place during
xylene manufacturing commonly generate
minute quantities of benzene and toluene;
rather than being 100% pure, the distributed
solvent product may therefore contain 99.98%
xylene and 0.02% benzene and toluene, or
other similar concentrations of impurities.
Would a solvent formulation consisting of
99.98% xylene and 0.02% benzene and toluene
meet the F003 listing when used for its solvent
properties and discarded?
A solvent formulation consisting of
99.98% xylene and 0.02% benzene and toluene
meets the F003 listing when used for its
solvent properties and discarded. The F003
listing covers pure solvent mixtures, as well as
technical grade solvent formulations, which
are used for their solvent properties. The term
"technical grade" refers to all grades of a
chemical which arc marketed or recognized for
general usage by the chemical industry.
Solvent formulations containing de minimis
percentages of manufacturing contaminants or
impurities are considered technical grade
products, provided that they are available for
purchase and use in this form. Therefore,
when determining if a given spent solvent
mixture contains "only" the solvents specified
in the F003 listing, generators should include
in their evaluation each solvent constituent
present in a mixture before use, provided that
a particular solvent constituent is not a
contaminant or present in de minimis
concentrations (50 FR 53317; December 31,
1985). In other words, a technical grade
solvent could contain small concentrations of
contaminants or manufacturing impurities and
still meet the F003 listing after being used for
its solvent properties.
In the example presented above, the
commercially available solvent that contains
99.98% xylene and 0.02% benzene and
toluene (as impurities from the manufacturing
process) qualifies as a technical grade
formulation. The technical grade solvent
formulation, once spent, meets the F003
listing despite containing, before use, less than
100% of the non-halogenated solvents
specified in the listing description.
The purity of a technical grade
formulation will vary from compound to
compound and may range from highly
purified to very impure. EPA has not
established specific percentages or other
criteria for use in determining when
contamination is considered de minimis; such
a decision must be made on a case-by-case
basis by the appropriate regulatory agency.
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
August ',9S4
9444.1994(06)
RCRA
1. Unused Formulations Containing
Sodium Pentachlorophenate are
F027
The F027 hazardous waste listing includes
discarded, unused formulations containing
tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorophenol, as well as
compounds derived from these chlorophenols
(40 CFR §261.31). Does an unused chemical
formulation that contains sodium
pentachlorophenate meet the F027 listing
when discarded?
Unused formulations containing sodium
pentachlorophenate meet the F027 listing
when discarded. Sodium pentachlorophenate,
a wood surface protectant used to prevent
sapstaining in freshly cut lumber, is a
compound derived from pentachlorophenol by
dissolving pentachlorophenol in sodium
hydroxide (58 FR 25706,25708; April 27,
1993).
Chlorophenolic compounds and their
chlorophenoxy derivatives, such as sodium
pentachlorophenate, have serious adverse
health effects (48 FR 14514, 14516; April 4,
1983). Formulations containing these
compounds also contain chlorinated dioxins
and dibenzofurans. For these reasons, wastes
meeting the F027. listing are designated as
acutely hazardous (50 FR 1978, 1979-1982;
January 14,1985).
-------
rt€0 ST.,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9444.1994(07)
SEP I 9 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Gerald A. Dumas, Vice President
Environmental Services
RSR Corporation
1111 West Mockingbird Lane
Dallas, Texas 75247
Dear Mr. Dumas:
Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1994, in which you
requested clarification about the scope of EPA's administrative
stay for a portion of the K069 hazardous waste listing.
Specifically, you wanted a written confirmation that the
administrative stay can be applied to calcium sulfate sludge
generated by an acid gas scrubber system that is not the primary
pollution control device.
As stated in the Federal Register notice containing the
administrative stay (56 FR 19951; May 1, 1991), the listing is
stayed for sludges generated by secondary acid scrubbers.
Therefore, the listing does not apply at this time to the
secondary scrubber waste generated by Exide or to any other
similar waste. Assuming, as stated by your letter, that the
sludge at issue is generated by a system that is virtually
identical to the Exide system, this sludge would fall within the
scope of the administrative stay.
Unfortunately, because of the limited resources and other
priorities within the office of Solid Waste for implementing a
variety of mandated waste programs, we have not yet modified the
language of the K069 listing to clarify the scope of this
listing. In any case, the administrative stay will remain in
effect until 30 days after completion of rulemaking dealing with
the scope of the K069 listing.
I hope this letter has provided the clarification you were
seeking concerning the scope of EPA's administrative stay for the
K069 listing. If you have further questions on this matter,
please, feel free to have your staff contact Narendra Chaudhari at
(202) 260-4787.
Sincerely yours,
Shapiro, Director
of Solid Waste
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
CORPORATION
August 8, 1994
Mr. Michael H. Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
Room 2101, Mail Code 5301
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Scope of the KQ69 Administrative Stay
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I write to request clarification of the May 1, 1991, Federal Register notice in which the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an administrative stay of a portion of the
hazardous waste listing for emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting (EPA
hazardous waste No. K069).1' I seek written confirmation that the administrative stay now
applicable to sludge generated from secondary acid scrubber systems applies to calcium sulfate
sludge generated at any secondary lead smelter, provided the sludge is generated by an acid gas
scrubber system that is not the primary pollution control device.
RSR Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates three secondary lead smelters located in the
City of Industry, California; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Middletown, New York. RSR facilities
reclaim approximately one-third of all lead-acid batteries reclaimed in the United States.
EPA stated in the May 1, 1991, Federal Register notice that the K069 listing is not intended to
cover acid gas scrubber sludge if it is: (i) generated by an air emission control device used
chiefly to control lead emissions and other particulates; (ii) not amenable to recovery in the
secondary lead process; (iii) not a dust; (iv) generated in lower volumes than the typical K069
waste; and (v) comprised of significantly lower concentrations of lead and other toxic metals
than are typically found in K069 waste. EPA has also issued an interpretive memorandum that
supports the conclusion that calcium sulfate sludge does not meet the K069 listing. EPA states
56 Fed. Reg. 19951. (May 1, 1991).
Corporate Offices: 1111 West Mockingbird Lane/Dallas. Texas 75247
Telephone: (214) 631-6070: Telex: 213-760; Fax. (214) 631-6146
-------
Mr. Michael H. Shapiro
August 4, 1994
Page 2
in this memorandum that the K069 listing does not apply to secondary lead smelting residues that
are generated when K069 dusts are recycled in the smelting process as feedstocks.2'
Assume for purposes of responding to this request that the sludge at issue is generated by a
system that is virtually identical to the Exide Corporation system described in the May 1, 1991,
Federal Register notice and on which the administrative stay is based. The system is equipped
with a pollution control device that captures paniculate matter and a secondary device (i.e., a
scrubber) that controls emissions of acid gas. The particulate matter (i.e., emissions control
dust) generated from the pollution control device is returned by an enclosed screw conveyor to
the smelter for lead recovery. The scrubber system generates a calcium sulfate sludge.
RSR believes that acid gas scrubber sludge as described above would fall within the scope of the
administrative stay. EPA verbally confirmed this interpretation during telephone conversations
between Mr. Tom Ovenden, The Technical Group, Inc., one of RSR's consultants, and Steven
Silverman, of EPA's Office of General Counsel, and Nerendra Chaudhari, of EPA's Office of
Solid Waste. According to Messrs. Silverman and Chaudhari, the administrative stay applies
to sludge generated at any secondary lead smelter, provided the sludge is generated by an acid
gas scrubber system that is not the primary pollution control device.
RSR requests EPA's written confirmation of the foregoing. RSR also asks when EPA plans to
amend the language of the K069 listing, as discussed May 1, 1991, Federal Register notice.-'.
We look forward to your response. If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at
(214) 631-6070 or RSR's consultant, Chris Bryant of The Technical Group, at (202) 962-8531.
Sincerely,
Gerald A. Dramas
Vice President
Environmental Services
RSR Corporation
- See Memorandum from S. Lowrance to Waste Management Division Directors regarding
Regulatory Status of Residues From Secondary Lead Smelters That Recycle K069 Waste
(Aug. 5, 1991).
-' 56 Fed. Reg. 1991 (col. 3) ("EPA intends in the near future to prepare to amend the
language of the K069 listing to clarify the scope of the listing to excluded [sic] sludges
generated by air pollution devices that are not a plant's chief means of controlling lead
emissions.")
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
'/
9444.1994(08)
SEP Z 1 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Peter F. Downing, C.H.M.M.
Manager
Environmental, Health and Safety
Fidelity Chemical Products Corporation
470 Frelinghuysen Avenue
Newark, N.J. 07114
Reference: Applicability of F006 Hazardous Waste Code to
Nickel Reclamation Process for Electroless Nickel
Plating Spent Solutions
Dear Mr. Downing:
This responds to your letter dated November 5, 1993,
requesting an interpretation of the potential applicability of
the hazardous waste listings to your proposed process for
reclaiming the nickel in spent electroless nickel plating
solutions.. Because your proposed process concerns a specific
site, we have consulted with Mr. Jeffrey A. Sterling of the New
Jersey Metro Bureau of Water and Hazardous Waste Enforcement and
Mr. John Wilk of the Hazardous Waste Management Division of
Region II in preparing this response.
The application of the hazardous waste regulations discussed
in this letter is based on the information provided in your
letter, which we summarize here for convenience.
You propose to recycle the nickel in solution by reducing
the nickel ions with sodium hypophosphite through a controlled
chemical plate-out process, allowing gradual deposition of nickel
on steel wool. The nickel-plated steel wool will then be sent to
a smelter for further reclamation in a smelting operation. The
batch process will consist of 1) adjusting the pH and
concentration of the sodium hypophosphite reducing agent, 2)
heating the solution to the optimum reaction temperature, and 3)
allowing the nickel to plate out to a concentration of less than
10 ppm. The wastewater will then be polished through activated
carbon and sub-micron filters followed by ion exchange and pH
adjustment prior to discharge to the local POTW. Spent solutions
not amenable to the plate-out process will be precipitated to the
metal hydroxide, followed by processing through the identical
polishing process described above.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled liber
-------
Your letter requested verification of the following aspects
of your process with respect to the RCRA current regulations:
"1. Electroless nickel solution is not a hazardous waste if it
does not contain any listed waste (K,P,U,F) or wastes
exhibiting the characteristics of hazardous waste (D
wastes).
2. Any treatment to reclaim or recycle the nickel from spent
electroless nickel solutions is not hazardous waste
treatment subject to the requirements of a hazardous waste
treatment permit.
3. Regeneration of either the ion exchange resin or the
activated carbon does not require a hazardous waste
treatment permit.
4. The sludge generated from the precipitation of the nickel as
a metal hydroxide is not a hazardous waste if it does not
exceed the TCLP parameters or exhibit any of the
characteristics delineated at 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C,
Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes.
5. The metal deposited on the steel wool is not a hazardous
waste, is a solid waste and is defined as scrap metal at 40
CFR 261.2 (c) (6)
Our interpretation of the above based on current RCRA
regulations is as follows:
o The spent electroless nickel solutions received from your
customers for the purpose of nickel metal reclamation are
not hazardous unless they have been mixed with or derived
from any listed waste(s) or exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics under 40 CFR 261.20 through 261.24.
This determination is based on the fact that electroless
plating is specifically exempted from the scope of the F006
listing as defined by the Agency in the Interpretative Rule
which was published in the Federal Register on December 2,
1986 (51 FR 43350) .
o Unless the spent electroless nickel solutions are determined
to be characteristically hazardous, the proposed reclamation
process would not involve the treatment of hazardous waste.
This also applies to regeneration of either the ion exchange
resin or the activated carbon, because the wastewater is not
generated in an electroplating process and also does not
meet any other listing description. Also, for the same
reason, the sludge generated from the precipitation of the
nickel as a metal hydroxide is not a hazardous waste if it
does not exhibit any of the characteristics identified in 40
CFR Part 261, Subpart C. (Although your letter does not
indicate how this sludge is to be managed, you should be
aware that a characteristic sludge that is destined for
-------
reclamation is excluded from the definition of a solid
waste. See 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3). Note: The State of New
Jersey does not have a similar exemption at this time.)
o Assuming the steel wool (on which the nickel has been
plated) does not exhibit the characteristic of a hazardous
waste or is not otherwise a hazardous waste because of the
mixture-derived from rule, the steel wool would not be a
hazardous waste. If the nickel-plated steel wool exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste, you raised the issue of
whether it met the definition of scrap metal' (40 CFR
261.l(c)(6) and would be exempt when reclaimed (40 CFR
261.6(a)(3)(iii)); because the definition of scrap metal is
based on a physical description of the material, the Agency
is unable to make a definitive determination. Such
determinations are case-specific and are typically made by
the relevant State unless the State is not authorized for
RCRA in which case the determination would be made by the
relevant EPA Regional office. Please contact the
appropriate State officials if you need additional
assistance on this issue.
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.
The Agency reserves the right to change this interpretation
if it finds new information which refutes either the facts or
assumptions on which this interpretation is based.
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.
Jilliam F. Brandes, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
cc: Waste Management Division
Directors, Regions I-X
John Wilk, Region II
Jeffrey A. Sterling, NJ DEQ
-------
FIDELITY
CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
A DIVISION OF AURIC CORPORATION
47O FRELINGHUYSEN AVENUE/NEWARK. N.J. O7 1 1 4/TEL. 201-242-41 1 O/FAX » 201-242-5796
November 5, 1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (OS-330)
Washington, DC 20460
Attn: Rick Brandes, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Dear Mr. Brandes:
On Tuesday, October 26, 1993, I met with Dave Carver of your
staff regarding my letter dated August 4, 1993. This letter is a
follow-up to our meeting. As stated in my previous letter, we
are establishing a recycling program for our customers using
electroless nickel (EN) plating technology.
We propose to recycle the nickel in solution by reducing the
nickel ions with sodium hypophosphite through a controlled
plate-out procedure. This allows gradual deposition of nickel on
steel wool through chemical means. The nickel-plated steel wool
will then be sent to a smelter for use as a raw material in a
smelting operation.
We anticipate the need to conduct an extensive auditing and
quality control program to ensure compliance with all applicable
RCRA standards. We will require a facility audit of our
participating customers to identify any potential problem areas
which could lead to the shipment to us of non-conforming
electroless nickel solution. This audit will include a tour of
the plating areas, waste management program, management
procedures to prevent cross-contamination, and sample
collection. Samples will be submitted to us by the customers for
every drum to be returned. The samples will be analyzed at our
facility for heavy metals and plating characteristics, and a
composite will be sent to a NJ DEPE certified laboratory for
complete TCLP analyses with RCRA characteristics. The customer
has to complete a recyclable material profile which delineates
the characteristics of their spent EN solutions as well as
certifying that the samples submitted are representative of the
material to be shipped annually.
Once the material has been tested and determined to be
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL.
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR USE ARE BASED ON OUR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE. THE USE OF ANY PRODUCT OF OUR MANUFACTURE BEING BEYOND OUR CONTROL,
HOWEVER. -
-------
EPA-Brandes
November 5, 1993
Page 2
acceptable, the customer will ship the material to our facility,
where we will analyze the material and accept it only if it
matches the pre-shipment samples and meets all applicable TCLP
parameters. It is then pumped into our batch process, where the
pH and concentration of reducing agent are adjusted prior to
recycling. The solution is heated to the optimum working
temperature and allowed to plate until the concentration of
nickel in solution is less than 10 ppm. It is- then transferred
to a process tank prior to polishing through a carbon filter and
sub-micron filtration, and finally ion exchange for the removal
of the remaining nickel from solution. After final quality
control and pH adjustment, the water is suitable for discharge
to our local POTW.
In the event that the spent EN solution meets RCRA
characteristics and TCLP parameters but does not perform
adequately in the plate-out process, we will precipitate the
nickel as a metal hydroxide. Once precipitation is completed, it
will be polished as above to remove any residual nickel from
solution.
Although many aspects of the process have been discussed with
Dave, I feel that it is necessary to verify some of the more
critical points:
1. Electroless nickel solution is not a hazardous waste if
it does not contain any listed waste (K,P,U,F) or wastes
exhibiting the characteristics of hazardous waste (D
wastes).
2. Any treatment to reclaim or recycle the nickel from spent
electroless nickel solutions is not hazardous waste
treatment subject to the requirements of a hazardous waste
treatment permit.
3. Regeneration of either the ion exchange resin or the
carbon does not require a hazardous waste treatment permit.
4. The sludge generated from the precipitation of the nickel
as a metal hydroxide is not a hazardous waste if it does not
exceed the TCLP parameters or exhibit any of the
characteristics delineated at 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C,
Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes.
5. The metal deposited on the steel wool is not a hazardous
waste, is a solid waste and is defined as scrap metal at
40CFR261.2(c)(6).
Please review my understanding of the key components of my
meeting with Dave Carver, as indicated in this letter, in
writing at your earliest convenience. Enclosed is a process
-------
EPA-Brandes
November 5, 1993
Page 3
schematic which may assist you in reviewing the information
contained in this letter.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
call me at 201-242-4110.
Very truly yours-,
FIDELITY CHEMICAL PRODUCTS CORP.
PET^ER F. DOWNING; C.H.M.M.
Manager
Environmental, Health and Safety
PFD/pd
cc:MB,PD
enclosures
-------
UoW..»3
Tc-oX
To
•
-------
FIDELITY
CHEMICAL
PRODUCTS
CORPORATION
A DIVISION OF AURIC CORPORATION
470 FRELINGHUYSEN AVENUE/NEWARK, N.J. 07114/TEL. 201-242-4110/FAX #201-242-5796
August 4, 1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (OS-330)
Washington, DC 20460
Attn: Rick Brandes, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Dear Mr. Brandes:
On Thursday, July 29, 1993 I spoke to Mr. Dave Carver of your office. This letter is to
confirm my conversation with Dave regarding classification of spent electroless nickel plating
solutions.
We are a manufacturer of solutions for the metal finishing industry. One of our primary
product lines is electroless nickel (EN), a technology which allows deposition of nickel on
variety of substrates without the need for an electrical current. As a service to our
customers, Fidelity Chemical Products has begun establishing a recycling program for the
nickel. Initial determinations have been made and confirmed by Dave Carver that both the
spent EN solutions and the recycled nickel would not be considered a hazardous waste by the
US EPA.
The electroless nickel solution does not contain any listed hazardous wastes. It passes for
TCLP and RCRA characteristics. The solution contains roughly 6 grams nickel per liter of
solution, present as nickel sulfate. The reducing agent in solution is sodium hypophosphite,
at a concentration of < 5 %.
Our process takes the EN solution, and continues plating the nickel on steel wool, as our
customers would. Rather then replenish the nickel to the solution, however, we continue
plating until the concentration of nickel left in solution is below 10 ppm. We then pass the
solution through ion exchange to reduce the nickel concentration to below our pre-treatment
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
EPA-Brandes
August 4, 1993
Page 2
standards for discharge to our local POTW. Prior to discharge, we filter any solids and
carbon treat the material, as we do with all of our effluent.
If we find that the nickel is not removable from solution by reduction, we precipitate it as a
metal hydroxide. This metal hydroxide also meets TCLP requirements, and we would
consider it to be a non-hazardous waste material per RCRA standards.
In either event, the recycled material would be sent off site to be smelted and recycled into
various steel products. In this manner, we feel that we can offer our customers a viable
alternative to conventional treatment and landfilling, while helping to protect the
environment.
Please respond to me in writing to confirm that the spent electroless nickel solution, the
plated nickel metal, and the nickel hydroxide are not hazardous wastes, and the process
which I have described herein would not be considered a "hazardous waste treatment"
method. I am very eager to get this recycling program rolling, and would appreciate your
response as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please call me at 201-242-4110.
Very truly yours,
PETER F. DOWNING, C.H.M.M.
Manager
Environmental, Health and Safety
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
FIDELITY
CHEMICAL
PRODUCTS
CORPORATION
A DIVISION OF AURIC CORPORATION
470 FRELINGHUYSEN AVENUE/NEWARK, N.J. 07114/TEL. 201-242-4110/FAX #201-242-5796
FAX MESSAGE
TO: Max Diaz - U.S. EPA
FROM: Peter F. Downing. C.H.M.M.
DATE: September 1. 1994
Total pages including cover sheet: 7
MESSAGE: Max -
Per our discussion on 8/31/94, attached are the letters to NJ DEP and their response regarding the
spent EN recycling. Please call me if you have any questions.
Thanks
Pete
Please contact the sender at 201-242-4110 if any pages are missing or unclear.
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
Tliis document has been retyped from the original.
-------
State of New Jersey
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Lance R. Miller, Acting Director
CN028
Trenton, N.J. 08625-0028
(609) 633-1408
Fax # (609) 633-1454
July 19, 1990
Mr. Maurice Bick, President
Fidelity Chemical Products Corporation
470 Frelinghuysen Avenue
Newark, New Jersey 07114
Re: Recycling of Electroless Nickel
Dear Mr. Bick:
This letter is in response to your July 5, 1990 letter to Kurt Whitford discussing hazardous waste issues
concerning the receipt of spent electroless nickel plating solutions by your company. As you stated in your
letter, spent electroless nickel plating solutions are not listed hazardous wastes in New Jersey (or Federally). As
such, these solutions could be hazardous in one or more of three scenarios: 1) if mixed with wastes listed in
N.J.A.C. 7:26-8.13, 8.14, or 8.20; 2) if displaying one or more of the RCRA characteristics found in N.J.A.C.
7:26-8.9-8.12; or 3) designated as a hazardous waste by the Department due to the presence of hazardous
constituents listed in N.J.A.C. 7:26-8.16.
Prior to accepting spent electroless nickel solutions from a company, Fidelity Corporation should determine that
no listed hazardous wastes have been mixed with the solution. In addition to the auditing and testing proposed,
a total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) analysis may be enlightening. Anytime TPH varies significantly from
previous batches, further investigation should be considered.
Although spent electroless nickel plating solution should not fail any of the hazardous waste characteristics,
routine evaluation of batches should be performed, as outlined in your July 5, 1990 letter. Anytime a batch of
solution fails the criteria found in N.J.A.C. 7:26-8.9-8.12 the waste is hazardous and cannot be accepted by
your company without first obtaining a hazardous waste facility permit.
Your letter states that spent solutions to be received by your company will contain 4000-5000 ppm of nickel.
At those concentrations, the Department, when considering the factors listed in N.J.A.C. 7:26-8.6, would not
consider the waste to be hazardous due to the presence of nickel as a hazardous constituent.
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
If the spent nickel solutions are not hazardous waste, a RCRA Part B permit and manifesting would not be
required.
If you have any further questions, please contact Kurt Whitford at (609) 292-8341.
Very truly yours.
Shirlee Schiffman, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous Waste
Regulation and Classification
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
FIDELITY
CHEMICAL
PRODUCTS
CORPORATION
A DIVISION OF AURIC CORPORATION
470 FRELINGHUYSEN AVENUE/NEWARK, N.J. 07114/TEL. 201-242-4110/FAX #201-242-5796
July 5, 1990
N. J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
BHWR&C
CN028
401 E. State Street, 5th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625
Attn: Kurt W. Whitford
Bureau of Hazardous Waste
Planning and Classification
Re: Recycling of Electroless Nickel
Dear Mr. Whitford:
This letter is in follow-up to my and Al Ruffini's conversations with you concerning the Federal and
New Jersey state regulations governing the recycling of electroless nickel wastes. As we indicated,
our firm is evaluating whether to offer such a recycling service to customers who purchase electroless
nickel from us. We would be recycling the liquid nickel at our Newark, NJ facility. Some
precipitated nickel from our process would be manifested to WRC Processing Resources or Inmetco.
Some would be used internally.
The electroless nickel products to be reclaimed include 4855A, 4855BM, 4855CD, 4865A, 4865B,
4865C and similar formulations. Customers will return spent materials to Fidelity where we will then
reclaim nickel from the solutions. The reclamation process involves precipitating the nickel in tanks
and filtration in a filter press. The nickel sludge is then used internally or sold to a reclamation
facility which will recover the nickel. The received nickel solutions are reduced from 4000-5000 pm
to about 5 ppm by us through precipitation. The remaining liquid is then put through an ion
exchange unit which will further reduce the nickel content of the liquid to less than 0.1 ppm. The
liquid is discharged to the sewer in conformance with our Passaic Valley permit.
NON-FLUOBORATES
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES
PLATING PROCESSES
ELECTROLESS NICKEL
ELECTROLESS COPPER
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
Page #2
N.J. Dept. of
Environmental Protection
July 5, 1990
As we stated, our primary concern is whether such an activity would require us to obtain a hazardous
waste facility permit (commonly known as a RCRA Part B Permit). We are also concerned as to
whether our customers must manifest the electroless nickel solutions to be recycled that they are
sending us.
You indicated there is a classification of material termed "spent materials" which are considered to be
solid wastes if they are reclaimed. "A spent material is any material that has been used and as a
result of contamination can no longer serve the purpose for which it was produced without
processing." You felt that waste electroless nickel falls into this category.
Having concluded that the waste is a solid waste, the next question is whether or not the solid waste
is a hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes fall into two categories - listed and characteristic. Spent
material from electroless nickel plating is not listed as either a non-specific waste source or a waste
stream from a specific source. The only specific nickel compounds which are listed hazardous wastes
as commercial or off specification products, are nickel carbonyl and nickel cyanide. Based upon our
description of our material, you felt that electroless nickel is not a listed hazardous waste.
You also explained that if spent electroless nickel is not a listed waste, it may still be a hazardous
waste if it is a characteristically hazardous waste. A waste is characteristically hazardous if it is
ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or it exhibits the characteristic of toxicity. These criteria are listed as
follows:
Ignitable
A waste is ignitable if it meets one of the following criteria:
1) Flash point less than 140 degrees F.
2) Flammable solid.
3) Ignitable compressed gas.
4) Is an oxidizer as defined in 49 C.F.R. 173.151. That section defines an oxidizer as a
substance that readily yields 02, to stimulate combustion of organic matter, such as
chlorates, permanganates and inorganic peroxides.
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
Page #3
N.J. Dept. of
Environmental Protection
July 5, 1990
Corrosive
A waste is corrosive if it is:
1) aqueous with a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5.
2) a liquid and corrodes steel at a rate greater than 0.25 inches per year.
Reactive
A waste is reactive if it:
1) is normally unstable.
2) reacts violently with water.
3) forms explosive mixtures with water.
4) generates toxic gases when mixed with water.
5) is a sulfide or cyanide bearing waste which can generate toxic gases when exposed to
pH conditions between 2 and 12.5.
6) is explosive or can be detonated.
Toxicitv
A waste exhibits the characteristic of toxicity ("TC") if an extract from a representative sample of the
waste contains one or more of listed contaminant at higher than listed levels. Currently, the test
procedure for toxicity is the Extraction Procedure ("EP") which looks at 14 contaminants. In
September of 1990 the EP toxicity test will be replaced by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure ("TCLP") and the list of contaminants of concern will be expanded to 40.
Based upon our tests and knowledge of the electroless nickel, we do not feel it exhibits the
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity.
Al Ruffini and I also described our actual procedure for selecting and monitoring customers to be
included in this program. They were as follows:
1) Customers would be selected one at a time and the customer base for whom we would
recycle electroless nickel would be built up slowly.
2) A customer would be audited at their plant by us in order to qualify for sending their
nickel to us. We would look for strong management, good environmental procedures and a well run,
orderly plant.
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
Page #4
N.J. Dept. of
Environmental Protection
July 5, 1990
3) We would require a sample of their electroless nickel to be sent to us before we
accepted their first electroless nickel. This sample would be sent to a State approved lot for EP
Toxicity Test. This would be for the first shipment only. We would, on receipt of the first
shipment, also send it to a NJ certified lab for EP Toxicity Test.
4) On all future shipments from that customer, we would require a certification that their
shipment is in conformity with sample previously submitted. We would test these future shipments
for EP Toxicity in our plant. If there is any questions regarding a particular shipment, we would
submit to a State certified laboratory for their analysis.
5) Whenever and wherever TCLP toxicity testing becomes a requirement, we will test
under TCLP Toxicity rather than under EP Toxicity.
Based upon the above analysis and information which we gave to you, you felt that electroless nickel
was not a hazardous waste by either Federal or State of NJ standards and that we would not require a
RCRA Part B Permit. You also felt that our customers would not have to manifest the electroless
nickel they were sending to us unless their home state required it.
We feel that the above electroless nickel recycling project which we have proposed would be good for
Fidelity and good for the environment.
We would appreciate a letter from you indicating receipt of this letter and that it basically describes
our conversations with you of June 27, 1990.
Very truly yours,
FIDELITY CHEMICAL PRODUCTS CORP.
MAURICE BICK
President
NON-FLUOBORATES LIQUID METAL CONCENTRATES ELECTROLESS NICKEL
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS PLATING PROCESSES ELECTROLESS COPPER
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
J- d \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9444.1994(09)
DEC ' 9 '^
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Paul R. DiBella
Metals Recycling Technologies Corp
3350 Cumberland Circle
Suite 970
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Dear Mr. DiBella:
In your letter of October 11, 1994 to Michael Shapiro, you request two regulatory
determinations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on the status of zinc
oxide produced by Metals Recycling Technologies Corp. (MRT) at Nucor Corporation's electric arc
steel furnace in Darlington, South Carolina.. You ask: 1) whether the use of MRT Zinc Oxide as a
nutritional supplement in the animal feed industry is use constituting disposal?, and 2) whether MRT
Zinc Oxide that is sold to primary electrolytic zinc refineries is a product? This response can only
answer these questions in general terms from the perspective of the Federal RCRA program. Any
case-specific regulatory determinations on the status of these materials should be made by the
appropriate regulatory authority, usually the authorized State or EPA Regional office.
Regarding the first issue of zinc oxide used for animal feed, MRT produces a zinc oxide
material reclaimed from K061, emission control dust from electric arc furnaces, a listed hazardous
waste. In your letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you stipulate that this zinc
oxide is completely reclaimed prior to sale for use as a nutritional supplement in animal feed. You
indicate that no further reclamation or processing of MRT zinc oxide is necessary. If the reclamation
process is complete, MRT zinc oxide would not be considered to be a hazardous waste and therefore
not subject to RCRA regulation unless it is burned for energy recovery or used in a manner
constituting disposal. 40 CFR Section 261.3(c)(2)(i).
In general, EPA does not believe that using hazardous wastes that are recycled (hereafter
referred to as recyclable materials) as nutritional supplements in animals feed preparations is .
considered to be use constituting disposal. In contrast to crop fertilization, many animal preparations
are not applied to the ground directly (although there may be some exceptions to this which would
need to be determined on a case-by-case basis). Again, for case-specific determinations, you are
encouraged to consult with the appropriate authorized State or EPA Region regarding the regulatory
status of MRT zinc oxide sold as a nutritional supplement for animal feed.
Regarding the second issue of whether MRT zinc oxide sold to primary electrolytic zinc
refineries is a waste or a product, this determination depends upon whether the zinc oxide has distinct
components being recovered to produce a separate end product or the zinc oxide is being refined to
concentrate the material as a whole and remove impurities prior to being introduced into commerce.
Recycled/Recyclable
PrtntadwimSoy/Canoialnlcon paper mat
contain! at least 50% recvciiM "~"
-------
Recyclable materials remain hazardous wastes until the reclamation process is complete.
Whereas, recyclable materials that have been completely reclaimed that had been hazardous wastes
are no longer considered to be wastes. Thus, metal-bearing recyclable materials that are fully
reclaimed for direct use or only need to be refined to be usable are products rather than wastes. 50
FR 614, 634 (January 4, 1985).
EPA's understanding of primary electrolytic zinc refining processes is that after zinc
concentrates have been roasted to remove sulfur and other impurities that the zinc-bearing material
(usually a zinc oxide) is leached into solution and treated to remove remaining metal impurities.
Following the removal of the zinc leach residues, the zinc solution is electrowinned to produce zinc
cathode metal which is then sent on for melting and casting. Thus, the zinc refining process can be
said to chemically change the zinc oxide (normally an impure oxide) to zinc metal.
In contrast to other metal refining processes where the feedstock is already in the form of a
metal, zinc refining results in the recovery of zinc metal as a distinct component and separate end
product from a zinc compound (either a zinc oxide or zinc salt). Because zinc metal, a distinct
component of zinc oxide, is being recovered as a separate end product, EPA views this type of
process as further reclamation and therefore would view the secondary zinc oxide feedstock inserted
into the process as a partially-reclaimed material rather than a fully-reclaimed material. Because the
K061-derived zinc oxide would be partially-reclaimed, it would continue to be a hazardous waste
rather than a product. Please note, however, that if the zinc oxide is sold as zinc oxide that is not
used in a manner constituting disposal, burned for energy recovery, or sent on for subsequent
reclamation and meets all product specifications for zinc oxide, that EPA would view this as a fully
reclaimed material (as a zinc oxide) and therefore a product rather than a waste. Even though EPA
views processing MRT zinc oxide in a primary electrolytic zinc refining process as a partially-
reclaimed material, the zinc oxide would no longer be considered to be a solid or hazardous waste if a
variance for partially-reclaimed materials (40 CFR Section 260.30(c)) is granted by the appropriate
regulatory authority (either the State Director or EPA Regional Administrator).
.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. I hope that this letter sufficiently responds to your questions and concerns. If you
have any further questions or comments, please contact Paul Borst of my staff at (202) 260-6713.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
Metals Qecycling Technologies Corp.
3350 CUMBERLAND CIRCLE
SUITE 970
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30339
TELEPHONE (404) 951-1542
FACSIMILE (404) 955-7610
PAUL R. DIBELLA
October 11, 1994
VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Development Branch
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Metals Recycling Technologies Corp. ("MRT") is writing to request
regulatory determinations as to the status of certain fully reclaimed zinc oxide
("Zinc Oxide") produced with the MRT Process and used as described herein.
Specifically, MRT requests determinations on the following:
1. Whether the use of fully reclaimed MRT Zinc Oxide as a
nutritional supplement in the animal feed industry is a use
constituting disposal?
2. Whether fully reclaimed MRT Zinc Oxide that is sold to primary
electrolytic zinc refineries is a product?
EPA has repeatedly recognized that its regulatory jurisdiction under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) over "wastes" and "partially
reclaimed" materials does not extend to (i) fully reclaimed materials that are used
beneficially and not burned for energy recovery or used in a manner constituting
disposal [See 40 CFR Section 261.3 (c)2(i)], or (ii) fully reclaimed materials that
only have to be refined to be usable [See 50 Fed Reg. 614, 634 (Jan. 4, 1985)
and 56 Fed Reg. 41164, 41173 (Aug. 19, 1991)].
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
October 11, 1994
Page 2
Background
MRT owns and operates the MRT Process, a patented hydrometallurgical
process that recycles electric-arc furnace dust. The first commercial MRT
Process facility is operating at Nucor Corporation's Darlington, South Carolina
steelmaking plant. Information on the MRT Process was previously supplied to
EPA in MRT's letter to EPA of July 26, 1994, wherein MRT requested a
regulatory determination on the status of a certain lead/copper metal produced
with the MRT Process.
One of the products of the MRT Process is zinc oxide. Zinc oxide is a
specialty chemical used in a number of industries. Among its uses, zinc oxide
is used as an ingredient in the making of tires, rubber, pharmaceuticals, ceramics,
paint and nutritional supplements. World consumption of zinc oxide is
approximately 800,000 metric tons annually.
The MRT Process produces commercial grade zinc oxide. The zinc oxide
content of MRT Zinc Oxide ranges from 95% to over 99%. At either end of the
zinc oxide content range, the heavy metal content of the MRT Zinc Oxide
remains very low. Lead levels in the MRT Zinc Oxide are expected to average
under 100 parts per million, and cadmium levels are expected to average under
40 parts per million.
MRT Zinc Oxide as a Nutritional Supplement in the Animal Feed
Industry
The animal feed industry currently uses zinc oxide as a nutritional
supplement. The zinc oxide as a nutritional supplement provides livestock with
a source of zinc, a necessary dietary nutrient.
MRT is considering selling a portion of fully reclaimed MRT Process Zinc
Oxide to the animal feed industry as a nutritional supplement. Used in this
manner, the MRT Zinc Oxide will be mixed directly with other nutritional
supplements and fed to livestock such as cows, pigs and other animals. No
further reclamation or processing of the MRT Zinc Oxide is necessary. MRT
believes that when used as a nutritional supplement in the animal feed industry,
the MRT Zinc Oxide is not used in a manner constituting disposal, and,
therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261.3 (c)(2)(i), is not subject to RCRA
jurisdiction.
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
October 11, 1994
Page 3
MRT Zinc Oxide Sold to Primary Electrolytic Zinc Refineries
From time to time, MRT may sell a portion of its fully reclaimed Zinc
Oxide to primary zinc refineries, where the zinc oxide will be refined into zinc
through electrolytic refining processes. There is no thermal metal recovery
involved in electrolytic zinc refining. Moreover, the reclamation process on the
MRT Zinc Oxide is already complete when it reaches the electrolytic zinc
refineries. While the MRT Zinc Oxide used in this manner is suitable for a
number of direct uses, market and/or economic conditions may provide
justification for selling the Zinc Oxide to such primary zinc refineries.
As stated earlier, EPA has consistently taken the position that fully
reclaimed materials suitable for direct use or that only have to be refined to be
usable are "products", not "wastes" subject to RCRA jurisdiction. [See 50 Fed
Reg. 614, 634 (Jan. 4, 1985) and 56 Fed Reg. 41164, 41173 (Aug. 19, 1991)].
Accordingly, MRT believes that fully reclaimed MRT Zinc Oxide sold to primary
zinc refineries for use in electrolytic zinc refining processes is a "product", not
a "waste", and, therefore, not subject to jurisdiction under RCRA.
Based on the foregoing, MRT respectfully requests regulatory
determinations on the MRT Zinc Oxide used in the manners described above.
Sincerely,
METALS RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES CORP
PRD/bc
Enclosures
cc: Paul A. Borst, U.S. EPA
John E. Johnston, U.S. EPA Region IV
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
December 1994 9444.1994(10)
3. Epinephrine Residue In A Syringe Is
Not P042
A hospital administers the drug
epinephr'- * to patients by injection with a
syringe. After the proper dose is injected,
excess epinephrine and epinephrine residue
remain in the syringe. Epinephrine appears
on the P-list of hazardous wastes at 40 CFR
§261J3(e)asP042. Is the epinephrine
remaining in the syringe a P-listed hazardous
waste when the syringe is discarded?
The epinephrine in the discarded syringe
would not be classified as a listed hazardous
waste. The P-list of hazardous wastes applies
to unused discarded commercial chemical
products. Commercial chemical products are
defined as commercially pure grades and
technical grades of the listed chemicals or
chemical formulations in which the listed
chemical is the sole active ingredient, which
have not been used for their intended purpose
(54 FR 31335, 31336; July 28,1989). Drug
residues often remain in a dispensing
instrument after the instrument is used to
administer medication. EPA considers such
residues remaining in a dispensing instrument
to have been used for their intended purpose.
The epinephrine remaining in the syringe,
therefore, is not a commercial chemical
product and not a P042 hazardous waste. The
epinephrine could be a RCRA hazardous
waste, however, if it exhibits a characteristic
of hazardous waste.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENBY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
7 1995
9444.1995(01)
OFFICE OF
SOLE WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: P and U Listed Wastes and the, Contained-in Policy
FROM: ISevereaux Barnes,^^reccCrjT^--
TO:
ISevereaux Barnes,Trirect
Permits and State Programs Division, OSW
Norm Niedergang, Director
Office of RCRA, Region V
Recently your staff contacted us in regard to the Agency's
current RCRA contained-in policy as it applies to environmental
media that contain p and U listed hazardous wastes. Since this
question has been posed several times by other Regions, we would
like to take this opportunity to articulate the Agency's position
on this matter.
The RCRA contained-in policy applies to P and U listed
wastes in the same manner as for other listed wastes. Although
§261.33(d) specifies that contaminated soil and water ^generated
from the cleanup of releases of P and U listed wastes must be
managed as hazardous waste, such soil or water would not be
considered "contaminated" in this particular context if the
implementing agency determined that the media did not contain
such a listed waste.
As you may know, the Office of Solid Waste is currently
developing a new rulemaking--the HWIR Contaminated Media Rule--
that will likely codify the contained-in concept in some detail.
That rulemaking should hopefully resolve a number of the
questions that are often asked regarding the current contained-in
policy. Several of your staff are members of the HWIR-Media
workgroup, and we will keep them apprised of any further
developments regarding this concept.
If you have any questions, please contact Dave Pagan or
Carolyn Hoskinson of my staff, at (703) 308-8620 and
(703) 308-8626 respectively.
cc: J. Boyle
K. Pierard
B. Pace
T. Kaneen
MnM Mtth Sey/OwwU nk en p«p*r (Ml
contain* tt MMt S0% rteyeMd «»«f
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
September 1995 9444.1995(02)
RCRA
1. Isomers of P- and U-Usted Wastes
The P and U lists at 40 CFR §§26133(e)
and (f) identify chemicals which, when
discarded as unused commercial chemical
products, are listed hazardous-wastes. If a
particular P- or V-listed chemical has many
isomers, are those isomers listed hazardous
wastes as well?
Many chemicals on the P and U lists have
multiple isomers. Isomers are compounds
made up of the same atoms in the same
proportions, but which have different
chemical structures and potentially different
chemical properties. These different forms of
a chemical can be identified precisely and
given unique Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) numbers. For example, toluenediamine
(CyHisNT) may have many isomers, including
toluene-2-4-diamine (CAS# 95-80-7) and
toluene-2-6-diamine (CAS# 823-40-5), that
differ structurally. Chemicals also may be
identified as "mixed isomers.*' Mixed isomers
include all mixtures of individual isomers of a
compound. For instance, the generic mixed
isomer designation of toluenediamine (CAS#
25376-45-8) includes mixtures of the isomers
toluene-2-4-diamine and toluene-2-6-diamine.
EPA may choose to include all isomers of
a chemical on the P or U list by listing the
mixed isomer or generic name of the
compound. If the generic mixed isomer name
and CAS number of a compound appear on
the P or U list, then any individual isomers of
that compound and all mixtures of isomers of
that compound meet the listing description.
Thus, when discarded in its commercial
chemical product form, the isomer toluene-2-
4-diamine (CAS# 95-80-7) is a listed
hazardous waste, because the generic mixed
isomer toluenediamine (CAS# 25376-45-8) is
listed as U221.
EPA may also choose to designate only
specific isomers of a chemical as P- or U-
listed hazardous wastes. When a particular
isomer is designated, then only that isomer is
covered by that particular listing. For
example, U140 covers isobutyl alcohol (CAS#
78-83-1). an isomer of butanol Since the
U140 listing includes only isobutyl alcohol,
other isomers of butanol are not U140
(although they may be listed elsewhere).
-------
FILE COPY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9444.1996(01)
AUG 3 0 1996
OPFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Kelly V. Camp
Senior Project Manager,
Environmental Science Services
532 Atwells Avenue.
Providence, Rhode Island 02909
Dear Ms. Camp:
This is in response -to your letter of August 6, 1996
addressed 'to"Michael Shapiro, Director of the Office of Solid
Waste. Your letter requests 'on behalf of a. client that the
Agency determine whether a certain "aluminum powder preparation
process11 is considered chemical conversion of aluminum, and
whether the wastewater treatment sludge from this> process is
considered Hazardous Waste. No. F019. You stated that this sludge
is currently managed as F019.
In the letter you indicated , that your client's "aluminum
powder preparation process" (encompassing two different surface
treatment/preparation -operations .using different chemicals on
aluminum) does not involve chromating, metal coloring, immersion
plating, or. phosphating as defined in the FQL9 listing background
document ... You. also indicated that chromzum~ancE; cyanide (the
constituents that were the basis for the FQI3 listing) are not
used in this process and, .therefore, the wastewater treatment
sludge from the process should not be classified as an F019
waste. In support of the latter argument „ you submitted the
results of -a recent analysis. of one sludge sample showing that no
TCLP metals were detected.
We first note that the .E0>13 listing? defiai-tion covers all, .
wastewater treatment sludges -from the chent±cal conversion, coating
of 'aluminum, except from, zirconium- pJiaspfaatingj in aluminum cctrs.^
washing when such phosphatij3^vis"!-'att-"e^cciEusd.^e;.5xin^nexsion coating:
process. As discussed in the 5S FJt 534CT CFebroary 14 r 1990) rule
that amended the definition ' of ' FQ19; to exclude wastewater
treatment sludges from zirconium: phosphating -af, aluminum. cans, we
acdcnowlexJge there may . be,.pt^e^~i,gffas^p^..5«^^ei^ti^^ . do- not.
coiitairt ^particular hazardc^g^cddgtlfe^gEEfc^
cyanide! .-and do not exhibit rp:*ha«azdieus>:*^^
f other :
.
Thus,., other wastewater treatment 'sludges- frpw'^tdfe chemical
cbirversion coatincr of aluminu»«. '.-rec?an^iless of *feSeirr compositiort
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
and constituent concentrations, continue to be captured by the
broad F019 listing definition unless and until delisted under 40
CFR 260.20 and 260.22.
Furthermore, we do not believe that your interpretation of
the. scope of the F019 listing given in the background document
for electroplating and metal finishing operations (F006 and F019)
is correct.. Although the "aluminum powder preparation process"
does not utilize any chromate compounds, it does involve
phosphating (but. not zirconium phosphating) to deposit a layer of
phosphate for surface preparation. This meets the general
description in the F019 'listing background document that
"phosphate .conversion coatings produce .a mildly protective layer
of insoluble crystalline phosphate on the surface of a metal."
Moreover, based on the limited information you provided, it is
unclear if any other" manufacturing or metal finishing operations
precede or combine with the "aluminum powder preparation
process", or if any of : those operations may. fall into the
category of chemical, conversion coating;, and if chromium or
cyanide from any other sources enters the process at issue.
I suggest that you contact the -State ^regulating authorities
to confirm whether or not the sludge generated by your client is
considered FO 19. In addition, if your client believes its sludge
is nonhazardous , the hazardous, waste "delisting process is •
available to ease -the regulatory burdens. A delisting petition
would.be filed with either the State or the EPA Regional Office
depending on the location of the facility in question.
If you' have further questions concerning this matter, .please
feel -free to contact Chichang Chen of the Waste Identification.
Branch at (703). 308-0441.
Sincerely,
Bus sard,
| Hazardous Waste rdent
Division
r ..
ficatioa
cc t William Brandes
Chichang Chen
-------
Appendices
Ul
-------
9445.1984(01)
APR 23.1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities
TO: Addressees
Ths response to my previous RCRA Methods and OA Activities
-------
£5? petitions submitted by three of the facilities. In some
cases, recommendations to the Regions for enforcement action
resulted from these checks.
The spot-cheek program will continue with trips planned
*.o Regions TV ,V, and VII by late spring. Both the Regional
office and the appropriate Stats office are notified and
invited to accompany the OSW team on these visits.
Performance Audit Program for Vglatilo POHC
EMSL-RT? ha* prepared standard cylinders of organic
substances in nitrogen in support of the OAQPS and RCRA "»onitorin
-------
We appreciate Region V bringing this problem to our
attention, SMSL-Cinn is currently evaluating all of the SW-846
digestion methods. In response to comments such as these,
we are considering modifications or adjustments to the current
methods and also methods from other sources In the evaluation
program. The report on the evaluation of this method is
scheduled to be prepared and available for review by July, 1984.
Hethod 1310 EP Toxicity
One question frequently asked is 'What is the procedure to
use if the maximum amount of 0.5N acetic acid has been
added to the extractor and pH 5.0 £ 0.2 has not b*»en reached?"
• In such a case the 4 meq/gm maximum amount of acid specified
is controlling and no additional acid should be added to the
system. Under such conditions the extraction is conducted
at the pH reached after the maximum amount of acid is added.
"Also, when the EP toxicity teat Is performed on oily or
greasy samples that cannot be filtered; is it permissible
to heat these at low temperature to remove organics and then
determine the metals present."
• Materials that do not pass the 0.45 urn filter are considered
as solids, irrespective of their liquid properties, and
thus must be extracted with the acetic acid solution. They
are not considered to be an extract as would an oil that
passes through the filter.
pp of Oil andGrease
Another question that is often raised deals with how to
measure the pB of oily materials.
• It is impossible to dotermine the pR of non-aqueous
materials. In eases where the material is multiphasic,
containing both an oil and a water layer, the water
layer can measured.
Clarification of Method 3550
•A laboratory inquired about method 3550 and wanted to
know if the results were to ba reported in dry weight.
This methods statas 'a weighed sample of solid waste is
ground, etc., etc.1 The sample referred to is the 'as
received material1 not a 'dried portion."
-------
Unlflss «po will highlight
Quality Assuranco ft SttSL-Cinn, BHSL-LV and EMSL-RTP.
The RMSL-Cinn QAB staff is headed up by John A. Winter with
Harold Clements and Ed Berg as section chiefs. They are
responsible for preparing and distributing certain types of
laboratory performance evaluation saaples, quality control
saaples and reference materials. They also aaintain and operate
the KPA repository of toxic and hazardous materials and thus
are responsible for distributing analytical standards to
laboratories performing RCRA testing. The repository of
calibration standards have bean verified by multiple laboratory
analyses as to percent purity of the neat compounds and
concentration of solutions in the sealed ampules.
Responsibility for,developing and distributing non-aqueous
tandard reference materials, maintaining the Quality Assurance
aterials Bank, evaluation of biological testing methods and
development of leaching procedures is with CNSL-LV. Compounds
in tho bank are not calibration standards but are of various
levels of purity and nay or may not have been fully verified
Careth Pearson is the Branch Chief. Llew Williams is the
Project Leader for the Ames mutagenicity and daphnla magna
bioassay projects and for development of the second
generation Extraction Procedure, These activities vill be
discussed in a future memo.
BMSL-RTP provides QA materials and conducts audits of
laboratories dealing with airborne or gaseous sampling and
analysis. As previously stated in this memo EMSL-RTP provides
cylinders of standard gases for ensuring the measurement of
organic compounds in trial burns and/or landfills. Darryl von
Lehmden heads up this OA effort.
Once again let me thank you for your interest and
please keep sending us your comments and ideas for future
momos.
David Priednan
Hanager
Hay 1984 Methods program
-------
9445.1984(02)
4 APR 84
RSs WCBFRQ136
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTS Notts on RCRA Methortology and QA Activities
FROMi David Friedman
Manager
Methods Program (WH-S65B)
TOt Addressees
This memorandum is an attempt to assist regional, state
and other interested persons in keeping abreast of Agency
RCRA methodology and• Quality Assurance activities. I plan to
send out these brief memoranda periodically. They will
contain information on new t*st methods and guidance documents
being developed, method evaluations in progress, updates on
the accuracy and precision of the current RCRA methods,
results of quality assurance audits (without mentioning
names), as well as any other topics that you fe«i would be
useful. The following topics will be addressed in this
memo:
EP Toxicity Test
Adjustment of pH
Digestion of extracts
Testing manufactured articles
Test method evaluations in progress
Now test methods under development
Waste Analysis Plans Guidance Manual.
Reference standards
Before getting into these topics I Just want to ask that you
reflect on this memorandum ind send me your comments and
questions regarding the info mat ion in. this memo and include
suggestions for future topics.
-------
xP Yoxicity Test
Adjustment of pH
Recently, differences in the results of lead analyses
between two laboratories resulted in the discovery of a
problem in execution of the EP Toxicity Test, upon examination,
by the Quality Assurance Officer for Region VI, it wa» determined
that pH adjustment was being performed using pfl paper and
not with a PH meter. Tne E? test is especially sensitive to
pH adjustment and for that reason the method requires that pH
measurements be aade only with a pH meter. The pH strips
are not accurate enough nnd must not be used, in addition,
frequent calibration of tho pH meter is important. (See
SW-846 "Tost Methods for Evaluation Solid Waste," Method
1310, Step 7.13.1.)
Extract Digestion
Please remembec that all extracts must be digested
prior to analysis unless it has been demonstrated, on similar
samples, that digestion is not necessary. All metal test
methods in SW-846 explicitly require this (see, for example,
Method 7040, Step 1.0).
Testing Manufactured Articles
The EP toxicity test procedure requires that a representative
sample of the material be prepared for extraction by crushing,
cutting or grinding into pieces which can pass through a 9.5
mm sieve.
The difficulty arises with manufactured articles when
the natorial inside is an environmental problem but is encased
in a leak resistant container designed to be structurally
resistant to crushing, cutting or grinding. Xn rare cases where
such products are an appropriate size, they may be tested
without being cut-up pursuant to the Structural Integrity
Pro cedure.
Although son* batteries tend to degrade rapidly whan
placed in a landfill, certain batteries are manufactured in
such a manner as to prevent disintegration after'diaposal.
However, at this time the Agency has not developed standardized,
EP toxicity test procedures for structurally strong articles
such as batteries. EPA is considering proposing amendments
to the E? Toxicity test which would allow a package designed
to be structurally resistant to crushing, cutting, or grinding
to be evaluated in the EP Toxicity test without being cut-up.
One possibility would be to test the corrosion resistance of
structurally resistant articles by submerging the article in
-------
a 1M salt (Had) water solution at an e lava ted temperature
(60*-80") Cor a period of on« nonth. If no leaks occur the
product can be considered corrosion resistant.
I would appreciate hearing about any other suggestions you
may have with respect to this issue. Me hope to be able to develop
a proposed amendment package in the near future.
Methods Evaluation
The Agency has initiated an extensive research program
to determine the accuracy ami precision of methods currently
in SW-846. At the present tine, the following methods are
being evaluated.
1110 Oorrosivity Toward Steel
1120 Polarization Resistance Method
3030 Acid Digestion of Oils, Greases, or Waxes
3040 Dissolution Procedure for Oils, Greases, or Waxes
3050 Acid Digestion of sludges
3010* Acid Digestion procedure for Plane Atonic
Absorption Spectroscopy
3020 Acid Digestion for Furnace Atonic Absorption
Spec tro sec py
7190 Chromium: Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration
7191 Chromium) Atonic Absorption, Furnace Method
7195 Hexavalent Chromium: to precipitation
7196 Hexavalent Chromium: Colo rime trie
7197 Hexsvalant Chromium Cheiation - Extraction
7198 Hexavalent Chromiums Differential Pulse
Palaeography Method
» XXXX Hexavalent Chromium: Ion Chromatography
Method Development
Our efforts continue with respect to the development of
additional methods for identifying hazardous wastes. Protocols
are being developed or existing methodology is being modified
to address the following areass
Ignitable solids
The objective is to develop methods for
use in the definition, of ignitable solids.
Protocols have been developed and subjected
to single laboratory evaluation using actual
vaste samples. Test have b
-------
-4-
Hazards Posod by Liquids with Plash Points below 60'C
The objective is to- develop a simple test
for identifying those liquids that should
not be considered as hazardous even though
thoy will flash at a temperature below 60*C.
Many such materials will not sustain combustion
nor release sufficient amounts of energy to
surrounding materials to spread the fire.
The evaluation report of this method is also
scheduled to be prepared and available for
regional review and comment by the end of
1934.
Reactive Gases - Cyanide and Sulfide
The objective is to develop a method for
determining when a waste is a reactive waste
(40 CfR 261.33) by reason of potential H2S or
HCN release. A method has been evaluated
using standards and actual waste samples.
TS»e test method is expected to be available for
Regional review and comment by June of 1994.
war* is also progressing on establishing
reactive waste definition thresholds using
the oethod. «hile it looks Ilk* it works
acceptably w«ll for sul fide-bear ing wastes,
further method refining will be necessary
oo Co re it can be adopted for cyanides.
Waste Analysts Plans Guidance Manual
Under Section 3004 of RCRA, EPA promulgated standards
applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste management
facilities. These standards govern the issuance of permits
for facilities that treat, store* or dispose of hazardous
waste. OSW is currently developing Pernit Guidance Manuals
to describe the permit application process and to provide
guidanea to applicants and permit writers in addressing the
information requirements.
AS part of the permit application, owners/operators arc
required to submit a Waste Analysis Plan* The requirement
for a Waste Analysis Plan is to insure that owners or operators
possess sufficient information on the properties of wastes
so that they will be able to treat, store, or dispose of the
waste in a manner which will not pose a threat to human
health or the environment.
To assist permit applicants and State end EPA staff
members who review applications and draw up permits, the
Office of Solid waste is in the process of preparing a Waste
Analysis Plan Guidance Manual. This Manual will provide
specific guidance on how to comply with the general waste
-------
analysis requirements of 40 CFR 264.13* The Manual will
include a discussion of the Waste Analysis Plan requirements,
model waste Analysis plans for each of the principal waste
disposal management situations, and'a checklist for reviewers
to use in evaluating permit applications. We anticipate
that a draft of this manual will be available for Regional
review early in Spring 1984.
Reference Standards
Since 1980, EPA's Office of Research and Development
has maintained and continues to expand an inventory of standard
compounds for use in analytical efforts.
Organic standards consist of either single-component
solutions (for instruaent calibration) or multi-component
solutions, containing several chemicals. Analytical reference
standards can be utilized in several ways to enhance sample
analysis and quality control. Reference standards can bet
• added to media before analysis to check recoveries
and thus be used as a matrix spike)
• added to a sample which has been prepared for
instrumental analysis, and thus be used as an internal
standard;.
' used as a surrogate for a particular compound allowing
for both sample analysis and recovery verification to
be done in the same run, e.g., deuterated or fluorinated
standards can thus be used as surrogates for compounds
found in hazardous waste.
• used for instrument calibration.
A single source of standard chemicals of known purity
and reference materials is necessary to assure that data of
known quality are produced. The Quality Assurance Haterials
Bank provides reference standards to analytical laboratories
to support the Agency*s programs for monitoring hazardous
waste (RCRA/ CERCLA). Pure ("neat") compounds ace. purchased
and analyzed and low purity compounds are purified. Once
verified, high purity organic and inorganic standards are
prepared (standard solutions) and distributed for use by
laboratories in calibration of instruments and for quality
control in sample analysis. The purity* concentration,
stability and applicability of each standard is evaluated by
the OA Materials Bank. For information regarding the availability
of specific standards contact Ed Kan tor at EMSL-LV (702-798-2690)
FTS545-2690), Ed Berg at EMSL-Cinn (513-684-7325) PTS-684-7325),
or Florence Richardson at the office of Solid Hast* (202-382-4801}
FTS-382-4801).
-------
9445.1984(03)
Clarification of Guidance on Petroleum
Refinery Waste Analyses
John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs
Region* i-x
On April 3, 1984, I forwarded to you a memo entitled,
"Guidance on Petroleum Refinery Waste Analyses for Land
Treatment Permit Applications" (see copy attached). My
April 3 memo provided guidance on evaluating petroleum
refinery waste analyses submitted in land treatment permit
applications. It included a list of hazardous constituents
suspected to be present in petroleum refinery wastes and
described the analytical methods for these wastes. This
memo provides additional guidance clarifying the analytical
methods that should be used for these wastes.
Attached is a copy of a draft document entitled,
"Handbook for the Analysis of Petroleum Refinery Residues
and Waste." This document describes the analytical plan
that will be employed in OSW's petroleum refinery waste
study. The analytical plan includes sample preparation
techniques, inorganic and organic analytical methods, and
analytical quality control procedures. Although developed
for th* OSW petroleum refinery waste ntudy, the information
provided in the attached document will be useful in any
situation in which petroleum refinery waste analyses are
necessary, including RCPA permitting.
The draft analytical method for organ! cs provided in my
April 3 memo was derived from an earlier draft of the attached
document. This revised document now includes a more complete
description of this method, and thus should be consulted by
permit writers and applicants an EPA's most recent guidance.
Specifically, Section 3.2 of the document includes the
analytical methods for organic parameters. The hazardous
organic constituents identified in my April 3 memo should be
evaluated in waste analyses for land treatment permit
applications.
In using the attached document, two points should be noted.
First, the Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity test data, as
described in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, need not be submitted
in the land treatment permit application. Rather, total
metal concentrations should be reported in the application.
Second, certain of the analytical quality control procedures
described in this document, including frequency of procedural
-------
blanks, duplicates, and instrumentation checks, may not be
sufficient for RCHA permit waste analysis plans. The
analytical OA/OC procedures described were developed for
laboratories that are under close EPA supervision and are
participating in the OSV performance audit program. Also
OA/OC procedures for sampling are not addressed in the
attached document. Comprehensive quality assurance/quality
control procedures for waste sampling and analysis should be
specified in the permit application. General guidance on
OA/OC procedures can be found in Test .Methods for Evaluating
Solid Wastes (SW-846) and in Permit Applicants^" "Guidance
Manual for the General Facility Standards of40 CPP 264
(SW-968).
If you have any questions on the analytical procedures
described in the attached document please contact Ren Smith
(PTS-382-4791) of the Waste Identification Branch. Any questions
regarding the use of this guidance in permitting land treatment
units should be directed to Hike Plynn (FTS-382-4489) of the Land
Disposal Branch*
Attachments
cct Jack Lehman
Fred Lindsey
Ken Shuster
Eileen Claussen
Matt Straus
Bruce Weddle
Peter Guerrero
WH-565E:MFlynn:aj:382-4658:M2102:WSM:5/18/84
-------
3445.1984(05)
2 0 -,
MEMORANDUM - Number 4
SUBJECT! Not** on RCRA Methods and OA Activities
i
FROMt David Friedman, Manager
Methods Program, WH-562B
TOs Addressee* '-.
r
t
He appreciate your comments and suggestions in response to c
my previous RCRA Methods and OA Activities nemos. This nemo t
will address several of the topics suggested in recent =
correspondencet 1
£
• RCRA Laboratory Evaluation Program ^
X
• Standard Methods for Ground Water Testing C
'i
• Method 3030 - Acid Digestion of Oils, Greases, and Waxes *
• Haste Analysis Plans Guidance Manual *
• Reactivity Evaluations for Solid Waste
RCRA Laboratory Evaluation Program
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) appreciates the cooperation
of those Regional Laboratories that participated in the pilot
Laboratory Evaluation Program (LEP) that OSW conducted during
this past spring and summer. Now that the mechanics of the
program have been worked out, the RCRA LEP is being officially
implemented and expanded to include all EPA Regional Laboratories
and OSW contractors.
Since the Super fund program has also established a LEP as
part of the CERCLA OA program, OSW and the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR) will consolidate samples to minimize
the impact on participating laboratories wherever possible. The
differing needs of the two programs, however, will sometimes
prevent such a consolidation.
-------
During fY 85, each laboratory will receive four sets of
check saaples. Bach set will consist of two samples to be
analyzed by different Methods.
Standard Methods Proposed For Testing Hazardous Waste Facilities*
Ground Water
OSW recently proposed adopting a set of mandatory standard
test methods to improve the quality of ground-water Monitoring
at licensed hazardous waste facilities. It is expected that
such standardization would also help speed up the permit process
by making the application evaluation process easier*
The rulemaking of which this proposal is a part has five
objectives! 1) make the analysis and sampling methods in EPA
Publication "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste* (SW-846)
mandatory for all testing and monitoring activities required
under subtitle C of RCRA; 2) consolidate in SW-846 all methods
necessary for Subtitle C testing; 3) eliminate certain requirements
for groundwater testing in those limited circumstances where
the constituent being tested for immediately converts to another
substance upon contact with water, or where no testing method
has been developed to detect the constituent in question; 4) allow
the limited use of SW-846 methods for compliance monitoring
screening purposes; and 5) introduce the concept of hierarchical
testing that in certain cases may reduce the number of tests
required to determine whether classes of Appendix VIII compounds
are present*
As it stands now, hazardous waste facilities must sometimes
develop their own test methods to identify particular hazardous
constituents because EPA has not formally specified which of a
number of methods it considers acceptable. Federal and State
environmental officials must then approve these methods as
part of the facility permitting process. Since in the absence
of mandatory testing requirements Federal or State environ-
mental offices may develop differing requirements for acceptable
test methods, monitoring requirements and results may vary
from Region to Region (and State to State).
This proposed rule will allow permitting officials to
quickly evaluate permit requests since all necessary methods
will be contained in a single manual. More important, by
consolidating test methods, it will be easier for the regulated
community to apply for and be granted hazardous waste permits.
For smaller facilities in particular, this proposal will help
assist them in meeting RCRA1* permit requirements* In addition
to easing the permitting process, using standard methods for all
monitoring will better enable the Agency to determine the quality
of the data and to follow environmental quality trends.
Although EPA has prepared a series of draft guidance
documents which give some general information on monitoring
-------
methods, no one document ha* hitherto listed all the sampling
and analysis methods that are specifically acceptable to CSV*.
The proposed regulation proposes a number of new testing methods
and consolidates then into its existing test methods manual.
As noted above, the new standards also would save time and
costs, while maintaining environmental standards, by eliminating
groundwater testing for those chemicals that immediately decompose
in ground water* The proposed regulations would also reduce
unnecessary testing by allowing facilities monitoring their ground
water to test for the absence of certain classes of chemical wastes,
instead of testing for each individual chemical within a class.
For example, if a facility teats its ground water for halogens
and it finds none, then it would not have to test for each variety
of halogen listed in the regulations.
The proposed regulation appeared in the Federal Register
Oct. 1, 1984, at 49 PR 38786.
Analytical Report on Method 3030 - Acid Digestion of Oils, Creases
and Waxes
In response to Region V's comments (May 1984), we initiated
a task to examine EPA Method 3030 for its applicability to the
analysis of barium, lead, mercury, and selenium in waste oils
and to formulate any modifications necessary to produce satisfac-
tory analyses.
The digestion of four waste oil samples by EPA Method 3030
gave very low recoveries for barium, lead, and mercury. Selenium
could not be determined in the digest due to severe interference
by sulfuric acid with the graphite furnace technique. The
initial heating step of Method 3030 produces a large quantity
of charred material which is not digested by the latter steps.
Barium Is precipitated as barium sulfate. This accounts for
the absence of barium in the samples and lack of recovery. The
Method 3030 digestion procedure was judged to be unsuitable for
the determination of any of these metals. We recommend that
Method 3050 be used for the digestion of barium, lead, mercury,
and selenium.
Waste Analysis Plans Guidance Manual
Waste Analysis Plans Guidance Manual is intended to assist
both permit applicants and reviewers/writers in the preparation
and evaluation of waste analysis plans. The manual explains
the RCRA regulations that require a waste analysis plan and
provides a recommended approach, including checklists to ensure
completion of the plans. It presents sanple waste analysis
plans for various hazardous waste management scenarios.
-------
Although a waste analysis plan should demonstrate to EPA or
State—permitting officials that the facility operator knows what
information is needed to operate the facility properly and has
in place a prograw to gather the necessary information, there is
no specific required format for the plan* However, the Manual
suggests that the plan be organised around the following four
questions!
* What are the specific wastes or types of wastes
that will be managed within each process?
• what are the specific waste parameters that have
to be quantified in order to satisfy the data needs?
• What are the waste-associated properties that are
of concern in ensuring safe and effective management
(e.g., Btu content, % water)?
• How will the necessary data be obtained, including
a description of the sampling and analysis procedures
and attendant quality control/quality assurance
procedures to be carried out by the permittee? .
In addition to providing checklists to assure the completeness
of the plan (and sample plans covering a variety of hazardous
waste management scenarios) the manual puts forth such concepts
as "boundary condition* and 'tolerance limits.* "Boundary conditions'
gives the maximum and minimum values of waste properties which,
if exceeded, would alert the operator that the waste does not
meet its typical properties and requires further attention before
acceptance. 'Tolerance limits* are those characteristics of a
waste or waste mixture that a waste management process can handle
while maintaining permit compliance. The manual also discusses
the selection of waste parameters, the need of periodic recharac-
terization of hazardous wastes, the performance of shipment
screening by offsite facility operators, and procedures for
waste sampling, analysis, and quality assurance/quality control.
The manual, can be ordered from the Government Printing Office
as document 155-000-00244-4, at a cost of $5.50. The address is
as follows!
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
(202) 783-3238
-------
Reactivity evaluation* for Solid Waste
In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation
and the Onited Nations Group of Experts on Explosives, the
Bureau of Mines has been conducting research on the development
of tests designed to determine whether a substance has explosive
properties. These tests are currently under consideration for
international standardisation and are called the U.S. Gap Test
and the U.S. Internal Ignition Test. The Bureau of Nines has
proposed that these tests are suitable to determine the properties
described in 40 CPR 261.23 (a)(6) and (7) which defines a solid
waste as having the characteristics of reactivity if it has,
among others, any of the following properties}
(a)(6) Capable of detonation or explosive reaction if
subjected to a strong initiation source or if
heated under confinement.
(a)(7) Readily capable of detonation, explosive decomposi-
tion, or reaction at standard temperature and
pressure.
The methods were the subject of a single laboratory at the
Bureau of Mines Laboratory in Pittsburgh, PA, using waste
samples from processing waste treatment facilities. In addition,
a series of standard explosives were obtained and evaluated
for use in calibrating the tests.
A report summarizing the single laboratory evaluation should
be available for review early in 1985.
Symposium
A symposium on RCRA test methods and Quality Assurance is
being planned for July 24-26, 1985 in Washington, D.C.. Topics
to be included arei Organic and Inorganic Analytical Methods,
Hazardous Waste Identification Characteristics, Quality Assurance,
and Sampling. More information will be included in our next issue.
-------
9445.1984(06)
RCRA/SUPERFDKD HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 84
A. RCRA
When does one make the determination that a waste is
liquid or solid prior to disposal in a landfill? The
waste in question is normally solid but liquifies at
temperatures reached in the vehicle transporting it to
the site (>140°F) and occasionally at ambient desert
surface temperatures (120°F in the summer). The
material will solidify over a short period of time.
The phase of the waste should be determined just
prior to disposal. In this case, the waste is
liquified during transportation but will solidify
over a short period of time. Therefore, it is
proper to allow the shipment of containers to
stabilize or solidify before performing the free
liquid test. It is permissible to use best
engineering judgment.
Source: Paul Cassidy
Research: Ken Jennings
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
9445.1985(01)
5 1985
Dr. Paul Jonmaira
Ecology and Bmrironmant, Inc.
IfS Sugg Road
P.O. Box D
Buffalo, Baw York 14225
Daar Dr. Jonmairai
In raaponaa to your racant raquaat for information
tagarding tha baaia for incluaion on Appandix VIII of savaral
aubatancaa, ancloaad plaaaa find copiaa of ralavant listing
background documanta.
In anawar to your othar quaation, soil contarninatad with
toluana is not automatically considarad to ba a hasardoua waata
aolaly bacausa toluana is listad in Appandix Vlll. Only if a
apill containing ona of tha wastas listad in I2C1.31, .32,
or .33 wara tha causa of such contamination would such a
situation arisa. if such a apill wara indaad raaponaibla for
tha contamination, formal daliatinq is raquirad bafora tha
raaidua can ba conaidarad not to ba hasardoua. Buppoaing that
tha apill did not account for tha contamination, tha soil would
only ba ragardad as a hasardoua wasta if it axhibits ona of tha
hasardoua waata charactaristies. Tha iacluaion of toluana on
Appandix VZIZ ia not conaidarad to ba garmana.
Roping thia anawars your quaetiona.
Sincaraly,
David Priadman
Nanagar
Hathoda Program
Bncloauraat
S261.33 Background Document
Liating Background Documantai
Chlorobansanaa
Toluana
Cyanida
-------
9445.1985(02)
April 23, 1985
MEMORANDUM #6
DATE: April 1985
SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities
FROM: David Friedman, Manager
Methods Program (WH-562B)
TO: Addressees
Thank you again for your response to my previous RCRA
Methods and QA Activities memos. In this memo we will inform you
about the following recent initiatives in the Agency:
o Public Meetings on Delisting
o Intra-agency Work Group on Update to SW-846
o Development of New Testing Methods and Reevaluation of
Existing Methods.
We appreciate your comments and suggestions.
Public Meetings on Delistina
Approximately 200 persons attended public meetings in
Washington, D.C. and Dallas, Texas, organized by the Delisting
Program. The meetings were conducted to describe in detail how
future delisting petitions will be affected by the Hazardous
Waste Amendments of 1984 and to provide instruction to
petitioners on the preparation of supplemental material that
should be included in future delisting petitions. Presentations
were made on the reauthorization of RCRA, the general petition
review process, information resources and special procedures that
will apply to petitions concerning wastes from petroleum
refineries and multiple waste treatment facilities. A discussion
session followed the presentations in which attendees were given
the opportunity to question the delisting staff about their
particular concerns.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
Intra-aqencv Work Group on Update to SW-846
As part of the process of finalizing the October 1, 1984
proposal to update SW-846, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste," an intra-agency work group is in the process of
considering the comments received by the Agency in response to
the proposed changes and is rewriting some of the methods to
reflect these comments and suggestions. OSW expects to complete
this process by the end of this summer, with Federal Register
publication anticipated in the Spring of 1986.
Development of New Testing Methods and Reevaluation of Existing
Methods
As part of its efforts to develop new testing methods and to
determine the accuracy, precision and sensitivity of the existing
methods, the EPA Office of Research and Development has completed
a number of test methods studies including:
o Method 9022 and Interim Method 450.1 — Determining
total organic halide (TOX) in ground water and waste
oil
o Method 8030 — Determining acrolein, acrylonitrile and
acetonitrile in ground water, solids and organic liquid
matrices
o Method 8090 — Procedure for analysis of nitroaromatics
and cyclic ketones in ground water, liquid waste and
solid sample matrices
o Method 8280 — Procedure for analysis of hazardous
wastes containing tetra-, penta- and hexa-chlorinated
dibenzodioxins and -furans
o Application of a gas chromatography/Fourier transform
infrared protocol to the determination of semivolatile
organic compounds in waste water, soils, sediments and
solid wastes
o Analytical methods for compounds that do not gas
chromatograph.
The following sections describe these recent research
developments.
Method 9022 and Interim Method 450.1
Various methods for determining total organic halide (TOX)
in samples of ground water and waste oil were evaluated by EMSL-
CIN (Thomas Pressley, 513-684-7494). Of three inorganic halide
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
— "5 —
species generation approaches and three inorganic halide
determinative techniques evaluated for ground water analyses, one
combined approach using Schoeniger flask oxidation with
colorimetric chloride determination was chosen for laboratory
validation and method detection limit studies. Ground water
samples were also analyzed for TOX using neutron activation
analysis (Method 9022).
The results of this evaluation indicate that Method 9022 is
an appropriate technique for TOX analysis and offers the
additional advantage of providing individual chlorine and bromine
values for the samples at levels equal to TOX detection limits
achievable with the microcoulemetric determinative technique
which has a reliable limit of sensitivity at 5 ug/L (Interim
Method 450.1). The Schoeniger flask/colorimetric chloride and
neutron activation analysis methods were found to give TOX
results for spiked ground waters that were comparable to those
obtained using the microcoulometric method. However, the
Schoeniger flask/colorimetric halide method was useful only for
halide levels above 0.2 mg/L due to the high halide background
levels encountered in the reagents.
A method for analysis of oil samples that uses the sodium
biphenyl reagent and a colorimetric chloride method was found to
be unsatisfactory for the analysis of various oils spiked with
PCBs due to interferences in the colorimetric determinative step
that resulted in recoveries greater than 100 percent. Further
evaluation of the sodium biphenyl reagent using alternative
determinative techniques, such as microcoulometric detection or
an additional clean-up step for the extract prior to the
colorimetric determinative step, will have to be performed to
establish the usefulness of the technique at halide levels in the
range of 20 to 350 ug/g.
Method 8030
Method 8030 was modified using revised chromatographic
conditions for determining acrolein, acrylonitrile and
acetonitrile in ground water, solids and organic liquid matrices.
In order to evaluate these modifications, method validation
studies were conducted on each of the four sample preparation
techniques included in Method 8030, namely: (l) heated purge-and-
trap; (2) polyethylene glycol (PEG) extraction followed by heated
purge-and-trap; (3) direct liquid injection; and (4) manual
heated headspace. Each method validation involved the
determination of the method detection limit (MDL) and seven
replicate analyses of one or two matrices unspiked and spiked at
two different levels. Ground water was analyzed by the heated
purge-and-trap method; a solid waste was analyzed by the
PEG/heated purge-and-trap method; and a liquid organic waste was
This has been retyped from the original document
-------
-4-
analyzed by direct liquid injection and by the heated headspace
method.
The heated purge-and-trap method gave excellent recoveries
(85 to 96 percent) and precision for the three analytes in ground
water. The PEG/heated purge-and-trap method gave good recoveries
(76 to 96 percent) for acetonitrile and acrylonitrile in the
solid waste but poor recoveries for acrolein (10 percent).
Problems resulting from residual amounts of PEG indicated that
additional modifications of this method are needed. The direct
liquid injection technique gave excellent results for the
determination of all three analytes (86 and 111 percent
recoveries) in the liquid organic waste; however, late eluting
material may present serious problems in some cases. The manual
heated headspace method gave distinctly less accurate and less
precise results than the PEG/purge-and-trap method for the
determination of acetonitrile and acrylonitrile in the solid
waste sample. Acrolein was not recovered at all by the method
due, apparently, to decomposition during the one-hour
equilibration at 90°C. The headspace method gave extremely
erratic results for the analysis of the organic liquid waste and
was, therefore, considered completely unsatisfactory for such
samples.
This study was conducted by the EMSL-CIN laboratory (James
Longbottom, 513-684-7308).
Method 8090
Another study recently completed by the EMSL-CIN laboratory
(James Longbottom, 513-684-7308) was a single laboratory
evaluation of Method 8090, which is a procedure for the analysis
of nitroaromatics and cyclic ketones in ground water, liquid
waste and solid sample matrices. The method spike recoveries in
authentic matrices at two challenge concentrations were
determined. Authentic matrices were obtained from industrial
sources with manufacturing processes that might require the use
of this method for monitoring, and as such these authentic
samples provided the analytical conditions and background
interferents that might be expected in actual implementation of
this method.
The method detection limit (MDL) in reagent water for all
the analytes ranged from 1.2 ug/L to a low of 0.26 ug/L. The
experimental method detection limits were lower than the
published method detections in Method 8090 for 2,4-
dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, nitrobenzene and isophorone.
The recoveries for all the analytes in reagent water were greater
than 75 percent.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-5--
Th e recoveries for the majority of the analytes in the three
matrices (ground water, nonaqueous liquid waste, and solid waste)
were generally good. All the analytes gave good recoveries
(greater than 70 percent) and good precision (relative standard
deviation less than 12 percent) in the ground water matrix.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 1,3-dinitrobenzene and
1,4-naphthoquinone gave good recoveries (greater than 70 percent)
in the nonaqueous liquid waste. Poor recoveries were observed
for nitrobenzene and isophorone in the nonaqueous liquid waste.
For the solid waste matrix, 1,4-naphthoquinone gave the worst
recovery (50 percent) of the six analytes, while the remaining
analytes gave recoveries ranging from 60 to 70 percent at the
high concentration level and greater than 80 percent at the low
concentration level.
Method 8280
In 1983, EPA proposed a ruling affecting disposal of
hazardous wastes containing tetra-, penta-, and hexa-chlorinated
dibenzodioxins and -furans. As a result, the EMSL-LV laboratory
initiated a validation study of the method proposed to detect
these substances.
The RCRA Method 8280 consists of four major sections: (1)
extraction of the analytes from the environmental sample; (2)
"open" chromatographic clean-up with alumina using methylene
chloride/hexane eluent; (3) MPLC clean-up; and (4) analysis by
capillary column gas chromatography/low resolution mass
spectrometry (HRGC/LRMS). In order to test Method 8280
efficiently and to develop appropriate modifications with minimal
effort, each section of the methodology was tested separately.
Initial tests were performed on a simple (pottery clay soil)
sample matrix and upon standard solutions. Necessarily, the
first step evaluated was the measurement technique. Both GC/MS
and GC/EC (electron capture detection) were tested using
guidelines from the published RCRA method. Because the analytes
could not be measured at the published mass-to-charge ratio (m/z)
values by GC/MS, these values were corrected prior to further
work.
In summary, the following revisions were made to the
published method: (1) correct m/z values were substituted for
those in the published method so that the mass spectrometer could
detect analytes and standards introduced via the interface gas
chromatograph; (2) the extract clean-up with an alumina column
was revised so that all desired analytes eluted in a single
fraction, with the bulk of the analytical interferences removed;
(3) the method was revised so that wet samples could be
accommodated; and (4) NPLC procedures that could be performed
effectively and be reproduced consistently were developed. The
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-6-
extraction revision allows accommodation of wet samples and
improves recovery of spiked analytes in dry soil samples.
The RCRA method with revisions discussed above was subjected
to performance tests that included: (1) analysis of reference
materials containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD and interferences; and (2)
precision and accuracy determinations on samples having known
composition through spiking the sample matrix at this laboratory.
Two independent teams of analysts investigated the
performance of the revised method using precision and accuracy
determinations (standard deviation of results) and by recovery of
spiked analytes and isotopically labeled standards. Effects of
experimental parameters, such as QC column type (coating) and
alumina activation level were also determined.
After incorporating necessary revisions, satisfactory method
performance has been demonstrated on soil-type samples. Much
precision and accuracy data obtained to date were based on GC/EC
determinations. Comparisons to the precision and accuracy
attainable by NPLC/LRMS is underway. Performance of the method
on relatively complex matrices, such as sludges, still bottoms
and fly ash was determined.
Although the method was found suitable for soils, fly ash
and other relatively clean matrices, serious interferences were
obtained during the analysis of still bottoms. Additional clean-
up steps are now being studied. A copy of the revised method
will be attached to the July memo (Ron Mitchum, 702-798-2103).
Gas Chromatography/Fourier Transform Infrared
The application of gas Chromatography/Fourier transform
infrared (GC/FT-IR) data to regulatory decisions requires the
availability of validated analytical protocols. A GC/FT-IR
protocol was developed by EMSL-LV (Donald Gurka, 702-798-2113)
that is applicable to the determination of semivolatile organic
compounds in waste water, soils, sediments and solid wastes. The
protocol is designed for automated analysis of multicomponent
environmental and hazardous waste extracts. Waste water analysis
for semivolatile organic compounds is based upon extracting 1 L
of sample with methylene chloride and concentrating the sample
extract to 1.0 mL. The analysis of the semivolatile fraction
derived from solid waste analysis is based upon extracting 50
grams of sample and concentrating the sample extract to 1.0 mL.
A gel permeation option is included to further purify those
extracts which cannot be concentrated to the specified final
volume.
Using capillary GC/FT-IR techniques, waste water
identification limits of 150 to 400 ppb can be achieved with this
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-7-
method while the corresponding identification limits for solid
samples are 3 to 8 ppm. Automated packed column GC/FT-IR
identification limits are approximately a factor of five higher
than the corresponding capillary GC/FT-IR values. The most
frequent obstacle to achieving these identification limits is
expected to be the presence of large quantities of interfering
high boiling coextractants. These coextractants would raise the
identification limits by preventing the concentration of extracts
to the desired final volume, thereby necessitating gel permeation
clean-up, and/or by decreasing the spectral signal-to-noise GC-
volatile analytes by raising the spectral background intensity.
Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy
In order to develop analytical methods for compounds that do
not gas chromatograph, EMSL-LV (Steve Billete, 702-798-2232) has
been studying the use of alternative analytical methods. A
number of dye compounds and dye wastes were characterized by
MS/MS using thermospray ionization and triple-quadrupole mass
spectrometry. The polymethine, commarin, xanthene, arylmethane
and non-sulfonated azo compounds are classes of dyes that, in
general, give collision mass spectra when introduced into the
spectrometer via the thermospray interface without
chromatography. Other classes of dyes, such as phthalocyanines,
stilbence and benzidine dyes, have not been detected by this
method.
Many synthetic intermediates and other dyes were detected in
standards of individual dyes. The precursor compounds are
generally not completely removed from the commercial product.
The dyestuffs are formulations based on color index standards.
Dye wastes (mother liquors from various dye processes) were
analyzed without pretreatment before injection into the
spectrometer. High percentages of the starting materials used in
the synthesis of specified dyes were often detected. Other types
of dyes spiked into these wastes could be identified by their
collision spectra. The quantification of these dyes proved
difficult because of the impurity of the dye standards.
Detection limit studies indicate that at least 100 mg to
250 mg of injected material are needed for the dye to be
identified. However, specific detection limits are dependent
upon the class of dye and its actual chemical structure.
The use of triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry proves very
effective in identifying those dyes that undergo thermospray
ionization. The production of a useful spectrum from the single
ion per compound generated from thermospray ionization makes the
triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer useful in both structure and
mixture analysis.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-8-
Test Methods Discussed at AOAC Meeting in Dallas
In addition to the above studies for which reports have
recently been completed, two other methods under development, a
new Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and a
Sorbent Pressure Test Method, were discussed at a session of the
AOAC meeting on April 11, 1985 in Dallas, Texas. A discussion of
these new methods is presented in the following sections.
Toxicitv Characteristic Leaching Procedure
The 1984 amendments to the RCRA call for EPA to make the
Extraction Procedure (EP) more accurate and to expand the
hazardous waste characteristics. In response, the Agency is
expanding the list of compounds that can be detected using the
Extraction Procedure and is developing a second generation
mobility procedure. The new TCLP is being designed to be
suitable for determining the leaching behavior of volatile
compounds as well as to be less costly and more precise than the
current EP. Furthermore, the features of this new procedure are
expected to approximate the leaching action of a sanitary
landfill. The draft TCLP that was discussed at the AOAC meeting
in Dallas makes the use of a zero-headspace extraction vessel,
the tumbler type agitator currently employed in the EP, and an
acetic acid/sodium acetate buffer as the extraction medium. A
report is in preparation summarizing the results of the lysimeter
and laboratory experiments that led to the draft procedure. A
copy of the draft method is attached. For further information,
contact Todd Kimmell 202-382-4795).
Sorbent Pressure Test Method
Compression of materials occurs during routine landfill
operations, and the 1984 amendments to RCRA directed EPA to
prohibit the landfill disposal of liquids absorbed in materials
(sorbents) which can release these liquids when compressed.
In order to determine whether certain sorbents could release
liquids under simulated landfill pressure, the Agency has
initiated a program to develop a new test method, entitled the
Sorbent Pressure Test. As discussed at the AOAC meeting,
centrifugation and consolidation are currently being investigated
as a means of simulating landfill pressure. The test will be
designed to be easily applied in the field and to yield both
qualitative and quantitative results.
Attachment
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9445.1985(03}
Mr. William L. Ramus
Water Management, Inc.
2480 Broadway Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115
Dear Mr. Ramusi
This Better is in response to your May 17, IMS letter to
Mr. Matthew Straus of the Haste Identification Branch.
Specifically, you requested a clarification of the P01*.
listing and its applicability to wastewater treatment sludges
from sulfurlc acid anodising of aluminum.
The P006 listing of wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations was published Interim Final on Nay
19, 1980 (45 PR 33123). Comments were take* on the proposed
listing, whicHTprompted several modifications... these
modifications were incorporated into the finalHating on
November 12,-1980 (45 PR 74*8*-74tt7K- First, waatevater
treatment sludges from several specific processes^ were'
from the listing. These processes include aulfuric acid
anodislng of aluminum. Also, wastewater treatment sludges
from chemical conversion coating of aluminum were listed
separately, as P019, because these sludges were not expected
to contain significant concentrations of cadmium and nickel.
Thus, the P019 listing is, in -effect, a subcategory of the
POOC listing.
Since wastewater treatment sludges from solfuric acid
anodizing of aluminum are specifically excluded from the POOC
listing, the sludges are not included under P019. At present,
this exclusion also includes the coloring step and, thus., the
process you describe results in an excluded waste unlearn the
sludge is hasardous by characteristic (ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or BP toxiclty).
WH-562B/DTOPPING/rpj/382-4690/5-31-85/DI8K DT 01
-------
It is important to note that this waste is excluded from
the listings because it meets the description in the F006
exclusion and not because the chemical conversion baths
contain no chromium. Apart from the F006 exclusions, wastewater
treatment sludges from all chemical conversion coating
processes are listed hazardous wastes (F019 for aluminum,
F006 other metals).
However, the Agency is currently re-evaluating the
electroplating and metal finishing listings to determine
whether phosphating and some other processes should continue
to be included.
Should you have any questions related to this clarification
or other aspects of the electroplating and metal finishing listings,
please feel free to contact me at (202) 382-4690.
Sincerely,
David A. Topping, Jr.
Environmental Scientist
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
cc: Sally Swanson, EPA Region V
-------
9445.1985(04)
MEMORANDUM #7
DATE: June 1985
SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities
FROM: David Friedman, Manager
Methods Program (WH-562B)
TO: Addressees
Today's memo will cover the following subjects:
o Metal Determination in Ground Water
o Dioxin Method 8280
o Performance Audits on Gas Samplers
o Validation of Method 3540
o Reactivity Test Methods
o Symposium on Solid Waste Testing and Quality Assurance
Thank you for past comments and suggestions.
Metal Determination in Groundwater
The forthcoming publications, "Ground Water Technical
Enforcement Document" (OWPE) and the Third Edition of SW-846,
will provide greater detail on how metals are to be determined in
ground water. The following policy will be implemented in both
documents.
o All ground water samples are to be analyzed for total
recoverable metals (unfiltered, mild digestion) and
dissolved metals (filtered, mild digestion) as defined
in the EPA publication "Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Waste" (EPA-600/4-79-020), Section 200
Metals, paragraphs 3.7 and 3.4. Total recoverable
metals and dissolved metals are to be determined by the
methods given in -the same publication in Section 200
Metals, paragraphs 4.1.4 and 4.1.1. (The digestion
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
given in Note 3 of 4.1.1 is always to be used for
ground water samples.)
Organic determinations are to be made only on ground
water samples that have not been filtered.
An on-site filtration method will be developed and
evaluated before inclusion in SW-846.
Dioxin Method 8280
The single laboratory evaluation of Method 8280 for analysis
of halogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans has been
completed. The method consists of extraction, base and acid
washes, alumina column chromatography, reverse phase HPLC, carbon
column chromatography and quantitation by high resolution gas
chromatography low resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/LRMS) (see
Table I). Analyses, concentrations and performance -data are
given in Table II. Detection limits derived from the single lab
study are given in Table III. These may be higher than lowest
possible detection limits because calculations are based on high
natural and spiked dioxin concentrations. The EMSL-Las Vegas
laboratory is currently investigating method modifications aimed
at lowering the detection limits and is preparing for a multi-
laboratory evaluation of the current method.
Availability of PPB Hazardous Organic Cylinder Gases for
Performance Audits
In order to minimize the chance of poor data being collected
when performing trial burns and other combustion process
monitoring, the EMSL-RTP laboratory has prepared several audit
cylinders for use in performing performance audits of SW-846
sampling methods 1.2.1.8 (VOST) and 1.2.1.13 (MM5). These
multicomponent organic cylinder gases have been successfully used
in audits during RCRA hazardous waste trial burns.
As a result of the success with these cylinders, OSW
believes it is prudent for all persons performing such sampling
to use a cylinder audit during each sampling episode. If such a
level of Quality Assurance cannot be performed, then cylinder
audits should be performed during all trial burns. The cylinder
gas audit can be used for all volatile organic sampling that uses
either the VOST or bag techniques. The audit adds an important
ingredient now missing from such trial burns—assessment of
sampling accuracy. Currently, EPA and State personnel who
require trial burns for POHC have little means of knowing the
accuracy of POHC measurements. Requiring permit applicants to
conduct cylinder audits during the trial burn adds an important
weapon to the QA arsenal. OSW strongly recommends instituting
this requirement.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
TABL* X. FLOW SHBBT FOR «THOO 8280 DIOXIN ANALYSIS
1 - lOg Sample
•*trect
100 ml
MeOHtPet. Eth.rtH20 (1,4,5)
for A«h| Tolu«ne u.«
-------
TABLE IZ. PRECISION DATA FOR REVISED METHOD 8280
Compound
Matrix
Analyte Level
Native +
Spike(ng/g) N
Mean
Percent Percent
Recovery RSD
1,2,3,4,7-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-flxCDD
1.2,3,4,6,7,8-flpCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDD (C-13)
1,2,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-flxCDF
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
Still bottom
clay
•oil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
5.0
25.0
125
13.9
2500
5.0
25.0
125
46
2500
5.0
25.0
125
46
2500
5.0
25.0
1 X 10*
_—
—
5.0
25.0
125
5.0
2500
5.0
25.0
125
3.7
2500
5.0
25.0
125
46
178,000
—
25.0
133
17.6
2500
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
8
—
—
4
4
6
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
2
2
-
4
4
4
2
58.4
62.2
79.2
102.4
81.8
61.7
68.4
81.5
104.9
84.0
46.8
65.0
81.9
125.4
89.1
ND
HD
—
_
—
64.9
78.8
78.6
88.6
69.7
65.4
71.1
80.4
90.4
104.5
57.4
64.4
84.8
105.8
— —
54.2
68.5
82.2
91.0
92.9
3.36
8.92
6.93
10.3
—
23.2
10.8
5.28
— —
—
28.9
12.9
9.0
— —
— —
--
—
«—
~_
—
7.58
9.14
3.42
6.74
7.47
6.91
8.40
3.08
11.1
— —
5.18
6.77
9.74
— —
__
—
10.0
5.29
8.71
—
-------
TABLE III. DETECTION LIMITS (ppb) FOR RCRA METHOD 8280
Analyt*
Class Clay Soil Ply Ash Still Bottom Sludge
TCDD 1.0 5.0 1.0 500 25
TDCF 0.5 2.5 0.5 250 12
PeCDD 1.5 7.5 1.5 750 38
PeCOP 1.0 5.0 1.0 500 25
HzCOD 2.0 10 2.0 1000 50
HxCDP 1.5 7.5 1.5 750 38
-5-
-------
-3-
weapon to the QA arsenal. OSW strongly recommends instituting
this requirement.
These cylinders are available, at no cost, from the EMSL-RTP
laboratory. Each audit cylinder contains 5 to 9 hazardous
organics. Audit cylinders are available in two concentration
ranges. The concentration of each hazardous organic in the low
audit cylinders is between 7 and 90 ppb. The concentration of
each hazardous organic in the high audit cylinders is between 90
and 430 ppb. Groups I and II cylinders are currently available
for audits. Group III cylinders will be available in the Fall,
1985. Groups I, II and III cylinders contain the following
hazardous organics:
Group I Cylinders Group II Cylinders Group III Cylinders
Carbon tetrachloride Trichloroethylene Pyridine
Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane Vinylidene chloride
Perchloroethylene 1,2-Dibromoethane 1,1,2-Trichloro-
1,2,2-
trifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride Acetonitrile (Freon-113)
Benzene Trichlorofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloro-
(Freon-11) 1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethane
(Freon-114)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon-12) Acetone
Bromoethane 1,4-Dioxane
Methyl ethyl ketone Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane Chlorobenzene
All audit cylinders are periodically analyzed to assure
cylinder concentrations have remained stable. Also, all
stability analyses in Appendix A include quality control analyses
of ppb hazardous organic gas standards prepared by the National
Bureau of Standards for EMSL-RTP/QAD.
Audit cylinders may be obtained by contacting:
Robert L. Lampe
USEPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Quality Assurance Division (MD-77B)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Telephone: Commercial (919) 541-4531 or FTS 629-4531
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-4-
Validation of Method 3540
The development and evaluation of fortification/
homogenization procedures for preparing uniform distributions of
analytes in diatomaceous earth showed no appreciable differences
between fortification solvents, between mechanisms of
homogenization, or between duration of homogenization.
Uniformity of distribution of analytes in the diatomaceous earth
was essentially independent of these parameters. Consequently,
the most facile approach (i.e., fortifying using methylene
chloride followed by tumbling for 30 min) was applied to
subsequent experiments.
The evaluation of the Soxhlet Extraction Procedure (Method
3540, SW-846) using reagent diatomaceous earth demonstrated that
this procedure provides accurate and precise measurements on
nonvolatile components. Recoveries of such species from
fortified diatomaceous earth was approximately 85 percent, with
relative standard deviations of less than 11 percent. Recoveries
of the three volatile analytes, toluene, p-xylene, and o-xylene
were considerably lower (-40%). Loss of these volatile compounds
during evaporation of gross solvent in the fortification step was
considered the most probable cause of this poor performance.
Extraction and K-D evaporation were also minor contributors. No
effect of using diatomaceous earth from different sources on
recovery of target analytes was noted.
Precision of determination of unknown components of
diatomaceous earth fortified with actual pesticide industry waste
was somewhat lower (approximately 27% RSD). This observation was
attributed to the difficulty of homogenizing a mixture of two
solid materials.
Reactivity Test Methods
Development of reactivity test methods for those waste
materials which are capable of detonation is underway. In an
interagency agreement with the Bureau of Mines Laboratory (BOM)
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, OSW sponsored a study that
evaluated the U.S. Card Gap Test and the U.S. Internal Ignition
Test as tools for determining if a given waste is an explosive
that could undergo detonation under reasonable mismanagement
conditions. Samples of sludge from several explosives processing
waste treatment facilities were collected and analyzed as well as
a series of standard explosives for calibration use. Because of
the inconclusive nature of the results of the BOM work, further
evaluation is needed before any decision is reached as to the
applicability of these tests to RCRA wastes.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-5-
In the interim, OSW has supported the use of a battery of
tests to determine reactivity due to explosive properties. This
battery is outlined in a test plan submitted by the U.S. Army.
Please contact Florence Richardson (FTS 382-4770) for
additional information on this aspect of reactivity.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9445.1985(05)
Mr. Don B. Howard
OK Associates, Zne
11848 South Harrell's Ferry Road
Suite A
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
Dear Mr. Howards
This letter is in response to your November 6, 1984, re*
quest for an analytical method to determine the presence of
creosote. Alan Corson referred your letter to we, because I have
been working with creosote regulations. In order to properly
reply to your letter, I feel that some clarification is necessary.
K001 refers to wastes from wood preserving processes that
use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol, which I presume is the
case that you described. U051 refers to creosote as a commercial
chemical product which is only considered as a hazardous waste if
discarded or intended to be discarded* In other words, you will
not have 4051 unless raw creosote is discarded.
As you say know, creosote is an extremely complex mixture of
many compounds. The concentration distribution of these compounds
varies depending both on reaction conditions and on the source of
coal used. Unfortunately, we are aware of no single analytical
method with which to determine creosote presence. Recent in-
formation indicates that following the procedure outlined in the
footnote associated with creosote on Appendix III, is not a
reliable indicator of the presence of creosote. EPA is presently
working on a proposed rule to amend the hazardous waste regulations
concerning creosote.
However, we are not concerned with creosote per se but
rather, the toxic compounds that are present in creosote. I
therefore, recommend you analyse for the toxic con pounds identi-
fied as being present in K001 on Appendix VII. If any of these
are present at the facilities you are concerned with, a potential
hazard still exists. Analytical methods for these compounds are
provided on Appendix III of 40 CFR part 261. Refer to Test Method
for Evaluating Solid Haste (SW-846), Second edition? Test Methods
8100, 8250, and 9310.
-------
I hop* these r•commendations will be of assistance. Please
feel free to contact «e again* If you have any questions at
(202) 475-8990.
Sincerely,
Agnes M. Ortiz
Chemical Engineer
Methods Program, HH-562B
cct Region VI
-------
9445.1985(06)
RCRA/SUPERPUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 85
"Skinner List*
1. what is meant by the term "Skinner List"?
The tes» 'Skinner List" refers to a subset of 40 CTR 261 Appendix VIII cor.stitjer.ts
(89 compounds) chat, when developed, was considered a conservative list of hazardous
constituents that were -reasonaoly likely to be in patroleja refinery >*stes. The
list VAS originally an attachment to a memo dated April 3, 1984, fron Johr. Skinner,
then Director for the Office of Solid Vfeste, to the Regional Hazardous feste Permit
Branch Chiefs.
Its primary purpose WAS to provide permit writers guidance or. evaluating petroleum
refinery waste analyses submitted in land treaoner.t pecnic applications, However,
as a result of changes ir. delisting requirements as specified by the Hazardous and
Solid feste Amendments of 1984, the list oecame relevant for purposes of refinery
delisting actions incljding the identification of analysts to be performed for
delisting purposes. (The list of constituents s«nt to petitioners actually differed
slightly from the original list that appeared with the Skinner nemo. The consti-
tuents appeared ir. a list entitled "Constituents of Possible Interest to Refinery
Listi.Tg Effort.')
As a result of additional data collected by the Agency during the spring of 1985)
the decision was made to eliminate a significant nunoer of constituents for whicn
analysis WAS needed for delisting purposes. That subsequently reduced list is the
current one now in use for delisting purposes only. Regional offices retain the
authority to require the complete "Skinner List" to be used in land treaeaent permit
applications. L-. addition, the hazardous **ste listing progrw at EPA headquarters
may periodically add constituents to the listings as a result of data collected
through their industry studies. The guidance manual entitled Petition to Delist
Hazardousfchste contains the current list for which analysis is needed for refinery
wastes in addition to general information described on preparing a delisting
petition. This guidance manual can be ordered at a cost of $19.00 through the
National Technical Information service (tfTIS) by referring to order number PB
85-194488.
Source: Barbara Bush (202) 475-6776
-------
9445.1987(01)
HOTLINE MOHTHIY SUMMARY
MARCH 87
5. Appendix VIII, Groundwater Monitoring
In the July 24/1986 Federal Register, EPA proposed changes to the
existing ground-water monitoring requirements. These changes involve
replacing the requirement for owner/operators to monitor for the
40 CFR 261 Appendix VIII hazardous constituents, with a new list of
hazardous constituents in 40 CFR 264 Appendix DC- The Appendix DC
list is the sane as the Appendix VIII list except it does not include
those listings from Appendix VIII that cannot be analyzed for in
ground-*iater. Also, the proposed Appendix DC list includes 25
new constituents that are routinely analyzed for in the Superfund
program. Under the existing regulations when the o/o discovers a
statistically significant increase of an indicator parameter during
the detection monitoring phase, the o/o must immediately sanple all
ground water monitoring wells and analyze those samples for the
presence and concentration of Appendix VIII constituents. Based on
this information, the Regional Administrator will set "ground-water
protection standards", or levels, for the constituents in the ground
water. If these levels are exceeded in the ground water, corrective
action must be implemented. If the Appendix DC list is used in
place of the Appendix VIII list, will the 25 additional Superfund
chemicals also be" analyzed for and be subject to the ground-water
protection standards of the 40 CFR 264 ground-water monitoring
program?
These additional 25 Superfund chemicals would be analyzed for
along with .the other proposed Appendix DC constituents when a
statistically significant increase of an indicator parameter
was identified during detection monitoring, and again any time
Appendix DC monitoring was required. Because the Agency has
not yet evaluated these 25 constituents.to be "hazardous" per
47 FR 32295, as they have the Appendix VIII constituents, the
Regional Administrator could use the "omnibus authority" of
40 CFR 270.32(b)(2) and Section 3005 (c)(3) of RCRA to set
protection standards and require corrective action for these
additional 25 constituents if it was deemed necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
Source: Jerry Carman (202) 382-4658
Research: Robyn Neaville
-------
9445.1987(02)
SEP I 6 '937
Dr. Sue lien Pi rages
National Solid wastes
Management Association
Suit* 1000
1730 Bhode Island Ave., MW
Washington, DC 20034
Dear Sue lien i
Z mm writing in response to your recent letter requesting
clarification of OtW's policy regarding th« status of IV-Mf*
It appears fro* your letter that a misunderstanding sxista vita
regard to th« function and regulatory status of tfeo aa
In gonoral, BPA will Maadats the quality assurance/Quality
control procedures in SW-S4C but not the specific awthods. To
this end* we are in the process of preparing a Notice of Proposed
Buleattking which we expect to publish in the Federal Register
early is ItM. However, for a Halted group of regulations , we
currently Mandate use of SW-Mf methods. For those regulations,
•W-t4< will continue to be amndatory. The specific prograei areaa
where tw-l4i aethods are Mandatory includei
1. Determining whether a waate is hasardoua by reason
of one or more characteristics i
2. Sampling and analysing a waste to gather data to
support a del is ting petition!
3. Co*4|S}ting an incinerator trial burn; and
4. Determining whether a bulk or containerised waste
osatsiaa "free liquid.*
-------
Other than exceptions noted above, SW-846 serves as a
compendium of methods which are approved, but not mandatory, for
use in complying with the requirements of the RCRA regulations.
This approach was adopted, by OSW, to offer the greatest decree
of flexibility to the regulated community while minimizing the
burden to them of having to evaluate methods for each and every
RCPA monitoring requirement. The Agency continually reviews the
effectiveness of this approach. If we find that the flexibility
is resulting in compliance problems in specific program areas, we
would consider expanding the areas where use of SW-846 methods
are mandatory.
We agree with your comment that, when developing a testing
program, one should consider not only the methods in SW-846 but
also those published by organizations such as ASTH, AOAC, and
Standard Methods. To that end, OSW has an active program to
encourage and work with standard-setting organizations in
developing testing methods that can be used in the RCRA
program.
We would appreciate any assistance NSWMA can give us in
developing and evaluating testing methods. Wherever possible,
we would very much like to undertake joint programs with NSW*A.
I would be happy to have David Friedman attend the next meeting
of your Technical Committee to explore specific areas where NSWMA
can assist us in developing and evaluating testing methods*
Sincerely yours,
"arcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
cc: Sylvia Lowrance
David Friedman
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEMC
9445.1987(03)
OCT 20 1987
MEMORANDUM |20
DATE: October 1987
PROM: David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WH-562B)
TO: Addressees
This memo will address the following topics:
o GC/MS Suitability Testing of RCRA Appendix VIIt and
Michigan List Analytes
o Notes on Safety in the Laboratory
o Standardization of Method 8610, Part 2
o 1988 Solid Waste Testing and Quality Assurance Symposium
o TCLP Video
o Application of Structural Integrity Procedure when
Performing EP Analyses
GC/MS Suitability Testing of RCRA Appendix VIII and Michigan
List Analytes
The RCRA list .of toxic compounds (Appendix VIII) contains
over 300 organic aiuiXjhtl** In response to a petition by the
state of Michigan, tK«* Agency proposed to add over 100 additional
organic covpQQM* to th* list. In order to develop and validate
methods for (§(•, «q*lf*i» of these compounds in wastes, EP
extracts, *iul*j&rCBlft4-**ter, the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory in Cincinnati (EMSL-CI) has been evaluating
applicability of Methods 8240 and 8270 for these analyses.
-------
The first phas« of this approach involved the identifica-
tion of tho«e compounds which are amenable to GC separation
and ns detection. These evaluations involved the analyses of
solutions Cff standard materials usinq the GC/MS conditions
described in the Contractor Laboratory Protocol (CLP) for the
aoplicatiorr of Methods 8240 and 8270 for volatile and .semi-
volatile organic compounds, respectively.
EMSL-CI recently issued the first report on this study.
The report describes the procedures and presents the results
obtained from this first phase of the study. The compounds
were classified as candidates for Method 8240 or Method 8270
testinq. Some compounds were not tested because they fell
into one of the following cateoories:
o The chromatoqraphic behavior of the compound had
already been thoroughly characterized.
o The compound was known to degrade rapidly in aqueous
sample matrices.
o The compound was known not to be amenable to gas chroma-
tography — Compounds known to be too polar and/or too
thermolabile to elute using Method 8270 conditions.
o Standards were not available, either from the EPA
repository or from commercial sources, for the
compound.
For compounds not excluded for the above reasons, the following
data were obtained:
o GC Performance — retention characteristics.
o Mass Spectral Performance — response factors, key ions
for detection and quantification using extracted ion
current profiles (EICP).
The project demonstrated that of the Appendix VIII or
Michigan List analytM tested, 64 are compatible with the GC/MS
analysis for volatile* and 220 others can be detected using
the Superfund GC/MS program for semi-volatiles.
Notes on Safsty In the Laboratory
The items below were brought to our attention and we felt it would
be of benefit to reprint them in this issue. Chemical Safety (C&EN,
July 27, 1987)
-------
Noxious Fumes Prom Nitric Acid Digestion
SIRs V* «ere interested to read of Paul Haas' description of
an unexpected* reaction involving the acidification of hydrous
metal oxide* with nitric acid (C&EN, April 20, page 3). The
health and environmental chemistry group at Los Alamos National
Laboratory conducts the extraction procedures-toxicity teats
for determination of metals in hazardous waste materials as
reguired by the Environmental Protection Agency. Because of
the nature of these materials, there is always an inherent
amount of uncertainty with each sample to be analyzed. However,
our experience has shown that approximately one third of all
samples are likely to yield a fairly vigorous reaction at some
point throughout the extraction procedure.
Recently, we experienced an incident involving one
of these samples. A sample aliguot was being prepared for
mercury analysis by the stepwise addition of digestion acids
and potassium permanganate. Nitric acid had been added to the
aliguot in a 100-mL Erleroneyer flask and the mixture had been
allowed to stand for 15 to 20 minutes with occasional swirling.
An ice bath was used to douse vigorous reactions. The flask
was then removed from the hood and placed in the laboratory
sink, which contained approximately 1 inch of cool water.
Shortly thereafter, a reddish-brown mist containing probable
fumes of nitrogen dioxide and butyric acid (based upon the
appearance and odor) was liberated from the flask, resulting
in mild exposure to the employee conducting the analysis.
Several other individuals in the building also reported
nausea and slight dizziness.
At the time of removal of the flask from the laboratory
hood, the sample appeared quiescent; it was removed from the
hood in order to make room for other samples being prepared
in a similar fashion. In the future, all such samples will be
retained in the hood throughout the procedure at the possible
cost of increasing throughput time for sample analyses.
Mary C. Williams,
Fred N. Bolton
Health, Safety & Environment Division
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Standardization of EPA Method 8610, Part 2
Method 8610, "Total Aromatics by Ultraviolet Absorption"
was evaluated in conjunction with Method 3560, "Reverse Phase
Cartridge Extraction* for the separation and semi-quantitative
determination of visible or ultraviolet absorbing organic
compounds listed in Appendix VIII. In Part 1 of this program,
reported on earlier by EMSL-CI (EPA/600/S4-85/052), the following
work was conducted:
-------
o A data base of visible and ultraviolet (UV) spectral
d*t*> for,the Appendix VIII compounds was developed and
use4 to estimate detection limits for those compounds
whfeh absorb UV or visible light in the region 220 to
70*, n».
o The reverse phase cartridge extraction procedure of
Method 3560 was evaluated and modified for the separation
of polar and non-polar subsets of 21 Method 8610 analytes
using methanol hexane eluents. However, the extraction
procedure was found to be unsuitable for analyzing the
tested composite groundwater sample. The tested water
contained five sediment particles which partially moved
through the extraction cartridge and possibly interfered
with the UV analysis.
o The spectrophotometric determinative technique of Method
8610 was evaluated and found, in the range of 220 to 400
nm, to be very sensitive for a majority of the compounds.
Based on these results, further work was conducted
by EMSL-CI to further investigate the applicability of these
methods in a variety of ground-water samples and to refine
method detection limit estimates.
Seven ground-water samples were supplied for the study by
ASTM Committee D-34 members. These samples were evaluated for
background UV absorbance, and duplicate sample extractions
were used to simulate down-gradient versus upgradient testing.
An estimated positive response decision level was found to be
0.02 absorbance units. Five Method 8610 analytes were evaluated
for spike recoveries from both reagent water and a composite
ground-water sample. One analyte was found to be unstable in
water and the elution solvents used. The remaining four analytes
had good total recoveries from reagent water ranging from 79
to 108 percent with standard deviations of all but one analyte
ranging from 1 to 5 percent. Spike recoveries for composited
qround water were not reproducible due, apparently, to a
significant variability in recovery of native DV absorbing
material. The cause of the variability could not be specifi-
cally attributed to* but nay have been associated with, the
presence of very finely divided particulate material.
Microwave Oven Safety
It has recently come to our attention that several
laboratories are using kitchen type microwave ovens to aid in
the acid dissolution of solid and liquid waste samples. The
Methods Section is currently evaluating commercial microwave
oven assisted sample digestion procedures and hopes to recommend
-------
certain approaches in the near future. Those laboratories now
using or jQfl£»f*apCatiI*g the use of kitchen type ovens should be
aware of *fnwr*2 significant safety issues. First, when acids
such as nifp&c and hydrochloric acids are used to assist sample
digestion liKOpen vessels, or in sealed vessels equipped with
venting f**%ttr«s, the potential for the acid gases released to
corrode the safety wiring that prevents the microwave magnetron
from shutting off with the door open. This can result in
operator exposure to microwave radiation. On at least one
occasion this has resulted in a severe burn to a laboratory
technician. Use of an oven with corrosion resistant safety
wiring may prevent this from occurring.
The second safety concern relates to the use of sealed
containers in the oven. It has been found that pressure,
coupled with elevated temperature and the acid matrix is more
effective in dissolving certain samples than either of these
separately. However, many commonly used digestion vessels
constructed from fluorocarbons may crack, burst, or explode in
the oven under certain conditions. Only a few containers ar»
considered acceptable at present. In addition, pressure buildup
may be exacerbated by use of certain acids such as perchloric
which decomnose under certain pressures and temperatures to
form gaseous byproducts.
1988 RCRA/CERCLA Symposium
We are again requesting your suggestions for papers and
poster presentations for the 1988 Solid Waste Testing and
Quality Assurance Symposium. It is scheduled for July 11-15,
1988 and will cover the areas of physical, chemical and
biological testing, guality assurance, sampling, hazardous
waste identification, enforcement, laboratory information
management and any other topics that are of interest to State,
Regional, private sector, and contract laboratories. This year
we plan to offer training classes in quality assurance/quality
control, and statistics. Denise Zabinski will be accepting
your suggestions and can be reached on 202/382-4761 or FTS
382-4761.
TCLP Video
Bach Regional Quality Assurance Officer has received 2
copies of the new Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) videot'to be used both for in-house training and to
serve as a lending library. For those of you who would like
to purchase the video instead of borrowing it from a QAO, it
is available for $40 from the American Public Works Association
(APWA) in Chicago. Please contact Dan Hansen of APWA at (312)
667-2200 for further information.
-------
Applicability of the Structural Integrity Procedure Whan Performing
-ilro«edtfr.e Toxiclty Determinat'ions
_ a question came in reqardinq whether or not one
could us% UUr Structural Integrity Procedure (SIP) when evaluating
a certain mutt* in lieu of grinding the waste prior to performing
the extraction. Since this was not the first tine we have
received such questions, I felt it would be appropriate to
review when use of the SIP is appropriate and when it should
not be used.
The Extraction Procedure (Method 1310) protocol requires
that wastes be ground to pass a 9.5 mra sieve unless the waste
is in the form of a single piece (Step 7.9). If the waste
consists of a single piece, or if upon disposal will be in the
fora of a single piece, then one may use the SIP in lieu of
grinding. The SIP may, therefore, only be used to evaluate a
waste that is in the form of a monolithic mass. In addition,
in order for the sample, being tested, to be truly representative
of the waste as a whole, the waste will have to be homogeneous.
Put another way, one must be able to obtain a cylindrical saxpl*
of the waste with the dimensions 3.3 cm X 7.1 en which has the/ 5
same compost ion and properties as the waste as a whole. Thus **•
when determining whether one can use the SIP the critical .|
questions to be answered are:
1. Is the waste a monolithic block when disposed of, and
2. Is the waste homogeneous.
To be considered a monolithic mass, the waste must be
produced or generated in the form of discrete units of material.
For example, a solidified waste may be cast into cylinders or
blocks of a predefined size and shape; the waste may be emplaced
in a landfill cell as a fast setting liquid which then hardens
into a mass the shape of the cell (a la concrete poured into a
form); or the waste may be a product that is in the form of a
discrete unit (e.g., telephone pole, block of plastic). A
material, however, that, while at some point in the production
process is in the form of a monolithic mass, randomly breaks up
as a consequence of its management prior to disposal would not
be considered to be a-»onolithic waste and therefore is not a
candidate for testing, using the SIP. It should be noted that,
while wastes^are normally tested using the SIP at the time of
generation, -po&ao Ionic or other wastes that "set up* with time
to fora a solid- MS* My be aged for up to 30 days before
testing (ss* Iffrehod 1HO Step 7.10.1).
The second critical parameter that must also be considered
is whether the waste is homogenous. In order for the sample
that is to be tested to be a representative sample, the waste
from which the sample is being derived oust be homogeneous. If
-------
the w*ftt« iv not boacgeneous the subsample used in the SIP
would not b« representative. Examples of non-homogeneous wastes
are batteries and hazardous wastes encapsulated in a plastic or
other covering to prevent contact between ground water and the
waste. Th*»e wastes are considered not to be homogeneous since
the outer surface is different from the inner surface, and a
smale sample of the waste cut from the larger block of waste
would not have the same properties (i.e., composition,
permeability) as that of the "whole waste". If, however,
the waste was prepared, by a fixation process, in the fora of
cylinders 3.3 cm X 7.1 cm, the samples would be representative
of the waste as a whole and could be tested using the SIP.
-------
9445.1987(03a)
\ T **
Sue11en Pirages, Ph.D.
Director, Institute of Chemical
Waste Management
National Solid Wastes Management
Association
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Dr. Pirages:
Thank you for your letter of October 26, 1987, expressing
the Institute of Chemical Waste Management's (ICWM) concerns on
various issues.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shares your
concerns regarding the performance guideline of 50 psi
compressive strength for wastes subject to liquid absorption/
adsorption treatment. We intend to provide additional guidance
to the Regions and States in the near future. This guidance
will emphasize that we are not recommending that a specific
compressive strength be incorporated into permits. The guidance
will, at a. minimum, deenphasize the importance of a specific
level (such as 50 psi) and stress that the important criterion
is that following treatment, compressive strength must increase
over time.
Therefore, if an owner/operator shows an increase in
compressive strength over time, then it can be concluded that
the treatment process is indeed achieving stabilization/
solidification for that waste, and is not merely an
absorption/adsorption process.
You also raise the issue of the tendency on the part of
permit, writers to allow facilities to use only SW-846 methods
when testing wastes. While the regulations do not require the
use of SW-846 methods, the permit writers may be requiring
facilities to use them because these methods have been evaluated
by EPA and found to be suitable for their intended purposes.
Before a permit writer can allow a facility to use a non-SW-846
method, he/she must be convinced that the method works, and
-would probably require that the applicant first submit data
:e the method 'SreJfaAttU-ty in the intended
V
-------
We are trying to include in SW-846 the least costly methods
that can adequately answer the testing questions that facility
owners/operators need to answer. It is our aim to continue to
expand the list of approved methods as expeditiously as
possible. To this end, EPA has been soliciting from industry,
and other members of the regulated community, suggestions on
methods to include in SW-846. I suggest that ICWM submit to EPA
any fingerprinting or other cost-effective testing methods that
have been evaluated by ICWM. Once EPA has reviewed the method
and its supporting data and determined that it is suitable for
RCRA use, EPA will add the method(s) to SW-846. Enclosed is a
copy of the Test Methods Equivalency Guidance Manual which
describes the information EPA requires and the procedures.
EPA is currently considering alternative systems to use in
coding hazardous wastes. Among the alternatives being evaluated
are systems that more accurately describe the type of waste
being characterized (e.g., incinerator ash, scrubber water,
etc.). .The Agency is also considering a feature by which the
code would reflect the treatment requirements to which the waste
must be subjected prior to disposal. This project is still in
its early, conceptual stage. Finally, as to the proper
characterization of mixture derived from wastes according to the
current system, EPA requests that all of the waste codes (from
which the new material is derived) be used.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
,3
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
ira-S62/STRAUS-SCARBERRY-TONETTI/L.T.HANSEN - 382-2074/11-06-87/
CONTROL HO. SWER-00221I/DOE DATE: 11-12-87/TELEX CONTROL tl
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC"
9445.1987(04
•* 4687
Mr. Lundy Adelsberger
Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43266-0149
Dear Mr. Adelsberger:
I am writina to clarify how to determine allowable holding
times when testing RCRA samples. Basically, the holding time
for a given sample begins at the tint* the sample is generated.
For example, if ono has to analyze a sample of ground
water for volatile organics using Method 8010, the holdina
time soecified in SW-846 is 14 days. This means that within
14 days fror. the time the sample of water was taken from the
well, it must be analyzed using Method 8010.
If, on the other hand, one is to analyze a sample of around
water for semi-volatile organics using methods 3510 and 8270,
the water must be extracted within 7 days (the holding time
for Method 3510) and then the organic extract analyzed within
40 days from the time the water was extracted (the holding time
for Method 8270 sample*)«
In summary, as long as the holding time for each seouen-
tial step in a determination is not exceeded* the holding time
criteria is not exceeded and the determination is not considered
invalid.
with respect to the testing of waste materials to determine
whether or not they exhibit the characteristic of Extraction
Procedure Toxicity things are slightly more complicated. The
listed holding times apply to analytes in the matrix in which
they will be determined. If mercury is to be determined in
Method 1310 leachate (the Extraction Procedure), the 29 day
holdinq tim«, listed in SW-846 for mercury, begins when the
leachate is generated. There are no holding times established
»r> nov«rn frhr fcim* h»frv»gn gplleefcior and l»aehinn. The analyst^
gem iunpfrinn w< frh ».h» gust-ptOPfOgHHg^ulatrory ef f ici al. should
ju|!q*ment ih such cafecs.| T
-------
I hope this discussion clarifies the issu« of
tiro ^or vou. If vou have any additional autsticns,
ccr.t^ct Florence Kichar-r'son, of my staff, at 202/382-4778.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (v;i!-562R)
cct
F.
Richardson
Hotline
-------
9445.1987(05)
Mr. Robert Meltzer
Vice-President of Publications
and Marketing
ASTM
1916 Race street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Dear Mr. Meltzer:
I am writing as a follow up to my discussion with Kathy
Green at the D-34 Committee meeting held in Clearwater, Florida
last month. We discussed reprinting some ASTM Standards in the
Environmental Protection Agency manual SW-846, Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical Methods,, Third
Edition.
SW-846 contains testing methods approved by EPA for meeting
the testing requirements of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. In response to requests by laboratory personnel
who use the manual, we would like to include the approved ASTM
Standards listed below in SW-846 to ease the burden on users.
We estimate 10,000 copies of SW-846 are presently in print to
which the ASTM Standards would be added. Currently, the
following ASTM Standards have been approved for use in the RCRA
program.
D445-86 Test Method for Viscosity of Transparent and Opague
Liquid and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity
D446-85a Specifications for Operation of Glass Capillary
Vigeometers
D2015-77 T«at-Method for Gross Calorific Value for Solid Fuel by
th« Adiabatic Bomb Calorimeter
D1888-78 Method A Test Method for Particulate and Dissolved
Matter in Water
D1888-78 Method B Test Method for Particulate and Dissolved
Matter in Water
-------
D93-80 Test Method for Flash Point by Pens)cy-Martens Closed
Tester
D3828-81 Test Method for Flash Point by Setaflash Closed Tester
Kathy indicated that she thought there might be a mechanism
to permit ASTM methods to be included. As we are approaching
our deadline for the next update, I would appreciate any
assistance you can give us on this matter.
My staff and I look forward to working with you. If you
have any questions related to this matter, please contact Denise
Zabinski or me at 202/382-4761.
Best regards,
David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WH-562B)
-------
UNITED : fES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9445.1987(06)
JUN 3 0 I9S7
John J. Mousa, Ph.D.
Environmental Science and
Engineering, Inc.
P.O.Box E£E
Gainesville, FL 32602
Dear Dr. Mouses
I an responding to your request for interpretation of the
SVi-646, Third Edition holding ti»e* for Seri-volatile* in
•oil as they appear in Table 4-1*
Soil/sedinent/sludge sample*, if properly stored, nay be
held for 14 days prior to extraction. Extracted samples cay
be held for 40 days prior to analysis for sen-volatile organic
compounds, provided they are properly stored.
I hope this response answers your question. If Z can be
of core help, please feel free to contact ue.
Regards,
Denisc A. Zabinski
Chemist, Methods Section
cc: David Friedaan
Martin Meyer*
-------
9445.1989(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 89
1. Appendix VIP and Appendix 1%
What is the difference between Appendix VIII and Appendix IX under RCRA?
When is each used?
The hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR) contain two lists of chemicals
which are sometimes confused: Appendix VIII of Part 261, and Appendix IX
of Part 264.
—Appendix vm
Appendix VIE in 40 CFR Part 261 is EPA's list of RCRA hazardous
constituents. This list was first promulgated in the May 19, 1980 Federal
Register (45 £R 33130). The Appendix Vm list is comprised of chemicals
which have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on humans
or ottar life forms. Compounds which meet the criteria for 40 CFR
Sections 26133(e) and (f) as identified in Sections 261.1 l(a)(l), (2), and (3) are
also included in Appendix VTH.
-------
1- Appendix Vin and Appendix IX (Cont'd)
Appendix Vin is a composite of several other lists of regulated chemicals.
Appendix Vin includes chemicals from the priority pollutants list under the
Clean Water Act, chemicals considered hazardous to transport under
Department of Transportation, chemicals identified as carcinogens by EPA's
Carcinogen Assessment Group, and chemicals which have a high acute
toxicity as identified by NIOSH's Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances list. Appendix VIII lists the chemical names in alphabetical
order, the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) name and number, and the
RCRA hazardous waste code (where applicable). There are currently 416
chemicals or classes of chemicals on Appendix Vin.
The main purpose of Part 261, Appendix VIII is to identify the universe of
chemicals of concern under RCRA. Appendix VIII is used for two main
purposes. EPA uses Appendix VIII to determine if a waste contains
hazardous constituents and, therefore, should be considered for listing
under 40 CFR Section 261.11. (Appendix VIII however, should not be used
by a generator identifying hazardous wastes under Part 261, Subparts C and
D. Appendix Vin is much broader than the actual hazardous waste lists in
40 CFR sections 261.31-261.33.) Owners/operators of RCRA facilities use
Appendix VIII for hazardous waste analysis before incineration (Section
264.340).
EPA's original regulations for ground-water monitoring at permitted land
disposal facilities required owners and operators, under some circumstances,
to analyze samples of ground water for all constituents listed on Appendix
VIII. The Agency soon discovered that compliance with this requirement
caused a wide range of practical analytical problems. These problems
included listings in Appendix VIII that covered broad categories (e.g.,
chlorinated naphthalene, not otherwise specified), listings of compounds
which decomposed in water, and listings for which no analytical standard
existed. To abate these ground water monitoring problems, EPA
promulgated Appendix DC of Part 264, the Groundwater Monitoring list (see
52 fR 25112).
—Appendix DC
Part 264, Appendix DC was promulgated to replace Part 261, Appendix Vin
for groundwater monitoring for permitted facilities. Hence Part 264,
Appendix IX is the Groundwater Monitoring List. It is comprised of
compounds in the Part 261, Appendix Vffl list for which it is feasible to
analyze in groundwater samples as well as a few compounds routinely
monitored under Superfund. Appendix DC lists the chemicals' common
name in alphabetical order, the CAS number, the CAS index name, the SW-
846 suggested test method, and the Practical Quantitation Limits (PQL's)
-------
1. Appendix VIII and Appendix IX (Cont'd)
which arc the lowest concentrations of analytes in groundwater that can be
reliably determined within specified precision and accuracy limits using the
suggested method. Appendix DC of Part 264 currently contains 211 chemicals
and their associated test methods.
Under the July 9, 1987, rules (52 £E 25942), an owner/operator of a RCRA
facility will have certain Part 261 Appendix VIII hazardous constituents
specified in his permit for which he must determine background levels (40
CFR Section 264.98). If he determines that there is a statistically significant
increase over the background values specified in his permit at any
monitoring well, he must notify the Regional Administrator and
immediately sample the groundwater in all monitoring wells to determine
the presence and concentration of any Part 264, Appendix IX constituents.
Appendix IX is only used for groundwater monitoring. It is not used as
widely as Part 261, Appendix Vin (e.g. incineration, listing criteria). For
further discussion of Part 261, Appendix Vin and Part 264, Appendix IX and
their respective roles in the groundwater monitoring program under
RCRA, see Part 264, Subpart F and the July 9, 1987 Federal Register (52 F_B
25942).
Source: Bob April (202) 382-7917
Research: Rene* Bench (202)382-3112
-------
Copper - no data available
Dibenz(a,h) anthracene - B2 carcinogen; RSD 2.0x10"* mkd
1,l-Dichloroethane - no data available
Diethyl Phthalate - oral RfD sxio"1 mkd
Indeno [l,2,3-cd]pyrene - C carcinogen; RSD 5.7xlO"s mkd
Iron - no data available
Lead - clean up to background levels
Manganese - no data available
Mercury - oral RfD 2xlO"3 mkd
Nickel - oral RfD 2xlO"2 mkd
Phenanthrene - oral RfD 5.7xlO"5 mkd (this is not an agency
verified number)
Phenol - oral RfD 6xlO"1 mkd
Selenium - (Selenious acid) - oral RfD 3xlO~3 mkd
Silver - oral RfD 3xlO~3 mkd
2,3,7,8 - TCDD - B2 carcinogen RSD 6.2x10'" mkd
toluene - oral RfD 3X10"1 mkd
1,1,1-trichloroethane - oral RfD 9xlO"2 mkd
1,1,2-trichloroehtane - (1) oral RfD 4xlO"3 mkd
(2) RSD 1.7xlO"5 mkd
Vanadium (Vanadium Pentoxide) - oral RfD 9xlO"3 mkd
Vinyl Chloride - no data available
Xylene - oral RfD 2.0 mkd
Zinc - oral RfD 3x10"* mkd
The following compound are currently in the process of
having RfD's developed:
Acenapthene Fluorene
Anthracene Pyrene
Fluoranthene
-------
9445.1992(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SEP 2 I
Mr. Joseph R. Starrs
Recontek, Inc.
P.O. Box 373
Newman, IL 61942-0379
Dear Mr. Storrs:
I am writing in response to your letter of August 28, 1992
regarding the calculation of TCLP concentrations from total
concentrations.
As we previously discussed, you may use total analysis in lieu
of TCLP analysis tp determine if an analyte could possible be above
the appropriate regulatory level. This is stated in Section 1.2 of
Method 1311 (TCLP) as you correctly pointed out. Your understanding
of EPA's policy on this procedure as outlined in paragraph 3 of
your letter is correct.
Equation (2) presented in your letter is not valid and is
inconsistent with paragraph 3 of your letter. Samples are almost
never completely dissolved in the extraction fluid during TCLP
analysis. Generally only a small portion goes into solution as
this is a leaching procedure and not a total dissolution procedure.
To summarize, in the case of a 100% solid sample where TCLP
is required, you may perform a total analysis for the regulated
analyte by an appropriate method, divide the total concentration
found by twenty (20) , and compare the result with the regulatory
limit for that analyte identified in the appropriate regulation.
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 (OS-331)
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1992(02)
2BLWP137.92
December 22, 1992
Ms. Kelly S. Swanson
QA Officer
Analytical Technologies, inc;
11 East Olive Road
Pensacola, Florida 32514
Dear Ms. Swanson:
This letter is in response to your request of December 16,
1992, for clarification on the issue of matrix spikes for Method
8310. Your response to the Florida HRS Water Certification
Deficiency Report was not enclosed with your letter.
I believe that Section 8.7 of Method 8000A, included below,
should adequately address the issue of frequency of spikes from the
Office of Solid Waste Headquarters point of view.
8.7 The laboratory must, on an ongoing basis, analyze a
reagent blank and a matrix spiked duplicate for each
analytical batch (up to a maximum of 20 samples/batch) to
assess accuracy. For soil and waste samples where detectable
amounts of orgariics ar'e present, duplicate samples may be
appropriate in place of spiked duplicates. For laboratories
analyzing one to ten samples per month, at least one spiked
sample per month is required.
However, if the requirements of any RCRA-Authorized State differ
from those of EPA, the State regulations apply.
If you have any questions, please call me at 202-260-7459.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (OS-331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
CONCUMIMCtS
<8 f, OS-FSI
niMieU /.t-S/V/f
T* V /2/22/9Z.
OS- 33 1
nt> >;-•>••'"
/»/*fAv
A Fori. ]320-1 02*70)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1993(01)
January 21, 1993
Mr. Mark J. Mensik
Q.A. Coordinator
Evergreen Analytical,..Inc.
4036 Youngfield Street
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033-6021
Dear Mr. Mensik:
In response to your letter of December 30, 1992, the
definition of holding time, as applicable to the RCRA Program, is
the time period between the taking of the sample and the completion*
of its analysis. In the case cited in your letter, the specific
holding time of seven (7) days, for semivolatile analytes in
aqueous matrices, refers to the time period between the taking of
the sample and the completion of the extraction using either Method
3510 or Method 3520.
4761.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 202-260-
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (OS-331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
COMCUMdNCtS
Ml
RNA.ME k
- >
os -33;
/£SY/K
X/2//93
• GS-431
.Jk~?
JW/V
1
A Form 1320.] 02-70)
•U.S.CPO:l989-624-kSi
OFFICIAL FILC
-------
9445.1993(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
March 11, 1993
Dr. Jerome King
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Director
A & L Midwest Laboratories, Inc.
13611 B Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68144
Dear Dr. King:
I am writing in response to your inquiry of January 28, 1993,
concerning Method 8260 calibration standards and "waste type".
Regarding calibration of Method 8260, the calibration criteria were
established for 5-mL samples, since virtually all volatile organic
analyses performed under the RCRA Program can be done on 5-mL
samples.1 Since RCRA analyses are not typically performed on 25-mL
samples, OSW has not done any extensive investigation of
appropriate RFs for 25-mL samples.
There is an ongoing EPA effort to generate an integrated VOA
method that would satisfy the analytical and regulatory
requirements of the various Agency Program Offices where this issue
is currently being addressed. Until this integrated method is
completed, I would suggest that if you need to run 25-mL samples,
you use either the Drinking Water criteria specified in Method
524.2 or the CLP criteria specified in the Low-Level Volatiles
method in the current CLP Statement of Work.
(j*2£/
Regarding^pinquiry about data reporting, that is an issue
that should be addressed to either your State regulatory agency or
EPA Region 7.
Regarding the QA/QC associated with SW-846 Method 1311 (TCLP),
"waste type" refers to materials which have significant differences
in chemical constituents or physical properties. Every time there
is a significant change in the chemistry or physical state of the
waste, a matrix spike must be performed in order to prove that your
analytical procedure is working properly on the material being
tested. There are a myriad of potential chemical and physical
interferences that can alter analytical results. The matrix spike
is the simplest, most cost-effective means of monitoring these
possible problems.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
We would agree with you that a waste generated from latex
paints is different from a waste generated from enamel paints.
Additionally, a waste generated from a titanium based paint is
different from a waste generated from a lead based paint. There is
no way to simply divide "waste types" into solids, liquids, and
sludges. For example, sludges generated by oil refineries, by
chrome plating operations, and by wood preserving would have
totally different chemistries and certainly must be analyzed as
different "waste types". Spiking one of these sludges tells you
absolutely nothing about the possible analytical problems with the
others .
If you have any further questions about organic or
characteristics methods, call either me or Ollie Fordham at 202-
260-4761.
Sincerely,
**-*^
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (OS-331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
cc: Ollie Fordham
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1993(03)
April 8, 1993
Mr. Alex M. Blanche
Analytical Technologies, Inc.
225 Coamerce Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Mr. Blanche:
This letter is in response to your inquiry of March 30, 1993,
requesting clarification on analytical quantitation using GC/MS
methods. You are correct in your use of the average RF values
obtained for the initial five-point calibration curve for the
quantitation of RCRA analytes using Methods 8240, 8260, and 8270.
The daily midpoint check standard was only intended to verify that
the GC/MS instrument has not drifted out of its initial calibration
Irange. If the daily calibration check fails, the analyst must then
regenerate a new five-point calibration curve.
It is not scientifically sound to quantitate over a wide
calibration range using only a one-point calibration curve
generated from the daily check standard. In addition, analytical
samples should be prepared so that they will fall within the
working range of the initial five-point calibration curve.
We have drafted language to clarify this five-point vs. one-
point calibration issue. This revised language is currently
scheduled to be included in the Third Update revisions of the GC/MS
methods. However, there is a possibility that it could be moved to
the Second Update in response to public comment.
If you have any additional questions, please call me at 202-
260-4761.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (OS-331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
COHCURftENCCS
SYMovJc. i
SURNAME: k
OATE t
OS-SSI
/£"s///*r
'4"/ibs
.J&J&L-
jfoiW*"'
410 to
r/l nn P»/-v/-/...* P......
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1993(04)
APR I 9 1993
Mr. Raymond D. Hiley
Goodwin, Procter & Hoar
Counsellors at Law
Exchange Place
Boston, MA 02109-2881
Dear Mr. Hiley:
Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1993 concerning the
determination of the corrosivity characteristic. The Paint Filter
Liquids Test (Method 9095 in SW-846) was developed to determine
free liquids in a waste. It was never intended for use in
determining if a waste contains any bound or absorbed liquid or if
such liquid is aqueous.
The Office of Solid Waste is looking at the issue of what
constitutes a liquid for characteristic testing. We will shortly
be proposing revisions to the Third Edition of "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste" (SW-846) in the Federal Register. In this
proposal, we hope to clarify the meaning of liquid for
characteristic testing. After this rule is proposed in the Federal
Register, we would happy to sent you a copy of the notice.
The guidance on the use of Method 9095 provided in the
February 16, 1990 letter to Mr. Robert D. Wyatt would still be our
best advice to you until rules have been promulgated defining the
meaning of "liquid" and "aqueous" for characteristic testing.
As you have correctly stated, under the present regulations an
aqueous phase must be present in the sample in order to determine
the corrosivity characteristic by pH measurement. This is because
it is technically impossible to determine pH in liquids where water
is not present.
SURNAME^
DATE
CONCURRENCES
•ii
i
EPAForm132O-1A(1/90)
Printed on Recycled Paper
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
I hope that this information will be of use to your analytical
program. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Ollie
Fordham of our Methods Section at (202) 260-4778.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9445.1993(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 29(993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. E. J. Solomon
Genmin Laboratories
Cnr. East Geduld & Cowles Rd.
Geduld Springs
2357, Springs 1560
Republic of South Africa
Dear Mr. Solomon:
Thank you for your March 18, 1993 letter to Matthew A. Straus
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concerning hexavalent
chromium analysis. EPA has an ion chromatographic procedure for
the analysis of hexavalent chromium, Method 218.6, "Determination
of Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water, Groundwater,
and Industrial Wastewater Effluents by Ion Chromatography."
It was developed for the Office of Water's NPDES program
(Clean Water Act) by EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. The current edition is Revision
3.2 dated April 1991. A copy is enclosed for your information and
convenience. To date, the method has not been promulgated, but it
is being used "uftoxf icially" in many applications where promulgated
regulatory methods are not required.
The Office of Solid Waste intends to incorporate Method 218.6
into SW-846 for its own testing needs after it passes.work group
review and is put into SW-846 format. Another ion chromatographic
procedure being considered by our work group is Method 0013,
"Determination of Hexavalent Chromium Emissions from Stationary
Sources." This is a draft method and is unavailable for
distribution at this time.
I have made numerous phone calls to ascertain if there have
been any updates to EPA's regulations governing disposal of Cr(VI)
and Cr(III) wastes, particularly with respect to possible oxidation
of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) and the possible reclassification of Cr(III)
wastes as hazardous wastes. I have been unable to find any
addition information on this topic beyond the October 30, 1980
Federal Register notice which you cited.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
I hope 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 M. Fcrdham, Jr.
National Inorganic Program
Manager for RCRA
Enclosure
cc: Alec McBride, TAB, (OS-331)
Larry Rosengrant, WTB, (OS-322W)
Matt Straus, WMD, (OS-320W)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
- ? 1993
9445.1993(06)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Quality Assurance Project Plans for RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring and
Corrective Action Activities
/ !///!•/
Sylvia Lowrance,
Office of Solid
Office of Solid Wast
H. Matthew Bills, Direct!
Office of Modeling, M
Office of Research aiicl Develop
ality Assurance
TO:
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Environmental Service Division Directors, Regions I-X
A fundamental requirement of the RCRA program is the collection of
environmental data that are of adequate and documented quality to support our decision
making. To meet this requirement, data quality objectives (DQOs) are established
through the quality assurance project planning process. This memorandum discusses the
application of the DQO process to the ground-water monitoring and corrective action
program, and provides additional information sources and guidance documents that are
available for quality assurance program development. As a follow-up to this
memorandum, we are developing examples of Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPjPs).
These examples will demonstrate that QAPjPs can be of varying complexity depending
upon their associated DQOs, and that review and approval of QAPjPs designed to
achieve less complex DQOs can be expedited in certain cases.
The overall level of uncertainty that a decision maker is willing to accept in this
decision making process is known as a DQO. Quality assurance project plans are used
as a management control to ensure that DQOs are defined and documented. QAPjPs
may vary in complexity based on acceptable levels of uncertainty associated with the
goals of a specific project. The minimum elements of a quality assurance program for all
data collection activities in RCRA are outlined in Chjapter One (Quality Assurance) of
'Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" (EPA SW-846,
Third Edition, as amended by Update One, July 1992), which is currently being issued by
the Office of Solid Waste.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Chapter One of SW-846 addresses Qu? \ssurance (QA) programs and Quality
Control (QC) procedures that should be impl zed by hazardous waste facility owners
and operators conducting ground-water monitc. .ug and remediation programs pursuant
to RCRA. Chapter One of SW-846 defines fundamental elements f a data collection
program that include:
1. Design of a project plan to achieve the data quality objectives (DQOs);
2. Implementation of the project plan; and
3. Assessment of the data to determine if the DQOs are met.
The overall acceptable level of uncertainty expressed by the DQO is used to
specify the quality of the data, usually in terms of precision, bias, representativeness,
comparability and completeness. These terms apply to the entire measurement system
(e.g., sampling network design, sample collection and handling, laboratory analyses, etc.),
not just the analytical operations. QAPjPs, or equivalents, such as ground-water
sampling and analysis plans, should detail the Quality Assurance and Quality Control
(QA/QC) goals and protocols for data collection activities that will generate data of
adequate quality to achieve the DQOs.
We consider the DQO/QAPjP process to be necessary for adequate data
collection in the corrective action program. The process used within a Region for review
and approval of QAPjPs should be documented in the Regional Quality Management
Plan. How the process is structured is a Regional decision that should consider
resources (FTE and time), criteria for the reviews, and available expertise.
In addition, during the Corrective Action Program Reviews, the Regions raised
questions about the amount of detail required in QAPjPs and the level of review
necessary for QAPjP approval. The DQ(5 process is designed to collect data that are
scientifically valid, defensible, and of known precision and accuracy relative to the use for
which the data are obtained. Different components of the corrective action process may
have different objectives and data collection uses. This data use may vary in complexity,
for example, from field screening to delineate areas of gross contamination ("hot spots"),
to detection monitoring scenarios where constituent concentrations are measured in
ground water at the parts per billion (ppb) level of sensitivity. For specific project
purposes, it may be acceptable for the DQOs for hot spot screening to be of lesser
precision than those for the ground water analyses. Similarly, QAPjPs that detail the
data acquisition and analysis for less precise DQOs can also be of reduced detail, and
may be more quickly reviewed and approved in certain cases. As stated earlier,
examples of QAPjPs for field screening and RCRA facility Investigation (RFI) activities
that involve reduced levels of detail but still meet the DQOs are under development,
and will be sent i. you in the future.
-------
To assist you in the development of QAPjPs and DQOs, we are forwarding
several recently published guidance documents that address data quality. These
documents include:
1. Chapter One of 'Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods" (EPA SW-846, Update to Third Edition, July 1992),
2. Ground-Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance (EPA/530-R-93-001;
November 1992),
3. Handbook of RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Constituents: Chemical and
Physical Properties (EPA/530-R-92-022; September 1992),
4. Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities:
Addendum to Interim Final Guidance (EPA/530-R-93-003; July 1992),
5. Ground-Water Information Tracking System and Statistical Analysis Software
(GRTTS/STAT) and User Manual (July 1992).
We hope that the enclosed materials are helpful in assisting with the development
of DQOs and QAPjPs. If you or your staff members have any questions or additional
suggestions on how to improve data quality, please contact Charles Sellers, OSWs
Quality Assurance Officer at (202) 260-3282.
Enclosures (5)
cc: Dave Fagan, OSW
Ken Gigliello, OWPE
Charles Sellers, OSW
Nancy Wentworth, ORD
Regional RCRA Branch Chiefs
Regional Quality Assurance Managers
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1993(07)
September 2, 1993
Mr. Chris Ricardi
QA/QC Coordinator
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
110 Free Street
P. O. Box 7050
Portland, Maine 04112-7050
Dear Mr. Ricardi:
I am writing in response to your inquiry of August 30, 1993,
regarding initial and continuing calibration requirements in Method
8240. The Office of Solid Waste considers the language in Section
7.3.4,
"If no source of the problem can be determined after
corrective action has been taken, a new five point calibration
MUST be generated. This criterion MUST be met before
quantitative sample analysis begins."
to be clear and unambiguous. If you are out of calibration for
your Calibration Check Compounds, you must generate a new five-
point calibration curve before you analyze any samples. This does
not mean using an archived curve from last month or five years ago.
It means generating a new five-point curve immediately prior to
running any samples. However, you only have to meet the
calibration requirements for the actual target compounds which you
must determine for your particular application.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 202-260-
7459.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
OSW-Methods Section (OS-331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1993(08)
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 5, 1993
SUBJECT: Additional Analytes for HWIR Target Analyte List in
Wastewater
FROM: Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (5304)
TO: William Morrow
Characteristics Section (5304)
Per your request of November 3, 1993, I have reviewed the six
potential HWIR analytes for their analytical suitability and their
potential to be found in wastewaters. Paraldehyde, formaldehyde
and chloroacetaldehyde can be found and analyzed in wastewater
matrices. Appropriate analytical methods for paraldehyde are
sample preparation by Method 5031 (Azeotropic Distillation)
followed by determination by either method 8015B (GC/FID) or Method
8260 (GC/MS). Formaldehyde can be analyzed by Method 8315 (HPLC).
Chloroacetaldehyde has not been tested as a Method 8315 analyte,
but I believe that it should be suitable for HPLC determination
using this method. High concentrations of chloroacetaldehyde in
water result in the formation of an insoluble hemihydrate form of
the compound, which precipitates out.
Phosgene is a gas which reacts vigorously with water. Thus,
it is highly unlikely to be found in wastewater matrices. Sodium
azide and hydrofluoric acid are also highly reactive compounds
which are unlikely to be found in wastewater matrices.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 260-7459.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1993(09)
December 7, 1993
Ms. Mickey Owens
President
SOS Environmental, Inc.
13800 Thermal Drive
Austin, Texas 78728
Dear Ms. Owens:
This letter is in response to your inquiry of December 1,
1993, about the use of Method 1311 as an alternate extraction
procedure for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in soils. The
fact that we are not able to respond within the unrealistic
timeframe specified in your letter, does not in any way affect your
obligations under the RCRA regulations.
In response to your specific questions, I would like to
clarify that Method 1311-Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) is not an extraction procedure, but a leaching procedure.
It was not designed as a sample preparation extraction method,
which maximizes analyte removal from a solid matrix, but as a
measure of how much of the target analytes may leach from a waste
in a landfill into the groundwater, due to rain and other
environmental factors. Therefore, TCLP is not an appropriate
sample preparation procedure either for extractable TPH or for
volatile TPH fractions such as gasoline. It is neither equivalent
to the sample preparation procedures in the following paragraphs,
nor is it an adequate sample preparation method for TPH in soils.
In our opinion, the appropriate methods to be used for the
preparation of extractable TPH in soils are Method 3540-Soxhlet
Extraction, Method 3541-Automated Soxhlet Extraction, or Method
3560-Supercritical Fluid Extraction (SFE). Methods 3540 and 3541,
using pentane as the extraction solvent, are appropriate for the
preparation of samples from which the TPH is to be determined only
by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC/FID)
(Method 8015B). Method 3560 is appropriate for the preparation of
samples from which the TPH is to be determined either by GC/FID
(Method 8015B) or by Infrared Spectroscopy (IR) (Method 8440).
-------
Also, in our opinion, the appropriate methods to be used for
volatile TPH in soils are closed-system purge-and-trap (Method
5035) as the preparative method, followed by GC/FID (Method 8015B)
as the determinative method. Aromatic gasoline fractions (BTEX)
can be determined by GC simultaneously with TPH by using a
photoionization detector (PID) (Method 8021) in series with the FID
(Method 8015B).
If you have any further questions, or want to request copies
of the methods mentioned above, please call the Methods Section
Office at 202-260-4761.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (5304)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
-------
9445.1994(01)
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
January 1994
1.
RCRA
Use of Total Waste Analysis in Toxicity
Characteristic Determinations
A generator suspects that his waste may
exhibit the toxicity characteristic and thus be
subject to regulation as a RCRA hazardous
waste. Since he is unsure of the types and
concentrations of hazardous contaminants
present in the waste, he performs a total waste
analysis. Can he use the results'of the total
waste analysis to make a toxicity characteristic
determination, or must he perform Method
1311, the toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP), to determine the waste's
regulatory status?
While a toxicity characteristic
determination under §261.24 typically
involves application of the TCLP followed by
analysis of the TCLP extract, a generator may
be able to use total waste analysis to
demonstrate that a waste does not exhibit the
toxicity characteristic. Section 1.2 of the
TCLP states, "If a total analysis of the waste
demonstrates that individual analytes are not
present in the waste, or that they are.present
but at such low concentrations that the
appropriate regulatory levels could not
possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not be
run." This analysis can provide the generator
with a convenient and cost-effective means of
determining if he needs to run the TCLP in
order to definitively characterize a waste.
The means for using total waste analysis
results to make a toxicity characteristic
determination reflect TCLP methodology and
therefore vary depending on whether the waste
is defined as a liquid, a solid, or a dual-phase
waste. Under the TCLP, liquid wastes (i.e.,
those wastes that contain less than 0.5% dry
solids) do not require extraction. The waste,
after filtration, is defined as the TCLP extract
(Pan 261, Appendix n, §2.1). A generator can
therefore characterize a liquid waste by filtering
the waste, measuring total constituent
concentrations in the resulting filtrate, and
comparing these concentrations to the
appropriate regulatory limits under §261.24.
Wastes which are either 100% solid (i.e.,
wastes that contain no filterable liquid (Part
261, Appendix n, §7.1.1.1)) or which contain
both a liquid and a solid component require
conversion of total waste analysis data to
estimates of constituent concentrations in the
TCLP extract, or maximum theoretical leachate
concentrations. For instance, to evaluate the
regulatory status of a 100% solid, a generator
can simply divide each total constituent
concentration by 20 and then compare the
resulting maximum theoretical leachate
concentration to the appropriate regulatory limit
(ihe division factor reflects the 20-to-l ratio of
extraction fluid to solid used in the TCLP). If
no maximum theoretical leachate concentration
equals or exceeds the appropriate regulatory
limit, the solid cannot exhibit the toxicity
characteristic and the TCLP need not be run.
The generator of a dual-phase waste (i.e.. a
waste which has both a solid and a filterable
liquid component) can perform a total waste
analysis on the liquid and solid portions and
calculate maximum theoretical leachate
-------
Hotline Questions and Answers
January 1994
concentrations for the waste as a whole by
combining results mathematically through use
of the following formula:
[A x B] + [C x D]
B + [20L/kgxD]
= M
where:
A= concentration of the analyte in the
liquid portion of the sample (mg/L)
B= volume of the liquid portion of the
sample (L)
C= concentration of the analyte in the
solid portion of the sample (mg/kg)
D=. weight of the solid portion of the
sample (kg)
MS maximum theoretical leachate
concentration (mg/L)
For example:
A generator who receives the results of a
total waste analysis wi- '••?s to determine if his
waste exhibits the toxic., characteristic for
lead. Since he knows the lead concentration
in each phase of the waste (0.023 mg/L in the
liquid phase, 85 mg/kg in the solid phase), the
volume of the liquid phase (0.025 L), and the
weight of the solid phase (0.075 kg), he can
calculate the waste's maximum theoretical
leachate concentration:
[AxB] + [CxD]
B + [20L/kgxD]
[0.023 mg/L x 0.025 L] + [85 mg/kg x 0.075 kg|
0.025 L + [20 L/kg x 0.075 kg]
Because the 4.18 mg/L maximum
theoretical leachate concentration is below the
5.0 mg/L regulatory limit, the generator
determines that the waste cannot exhibit the
toxicity characteristic for lead.
If maximum theoretical leachate
concentrations are less than the applicable
limits under §261.24, the waste does not
exhibit the toxicity characteristic and the
TCLP neeu not be run. If, on the other hand,
total waste analysis data yield a maximum
theoretical leachate concentration that equals
or exceeds the toxicity characteristic
threshold, the data cannot be used to
conclusively demonstrate that the waste does
not exhibit the toxicity characteristic. The
generator may have to conduct further testing
to make a definitive toxicity characteristic
determination.
= 4.18 mg/L
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9445.1994(02)
March 10, 1994
Dr. Joe Tehran!
SFE Programs Manager
Isco, Inc.
Separation Instruments Division
P. 0. Box 5347
Lincoln, Nebraska 68505
Dear Joe:
Thank you for your letter of January 25, 1994, submitting the
results of the BCO PAH study using SFE as the preparative method.
While we have not yet had the time to review it in great detail,
there is one major issue in the preliminary validation that causes
OSW considerable concern.
The issue of concern is the comparison of the SFE extraction
results to those obtained using Sonication (Method 3550) rather
than Soxhlet extraction (Methods 3540 or 3541) for a validation
study. It is well known that target analyte recoveries using
Method 3550 are lower than those obtained using either Method 3540
or Method 3541 (See References 1 and 2 below). OSW has also made
it clear that validation of new extraction procedures should be
done with comparison of results to the most rigorous validated
reference method,* i.e., Soxhlet extraction. Prior to making an
informed evaluation on the BCO PAH method, the SW-846 Organic
Methods Workgroup would like to see both single laboratory and
round robin data evaluated against Soxhlet extraction using either
Method 3540 or 3541.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 202-260-
7459. I am enclosing for your information a copy of Reference 1.
Sincerely,
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (5304)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
attachment
-------
References
1. Christopher S. Hein, Paul J. Marsden, Arthur S. Shurtleff,
"Evaluation of Methods 3540 (Soxhlet) and 3550 (Sonication)
for Evaluation of Appendix IX Analytes form Solid Samples", S-
CUBED, Report for EPA Contract 68-03-33-75, Work Assignment
No. 03, Document No. SSS-R-88-9436, October 1988.
2. Lopez-Avila, V. (W. Beckert, Project Officer) ; "Development of
a Soxtec Extraction Procedure for Extraction of Organic
Compounds from Soils and Sediments"; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory. Las Vegas, NV, October 1991; EPA 600/X-91/140.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9445.1994(03)
, ._ .« IQQ. OFFICE OF
MAR |U iyy4 SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Chris Miller
National Technical Director of Inorganics
GTEL Environmental Labs, Inc.
Meadowbrook Industrial Park
Milford, NH 03055
Dear Mr. Miller:
I am writing in response to your letter of February 23, 1994
to Alec McBride concerning your request for a variance to use
palladium for graphite furnace analysis in several SW-846 metals
methods .
Monitoring requirements under RCRA Subtitle C specify only
that the analyst must demonstrate that he can determine the
analytes of concern in the matrix of concern at the regulatory
level of concern. Since SW-846 methods are written as guidance
for a wide variety of matrices, it is up to the individual
analyst to optimize a particular method to his specific needs.
Allowable modifications include adjustment of sample size or
injection volumes, dilution or concentration of the sample, and
modification or replacement of equipment. These method changes
must be documented and the analyst must demonstrate that his
method can meet the previously-stated analytical requirements.
Specifically, Chapter Two of SW-846, Section 2.1.2, states that
reagents "specified in these methods may be replaced by any
similar types as long as this substitution does not affect the
overall quality of the analyses".
If you have any further questions concerning inorganic
methods, please call Ollie Fordham of my staff at (202) 260-4778.
Sincerely,
Gail Hansen
Chief,
Methods Section
(5304)
cc: Alec McBride
Ollie Fordham
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9451.1993(01)
SEP 20 1993
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Frank J. Prasil
Recycled Printer's Ink
133 West End Av.-nue
Knoxville, TN IT/922
Dear Mr. Prasil:
This is in response to our phone conversations of September 14
and 15, 1993, in which you asked m<= to clarify a couple of points
in the September 1, 1993, letter f;om Mr. Denit to you.
Specifically, I confirmed that under Federal regulations at 40 CFR
Section 261.5 (g), conditionally exempt small quantity generators
of hazardous vsste may send their waste to any of the types of
facilities specified in Section 261.5 (g) (3), and this includes "a
.acility which beneficially uses or reuses, or legitimately
recycles or reclaims..." the waste. (Section 261.5(g)(3)(v)(A).)
Further, as we discussed, waste shipped from conditionally
exempt small quantity generators under the conditions of Section
261.5 need not be accompanied by the National Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest. Finally, as the September 1, 1993, letter from Mr.
Denit noted, individual States may have more stringent regulations
than EPA's, and U.S. Department of Tre i;portation regulations also
may apply. Thank you for your intt.ast in sound recycling of
waste. If you have further questions, please contact Ross Elliot
or Ann Codrington of my staff at (202)260-8551.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
. Recycled/Recyclable
Prtmtd wtlh Soy/C«nol» Ink on piper that
contain* at IMSI SON recycled fiber
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ApriM995
9445.1995(01)
RCRA
2. Nitroglycerin Patches: Not Listed
Hazardous Wastes When Discarded
Unused
Nitroglycerine can be administered as a
medication by applying a patch containing the
chemical to a patient's skin. Nitroglycerine
appears on the P-list of RCRA hazardous
wastes and carries the waste code P081 (40
CFR §26l33(e)). When nitroglycerine
patches are discarded unused, must they be
classified as P-listed hazardous waste?
Discarded unused nitroglycerine patches
arc not classified as P-listed hazardous waste.
The P- and U-lists of hazardous wastes at 40
CFR §261.33(e) and (f) apply to unused
discarded commercial chemical products.
EPA refers to commercial chemical products
as commercially pure grades and technical
grades of the listed chemicals or chemical
formulations in which the listed chemical is
the sole active ingredient (54 FR 31335,
31336; July 28,1989). Although
nitroglycerine may be the only chemically
active component of a medical patch, a
nitroglycerine patch is considered a
manufactured article, similar to mercury-
containing thermometers, not a commercial
chemical product. EPA did not intend for the
phrase "commercial chemical product" to
apply to manufactured articles like medical
patches that contain a chemical listed in
§261.33. Unused discarded nitroglycerine
patches are regulated under RGRA Subtitle C
only if they exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste.
-------
9450 - GENERATOR
STANDARDS
Part 262
ATKl/l 104/21 kp
-------
9451 - GENERAL
Part 262 Subpart A
ATK1/1104/22 kp
-------
9451.1980(01)
December 2, 1980
Michael Ridge
Manager, Environmental Health
Carrier Corporation
Carrier Tower
P.O. Box 4000
Syracuse, New York 13221
Dear Mr. Ridge:
This is in response to your letter of August 19, 1980, to
Ms. Eileen Claussen requesting clarification of our RCRA
hazardous waste management regulations as they pertain to
hazardous waste generated in the field servicing of air
conditioning equipment.
Your letter indicates that in servicing air conditioning
equipment owned by your customers, your servicemen may remove
waste oil, spent refrigerant and other materials from such
equipment and, because these materials are to be discarded, they
are solid wastes and may be hazardous wastes. You basically ask
whether your company is a generator of hazardous waste (or
whether the owner of the equipment being serviced is the
generator) and what are your company's responsibilities, if any,
are in managing such hazardous waste.
We interpret our regulations such that, when hazardous
wastes are generated in the servicing of equipment (air
conditioning or other types of equipment), both the owner of the
equipment being serviced and the person (company) performing the
servicing are generators and are jointly and severally liable for
performing the generator's responsibilities of Part 262 of our
regulations. We hasten to point out, however, that we will allow
and, in fact, prefer one of these parties to perform the
generator duties. And, where one party, in fact, does perform
those duties, we will look to that party as the generator and
normally will not bother the other party. However, we feel that,
from an enforcement position, we must hold both parties jointly
and severally responsible. A discussion of this can be found in
the preamble to a recent amendment we promulgated in 45 Federal
Register 72026-72027, a copy of which is enclosed.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
I hope I have helped clarify our regulations for you. If
you would have additional questions, please do not hesitate to
write, call or come see me. I apologize for the tardiness of
this response but we simply have been overwhelmed with requests
for clarification of our regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Gary H. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
Enclosure
bcc: Filomena Chau w/incoming
Jack Lehman w/incoming
Regional A&HM Division Directors, Regions I, III-X
w/incoming
Water Division Region II w/incoming
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9451.1980(02)
NOV 1 8 S60
Julie R. Cooper
Attorney
Mobay Chemical Corporation
Penn Lincoln Parkway West
Pittsburg, Pennsylvaina 15205
Dear Ms. Cooper
mis is in response to your letter of Sovenber 3, 1960, to
Ms. Filcmena Chau requesting an interpretation of our hazardous
waste management regulation.
You indicate that your company hires many independent contractors
and they/ in tan, often; hire, subcontractors to perform various
services including painting, janitolcal service*, boiler cleaning
and construction. YOU indicate that these contractors and
subcontractors generate waste* and that acme of theee wastes may
be hac&rdous waste*. You state that you normally require your
contractors to remove their wastes from your premises and you indicate
that they may or may not require waate removal by their subcontractors
Finally, you say that you would Ilka to continue the practice of
having contractors remove their waste but would like to have the
option of assuming this responsibility.
By implication, you ar« making who is the generator of hazardous
west-* your company or your contractors (or has nuL-centractor) EPA
contends that both parties or, as the ease may be. all three parties
are generators and are Jointly and severally liable for complying
with the generator standards in Part 262 of oar regulations (see 45
Fed. Beg. 33140-33148). Me do not object to and, in fa?», nrefer
that only one of theee partiea. by mutual agzeemeat (e.g., a contract)
perform theee responsibilities In fact. We will reeerve the right,
however, to mold both or all three partiea liable for these
responsibilities ia any enforcement actions we might take as a result
of a violation of the regulations. This interpretation parallels
the Interpretation we have taken and discussed In the preamble to a
recent amendment to our regulations (see 45 red. Keg. 72026-72027,
October 30, 1*80).
-------
-2-
Consequently, either your company, your contractor or his
subcontractor can assume responsibility for removing hazardous
wastes generated on your premises and further assume the responsibility
for complying with Part 262 of our regulation, as your company
prefers. But your company, in any case, wil have liability for
proper performance of these responsibilities.
We will plan to issue this interpretation in a Regulatory
Interpretation Memorandum in the near future. Pending such issuance,
you can consider this letter to be an official interpretation on
znattsr.
Sincerely yours
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
bcc: Filcciena Chau w/incoming
Mike Barclay w/incoming
Regional AtHM Division Directors w/incoming
-------
Mobay
Mobay
Chemical Corporation
November 5, 1980
: 412/777-2000
Ms. Filomena Chau
Office of Solid Waste am 562)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Independent Contractor Generators
Dear M§,. Chau:
I have had several conversations with regional and headquarters'
staff regarding the regulatory status of independent contractors
who generate hazardous waste on sites owned or leased by us.
None of these persons .has been able to point to specific
affirmative regulations that clearly set forth the responsi-
bilities of the owner and the independent contractor under these
circumstances.
In the manufacture of chemicals and maintenance and construction
of plants, many independent contractors are used. These
contractors-and their subcontractors may generate hazardous
waste in the course of performance of their contracts. Examples
of contractors who might generate hazardous waste include
consulting engineers, painting contractors, janitorial services,
boiler cleaning services, industrial cleaners, construction
contractors and common carriers. In many of our contracts we
would oblige the contractor to remove waste from our premises.
These contractors may or may not contract in the same manner
with their subcontractors. We would like to be able to continue
Writer's Diract Dial Number
412 - 777-2187
ChMncttt • Dywtiftt • nb«n • Mu«ntl
-------
November 5, 1980
Ms. Filomena Chau Page 2
the practice of having the contractors remove waste from our
premises , but we would also like to have the option of being
able to take the waste from them for disposal.
Please advise us of the proper procedures to follow in each
instance. If appropriate, we would appreciate issuance of a.
Regulatory Interpretation Memorandum.
Very truly yours ,
Julie R. Cooper
Attorney
JHC:my
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 83
9451.1983(02)
RCRA
Several colleges andvuniversities have asked for clarification on
the issues of filing for generator I.D. numbers and determination
of eligibility as small quantity generators.
Several basic configurations exist for college campuses. The
rural or suburban campus might have several buildings on one
contiguous piece of property. This would be considered a single
or Individual generation site even though one or more hazardous
wastes are generated from one or more sources. One EPA I.D.
number would be assigned, and small quantity generator status
would be determined by looking at the total hazardous waste
generated or accumulated on the site.
Many university campuses are divided by public roads or other
r1ghts-of-way which they do not control. Metropolitan CMpt*e»
are frequently constructed on « nunber of adjoining city blocks
where the various campus buildings ar* separated by city streets
but the buildings may be connected by tunnels or overhead walkways.
Even 1n these oases, each generation site (I.e., each city
block or each half of a canpus bisected by a public road) would
be a generator (or small quantity generator} and assigned Its
own EPA I.D. nunber.
Hazardous wastes being shipped from one campus building (I.e.,
generator) to another building (I.e., TSOF) where the sites are
divided by a highway would need a manifest while on the highway.
The one exception 1s when the waste 1s shipped directly across
the road. In this case, the receiving building Is considered
"on-slte,* as defined 1n 40CFR 260.10 even though both sites
are required to have separate EPA I.D. numbers. (NOTE: The
definition of *on-s1te* 1s Intended to be used only In determining
whether or not • generator should Initiate a Manifest. It does
not define two buildings owned and/or operated by the same
person hut divided by a highway as one generator site). The
Agency's philosophy Is to Identify each shipment of hazardous
waste as being from a specific location. EPA needs to Identify who
Is responsible for the waste (I.e., who created the waste, determined
1t to be hazardous, and 1s liable for Its proper ainagement). This
may cause some or all of the waste from a university to be subject
to the reduced requirements of the small quantity generator.
The Agency Is contemplating lowering the small quantity generator
exclusion limit which should then capture th^se wastes.
Source: Lee Daneker and Rolf H111
-------
9451.1984(02)
September 4, 1984
K. T. Allford
NL Treating Chemicals
NL Industries, Inc.
17402 Wallisville Rd.
P.O. Box 490
Channelview, TX 77530
Dear Ms. Allford:
I am writing in response to your July 24, 1984, request for
application of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste identification regulations as they apply to
SULFA-CHECK spent slurry.
It is the responsibility of the person who generates a solid
waste to determine whether the waste is a hazardous waste,
following the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 262.11. First,
SULFA-CHECK is not excluded from regulation in §261.4. Second,
determine whether SULFA-CHECK is a listed waste from 40 CFR 261
Subpart D, and, third, determine whether or not SULFA-CHECK is
hazardous based on 40 CFR 261 Subpart C characteristics either by
testing or applying knowledge. Steps 2 and 3 are elaborated on
below.
Since it is spent, it is neither a §261.33(e) or (f) unused
commercial chemical product, off-specification species,
container, nor spill residue of those listed chemicals. You have
probably eliminated the §261.31 and §261.32 source listings based
on your knowledge of the waste.
The sample has a flash point of over 200°F, but the test
procedure was not specified. Ordinarily, open cup tests (such as
the Department of Transportation requires) will produce higher
flash points than the closed cup tests required by EPA. You
should determine what type of flash point protocol was used by
the Chemical Research Laboratories.
If SULFA-CHECK is aqueous, it is not corrosive. If it is a
nonaqueous liquid, the "quarter-inch" corrosivity test (or an
equivalent method) outlined in 261.22 must be performed.
Although the RCRA regulations do not specify tests for
reactivity, suggested cyanide and sulfide concentrations are less
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
-2-
than 10 ppm, or roughly 10 mg/kg. You should ascertain the
reactivity status of SULFA-CHECK.
In terms of EP toxicity criteria, your laboratory report
does not indicate how the analysis was performed, and your
enclosed analysis does not indicate concentrations of the
pesticides produced by the EP toxicity procedure. You can
probably conclude, based on the starting composition of SULFA-
CHECK and the type of use it has, that none of the heavy metals
or pesticides designated in the EP toxic test would be found in
SULFA-CHECK.
You should not perform the determinations outlined in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(2) to classify your waste. The Administrator uses
those criteria to designate solid wastes as hazardous waste.
Thus, even if a solid waste met one of the criteria, it is not a
hazardous waste until so designated by EPA.
I hope this overview of the hazardous waste determination
clarifies the steps you must take in order to certify whether or
not SULFA-CHECK is a RCRA hazardous waste. On the basis of what
you wrote, SULFA-CHECK would not be a RCRA hazardous waste, but
you will have to confirm this preliminary determination by
reviewing the points I have raised. You can understand why the
regulations (§262.11) make it the generator's responsibility to
determine whether their solid waste is hazardous, considering the
many parameters involved.
As you may know, 44 States and territories have instituted
hazardous waste programs that operate in lieu of RCRA. In those
States, you will have to comply with State hazardous waste
specifications, instead of the Federal standards. You should
contact the appropriate State agency to acquire their regulatory
standards. For a copy of the State hazardous waste agency
addresses and phone numbers, and for a further discussion of your
question, call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346.
Please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 382-4770 if the
Hotline cannot clarify these issues for you.
Sincerely yours,
Alan S. Corson
Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9451.1985(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUWD HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 85
3. Waste Minimization
Section 3002(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended, requires that a
generator sign a certification on the manifest (EPA form 8700-22) and on the biennial
report. The certification states that the generator "has a program in place to
reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of such waste to the degree determined by
the generator to be economically practicable." If a generator of hazardous waste
reclaims and reuses some of the hazardous waste on-site and sends the rest off-site
for recycling, can the generator certify that a waste minimization program is in
place since the volume of hazardous waste actually disposed of has been minimized?
The waste minimization provision of SWQA S3002(b) is a self-isplementing program
in which the choice of compliance mechanism is to be made by the generator in ligf
of his/her own particular circumstances. The waste minimization requirement is met
for the purpose of certification when the generator makes a good faith effort to
minimize threats to human health and the environment. EPA has determined that
various management practices conducted by a generator can be viewed as forms of
waste minimization, e.g., participation in a waste exchange, recycling of solvents,
and that these practices are consistent with the Congressional intent of the requir
ment (see Senate Report No. 284, 98th Congress, 1st Session 66 (1983)). These
activities reduce the volume of waste disposed of by the individual generator and
also minimize the overall quantity of hazardous waste disposed of by allowing
continual reuse of hazardous substances. Therefore, in the case described above,
the generator may sign the certification on the manifest since the generator has
a waste minimization program in place.
Source: Elaine Eby (202) 382-7930
-------
UN' 'D STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT 4 AGENCY
9451.1986(01}
f.'MS | 7 1566
Honorable Edwin Garn
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Garn:
This letter resoonds to your request dated February 4,
1986, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Richard L. Meibos.
Mr. Meibos is concerned that regulations being promulgated for
small quantity generators of hazardous waste will force his
institution to change certain waste management practices.
The regulations to which Mr. Meibos refers are being promul-
gated under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA), signed into law on November 8, 1984. HSWA directs the
Agency to promulgate standards "for hazardous waste generated
by a generator in a total quantity of hazardous waste greater
than 100 kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms during a calendar
month," by March 31, 1986 (Section 3001(d)(l)). HSWA also
specifies certain minimum requirements for these 100-1000 kg/mo
generators~*that the standards must include. One such statutory
requirement is that treatment, lona-term storage (for more than
180 days or 270 days if the waste is to be shipped more than 200
miles), and disposal of hazardous waste from 100-1000 kg/mo
Generators occur at a facility which has interim status or a
permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The Agency proposed standards for these generators on Auoust 1,
1985, and accepted comments on the proposal until September 30,
1985. EPA expects to promulgate final standards before the
March 31, 1986, deadline. These standards will incorporate the
statutory minimum requirements. A copy of the proposed rule is
enclosed.
Mr. Meibos discusses the following waste manaqement practices:
—burninq waste as fuel;
—evaporating waste in rooftop containers;
—discharging diluted waste to public sewer systems; and
—neutralizing sludges, mixing them with sand or vermiculite,
and disposing of them in solid waste management facilities.
Currently, regulated quantities of hazardous waste may be
burned as fuel in industrial boilers without a permit or interim
status. In the coming months, we will propose technical standards
for the operation of these industrial boilers, a» HSWA requires.
-------
By contrast, burninq of regulated quantities of hazardous waste
in non-industrial boilers, such as those at schools, hospitals
and'office buildings, is prohibited (see 40 CFR 266.31, as amended
at 50 FR 49164 (November 29, 1985)).
Reoulated quantities of hazardous waste may be stored in
containers, but those containers Bust be closed except when
necessary to add or remove waste (40 CPR 265.173). Disposal of
requlated quantities of hazardous waste must occur at a facility
which has interim status or a permit from EPA or an authorized
State.
Materials that pass through a sewer system to a publicly owned
treatment work (POTW) are excluded from the hazardous waste
management provisions of RCRA (40 CFR 261.4). However, such
materials may be subject to pretreatment standards under the
Clean Water Act or to local limits on what may be sent to the
POTW.
If a slu^ne results from the treatment of a listed hazardous
waste (lists of hazardous waste are found at 40 CFR Part 261
Subpart D) and that sludge is mixed with other material, the
entire mixture is considered a hazardous waste and must be
managed as such. A sludge could also be a hazardous waste if it
exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity, reactivity, ignitability,
or extraction procedure toxicity (40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C).
If such a sludge is mixed with other material, the mixture must
be managed as a hazardous waste only if the mixture continues to
exhibit one or more characteristics.
Mr. Meibos is concerned that chanaes in hazardous waste law
and regulations will result in more waste being disposed of on land,
which may cause releases from sites such as those which occurred
at the Love Canal. The Congress made limitations on land disposal
of hazardous waste an Agency priority in HSWA. This statute
prohibits land disposal of Hazardous waste by certain dates, unless
the Agoncy determines that land disposal would be protective of
hu..van health and the environment.
Mr. *»teibos also discusses a generator's permanent legal
liability for management of the generator's hazardous waste.
This liability was established by the Comorehensive Environmental
Response, Compen£«tj.cn »*>rt Li«oi.i.i.t/ Act (Super i-unci) It applies
to all generators of ha*»riious wast? anU ?« rot sublet to
change by the Agency.
One method for mitigating the land Disposal and liability
nrobloms discussed by Mr. Koibos is for generators to rortuc-. the
amount of hazardous waste they produce. HSI7A enc^ur»,oes wasto
minimization an<1 the Agency is current.v pru-'yincj waste minimization
stratoaies.
-------
The American Chenical Society has produced a brochure
entitled 5Less is Better," that describes techniaues laboratories
may use to reduce the amount of hazardous wastes they nroduce. I
have enclosed a copy, which you may want to pass alonq to Mr. Meibos,
I have also enclosed a cooy of an EPA brochure which describes the
current requirements for 100-1000 kg/mo generators, and an insert
which deals specifically with laboratory wastes.
I hope that this addresses Mr. Meibos1 concerns. If I can
be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
-------
9451.1986(02)
March 17, 1986
Honorable Gillespie V. Montgomery
House of Representatives
Washington, B.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Montgomery:
I am responding to your letter of February 11, 1986, to Mr.
Matthew Straus in which you express concern that EPA is
considering classifying port facilities as generators of vessel
oily waste.
In response to questions raised by the Coast Guard, EPA
issued a directive on February 5, 1985, which clarified the
applicability of EPA's regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to operational waste from
ships. A copy of that directive is enclosed. In particular, the
Coast Guard asked EPA to determine who is the generator of oily
waste that is produced on ships and discharged to reception
facilities at ports and terminals.
EPA has determined that for any oily waste that is produced
in product or raw material vessel units both the ship, and in
some circumstances, the operator of the port facility would be
considered hazardous waste generators. For other types of oily
waste, such as bilge water in vessel engine rooms contaminated
with engine lubricant drippings or solvents, only the ship would
be deemed to be the hazardous waste generator. A more detailed
discussion of EPA's regulations for generators of oily hazardous
waste is contained in the February 5 directive to the Coast
Guard.
We hope that this has been responsive to your concerns
regarding the applicability of EPA's hazardous waste regulations
to terminals. If you have other questions on this subject,
please don't hesitate to contact Carolyn Barley of my staff at
202-382-2217.
Sincerely yours,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9451.1986(03
i.. P»riei.
Iritonaation Services of Alaska
P.0. Box 843
Anchorage, Alaska 9^510
Dear tts. DeJongs
2four letter to Mr. Aoy R. Jones regarding the acceptability
of performing total analyses, in lieu of performing the Extraction
Procudure (£*>) Toxicity Test, was forwarded to Ms. Florence M.
Richardson, the Office of Solid waste's Quality Assurance
Officer, and finally, to myself. The EP, as v*ll the new TCLP
test that you referred to, are both my resoonsibility.
In answer to your question. Section 262.11 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR 262.11) provides (or the
use of generator knowledge in application of the characteristics.
Practically speaking, the generator has tho option of considering
nis or her knowledge of the wasta in determining whether it neets
any of the characteristics. This includes information reaardina
total waste concentration.
The TCLt> (enclosed - See Section 1.2), which will soon bo
proposed for use in expanding the EP Toxicity Characteristic,
specifically states that if a total analysis of the waste
demonstrates that a waste does not contain a particular contam-
inant, or tnat it does contain the contaminant, but at such low
concentrations that the particular hazardous level could not
possibly be excoaded, then the TCL<* does not have to be performed.
This evaluation must be made* however, assuming that all the
contaminant present in the waste will migrate or leach into the
liquid extract.
-------
Please call mo at (2U2)332-4795 if I can be of any further
assistance*
Sincerely*
Todd A. fCinunell
Environmental Scientist
Methods and Studies Branch (WH-5623)
Enclosure
cc: Florence M. Richardson (OSW)
Hoy K. Jones, EPA Region X
-------
9451.1986(06)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
D6C 15 B86
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. William Plumley
f80391-Oll-V-3
P.O. Box 1010
Bastrop, Texas 78602
Dear Mr. Plumley:
Thank you for your letter asking for information about
how to dispose of "dry" toluene and carbon tetrachloride safely.
In addition, you asked whether it is safe to dispose these
wastes in the regular trash.
As you might be aware, regular trash is frequently disposed
of in landfills. Toluene and carbon tetrachloride are chemicals
with the potential to cause serious health risks when land
disposed. Even though your wastes maybe "dry," other liquids
in the landfill could mobilize these materials.
From your letter we can not determine whether you are a
small quantity generator(SQG) of hazardous wastes. Therefore,
if you are a SQG, you will find enclosed the brochure A Handbook
for Small Business that explains how small quantity generators
(see pages 6 to 9 for the definition) must comply with applicable
Federal laws. I also'am enclosing the document Alternative to
Hazardous Wastes Landfill that describes available methods to
treat regulated hazardous wastes prior to dispose them in a
permitted RCRA hazardous waste* landfill.
If you have any questions regarding the SQG brochure or
on your status as generator of hazardous waste please contact
Dave Plant of our Regional Office at (214) 767-2600. EPA also
maintains a toll free hotline for questions on hazardous waste
disposal the number is 1-800-424-9346.
-------
For additional information on disposing of hazardous wastes
safely, you also can contact your local authorities. In Texas
you can contact Ed Hatton of the Texas Water Commission at (512)
463-7754.
Sincerely,
Tames R. Berlow
Chief
Treatment Technology Section
Waste Treatment Branch (WH-565A)
Enclosure
ccs Dave Plant, Region VI
Ed Hatton,
Texas Water Commission
-------
c.Nf muNMcr I'AL PROTt ION AGENCY 9451 IQSfiffm
24 1996
Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.
I'M to* states Senate
Washington. DC 20510
Dear Senator Roth:
This letter responds to your reguest of February 3, 1986,
on behalf of your constituent* fir. William M. Cann, Jr.
Mr. Cann in concerned about his responsibilities for the
transportation and disposal of small quantities of hazardous
waste.
As you know, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), Section 107(a),
establishes liability for the costs of removal or remedial action
and any other costs or damages resulting from a release of a
hazardous substance. CERCLA establishes three classes of people
responsible for cleanup costs, damages to natural resources, and
related expenses: (1) all owners and operators of facilities or
vessels, including persons who owned or operated facilities at
the time of disposal; (2) persons who contracted for the dtsnosal
or treatment of hazardous substances (i.e., generators), and
(3) nersons who accented the hazardous substances for transport
and selected the treatment or disposal facility (i.e., transporters)
This concent of "joint and several" liability has been a consistent
part of the CERCLA program. What has undergone recent changes
are the snecific reguirement* which a generator lik» Mr. Cann
must meet under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PCRA).
In 1950, when EPA initially issued reoulations un.der PCRA
for the management of hazardous waste, snail Quantity generators,
those nroducing less than 1000 kilograms (about 2200 pounds) of
hazardous waste in a calendar month, were exempted from most of
the reguirements applicable to larger Generators. The Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), however, direct CPA
to publish* by March 31, 1986, final regulations for generators
of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste in « calendar
month. At a minimum, the regulations must require 100 to 1000
kilogram/month generators to: use a Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest when shipping hazardous waste off-site; store waste
-------
on-sitr tor no mor» than 130 days (270 days If: the waste is to
*•>« shiop*?a more than 200 miles) r and ensure that their hazardous
waste is managed at a hazardous waste facility with interim
status or a permit under P.CRA. EPA is now final!zing the regula-
tions, and expects to publish these rules within the nsxt two
weeks. The regulations vill be effective six months following
publication in th« Federal Register.
Until the final rules become effective in Sentember 1936,
virtually the only requirement for 100 to 1000 kg/mo aon*»rators
under federal law is the HSWA statutory requirement, effective
August 5, 1985, that these generators use a partially completed,
single copy Manifest to accompany hazardous waste shipned off-site.
Many States, however, have additional or more stringent requirements
for small quantity generators in place now.
Although Delaware has generally adopted the federal RCRA
program, there are additional State laws that may impact your
constituent's activities. While federal law, for exannlo,
currently allows snail quantity generators to send their hazardous
waste to * sanitary landfill or other facility authorized by the
State to accept it, I understand that Delaware landfills are not
authorized to accept hazardous wast*. Therefor**, it is likely
that Mr. Cann, as he indicates in his letter, does need to send
his hazardous waste to facilities located out of State. "Which
is the closest facility ho may usa is largely dependent upon the
type of hazardous wast* Mr. Cann generates, as different facilities
accept different tynes of hazardous waste. While printing
establishments generally produce such wastes as contaminated
solvents, without nore information about Mr. Cann's specific
wastes, it is difficult to provide the name of a facility
authorized to accent his waste. The Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control should be able to provide
assistance to Mr. Cann.
Similarly, Mr. Cann's suggestion that small quantity
generators be allowed to transport their own hazadous waste to the
facility they select i« currently permitted under federal regulations,
Again, however, I believe that certain State requirements may
apply. If this Is the case, Mr. Cann nay be required to obtain
a transporter license before he can haul his hazardous waste to
the facility he selects.
I have enclosed a copy of a brochure we have prepared for
small quantity generators explaining the current federal hazardous
waste requirements, which may be helpful to Mr. Cann. Included
in the brochure is an insert providing information specific to
the printing and allied industries. This is one of a series of
eighteen industry-specific inserts we have pronared as a part of
our education/outroach effort for newly regulated small quantity
operators. For your reference, I am also including a
-------
set of these industry-specific inserts. We would bo hapny to .a--?d
Mr. Cann's name to our railina list so that ha nav receive a cooy
of the final federal regulations and other education materials
as they bocome available. In the meantime, I suqqest that Mr. Cann
contact the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control at (302) 736-4781 for information on soecific
State reauirements as they may apply to him.
I hope this information will be helnful. Vie appreciate your
inquiry and your interest in the small quantity generator pronram.
Sincerely yours,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
-------
9451.1987(013
FEB 5 I93T
MEMORANDUM
Rapid Issuance of Identification Numbers to Sites
tJnder Investigation by the Drug Enforcement
Administration
FROMi Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Watte (WF-362)
TO i Regional Project Officers. Regions I ~ X
(See list of addressees)
The purpose of this memorandum is to extend EPA's policy for
rapid issuance of identification numbers to sitas under investiga-
tion by the Oru
-------
-2-
one-ti»e-only basis. The ••ehanim ueed by Region V foe issuing
such numbers (attached) »ay be a useful format for you to follow.
Follow-up reouireKenta to provide completed notification for»a
(0700-12) would depend upon the individual circumstance* at aach
aita aa wall as upon Regional and Stata discration and policy.
If you hava any quastions about this raquast/ plaaaa contact
Hika Patruaka of my staff on 475-0551.
Attachments
Addrassaaa:
Kan Bluiibarg, Rag ion Z
Mark Savadoff, Kaqion II
Shirley Bulkin, Region XII
Rita Ford, ftagion IV
Judy Stona, Region V
Bob Standar* Raoion VI
Jana Ratcliffe, Ragion VII
Jon Minkoff, Ragion VIII
Matt Mitguard, Ragion IX
Judy r>y,-*Reqion X
cet Stava Lavy (WR-5€3)
-------
9451.1987(02)
February 18, 1987
Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Hammerschmidt:
Thank you for your letter of January 21, 1987, on behalf of
your constituent, Mr. Gene Culver. Mr. Culver is concerned about
the costs for disposing of the hazardous wastes from his dry
cleaning establishment, and a recent increase in charges for the
Safety-Kleen® service he has been using.
As you know, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate
regulations for small quantity generators of 100 to 1000 kg of
hazardous waste per month. Congress directed that, at a minimum,
regulations issued by EPA require that: (1) all treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes from 100 to 1000 kg/mo
generators occur at facilities with interim status or a RCRA
permit; (2) 100 to 1000 kg/mo generators be allowed to store
waste on-site for up to 180 days (or 270 days if the waste is to
be shipped more than 200 miles) without the need for a permit;
and (3) that 100 to 1000 kg/mo generators use a Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest when shipping their hazardous waste off-site for
treatment, storage, or disposal.
In developing these regulations, the Agency attempted to
assure protection of human health and the environment while
avoiding unreasonable burdens on the large number of small
businesses affected by the rules. As a result, the final
regulations for small quantity generators of 100 to 1000 kg/mo
that went into effect on September 22, 1986, provided some relief
from a number of paperwork and recordkeeping requirements
applicable to larger generators. In addition, 100 to 1000 kg/mo
generators were allowed a longer on-site storage period (180 days
as opposed to 90 days) in which to accumulate their waste for
more economical shipments off-site. For your reference, I have
enclosed copies of a handbook we developed to explain these new
requirements to affected businesses.
As a result of these new rules, a number of waste management
and disposal firms, such as Safety-Kleen®, have developed "milk
run" programs to serve small quantity generators. State
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
agencies, local governments, and several trade associations have
also recognized the need for innovative, economical, and
efficient programs for handling small quantities of waste from a
large number of generators. We are encouraging some of these
programs through a series of grants awarded under §8001 of RCRA.
Some pilot efforts now underway include establishment of periodic
"milk runs", transfer stations, and waste exchanges. EPA does
not, however, have any authority over private companies pricing
structures, which appears to be one of the sources of
Mr. Culver's concerns.
In sum, we understand Mr. Culver's concern about the
increased costs he faces for properly disposing of his dry
cleaning wastes. We hope that, as additional firms enter the
small quantity generator market, and as State and local programs
evolve, Mr. Culver will be offered a greater variety of waste
management plans, and will be able to select one that most
economically and appropriately fits his needs.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9451.1937(03)
JUL 3 0 887
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTt Generation of Aide to Navigation (ATOS)
Batteries and RCRA Requirements
FROM: Marcia E. Willlava. Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Gene A* Lucero
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (WH-527)
TOt Kenneth D. Feigner* Chief
Waate Management Branch (HW-112)
EPA Region X
This is in response to your June 30, 1987, memorandum in which
you requested clarification as to how the RCRA rules apply to ATON
batteries. The answers to your specific questions are as followst
1. We agree with you that the entire battery is counted
in weight calculationsj
2* The points of waste generation are, as you suggested,
each ATON unit service area (either landbased or the
tender vehicle). Each area is subject to the quantity
determination of (261.5, except when several areas are
on one site; then the entire quantity of hazardous waste
generated at the site is counted.
3. The location to which the spent batteries are taken
would normally be a TSDF, provided the waste is received
from one or more ATON units which generate greater
then 100 kg/mo. of hazardous waste. You should note,
however, that 40 CFR §263.12 provides that properly
packaged and labeled hazardous waste containers may
be held for 10 days or lees at a transfer facility
without having to comply with Parts 264, 265, or 270.
-------
-2-
4. The satellite accumulation area provision* of $262.34 (e)
do not apply to the ATOM location* because they are
not all on one cite, but rather are each distinct
sites surrounded by water.
5. We believe that the batteries removed after tender
servicing do require manifesting, as well as those
removed from land-based vehicle servicing* The loca-
tion where a battery is removed fro* service is the
waste generation site. The generator Bust manifest
the batteries to a TSDF provided they are not a condi-
tionally exempt generator. As indicated above, the
batteries may be held for up to 10 days at a transfer
facility under §263.12.
Please feel free to contact Michael Petruska at 475-6676 if
you have any further questions.
cct Waste Management Division Directors* Regions I - IX
Solid Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
-------
9451.1987(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
3 . 100-1000 kg/ao Generators
40 CFR Part 262 states that a 100-1000 kg/mo
generator has 180 days to store hazardous waste without
a permit or interim status. If the waste is shipped
more than 200 miles, the generator is allowed to store
waste on-site for up to 270 days. Is it permissible for
a 100-1000 kg/mo generator to ship waste to a TSD
facility more than 200 miles away, even though the
generator could send the shipment to a facility less
than 200 miles away?
40 CFR Part 262 contains no regulations addressing
when a generator is permitted to ship waste in
excess of 200 miles, and thus receive an extra 90
days storage time. 40 CFR 262.40 states that a
generator can store hazardous waste for 270 days,
"if he must transport his waste or offer his waste
for transportation over a distance of 200 miles or
more." The preamble notes that "the Agency has
decided not to establish specific criteria for
determining if a generator may accumulate waste on-
site for 180 or 270 days. EPA believes that such
criteria would not serve any useful purpose... ."
"In addition, the Agency was concerned that
establishing criteria for demonstrating that the
closest facility was greater than 200 miles from
the generation site would be unnecessarily
confusing and could have the perverse effect of
causing waste to go to less desirable management
practices (e.g., where a disposal facility is
located within 200 miles while a recycling facility
is located over 200 miles from t .2 generator, the
generator could be forced to utilize the less
desirable disposal facility)." Therefore, it would
be permissible for a generator to send hazardous
waste to a facility greater than 200 miles away
even though there is a TSD facility closer than 200
miles away.
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 382-7936
Research: Mark Janaskie
-------
9451.1989(01)
§?
og
cnf
o •«
-JC
co*
**
Alan H. McLean ^
Hughes Hubbard and Reed K
Madison Avenue ^
New York, New York 10017 ^
Dear Mr. McLean: *
(
This letter is in response to your letter dated i
March 2, 1989, requesting a written interpretation of aspects
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
implementing regulations applicable to recycling activities
(40 CFR Parts 124, 264, 265, 266, 268 and 270). It is my
understanding that Environmental Technology Group's (ETG's)
operation involves a mobile recycling unit that visits
hazardous waste generator sites. Used solvents are pumped into
the mobile unit through hoses connected to the generators'
storage tanks or containers and a horizontal thin film
evaporator is applied to reclaim reusable solvents. The
reusable solvents are then pumped back into the generator's
product tanks or containers. All rinsings and non-recoverable
residues exiting from the mobile unit are placed in waste
containers and remain on-site as the property of the generator.
In your letter, you reached several tentative conclusions
regarding the applicability of certain RCRA regulations to your
process. I have discussed those Federal regulations below to
clarify how they would apply to your activities. However, it
should be noted that in states that are authorized to implement
the RCRA program, the state regulations, rather than Federal
regulations, are applicable. The state program can be
broader-in-scope or more stringent than the Federal
counterpart, so ETC should check all applicable state standards
before deploying its mobile recycling units.
The first question raised is, who is considered the
generator of the residue or still bottom resulting from the
recycling of the spent solventby ETG's units. EPA considers
the original generator of the spent solvents and ETG to be
co-generators of these still bottoms, and the RCRA regulations
regarding generators, found at 40 CFR Part 262, are applicable
to both. However, this does not mean that both generators
-------
-2-
must satisfy each regulatory requirement individually, when
two or more parties contribute to the generation of a hazardous
waste, as is the case in the generation of the still bottoms,
these requirements are satisfied if one of the parties assumes
and performs the duties of the generator on behalf of both the
parties (45 FR 72026, October 30, 1980). Therefore, by mutual
agreement either party could perform the generator
responsibilities of recordkeeping, reporting, and manifesting
for the still bottom waste. Typically, these duties are
assumed by the original generator who owns the site.
Nevertheless, EPA reserves the right to enforce against any and
all persons who fit the definition of "generator" in a
particular case if the requirements of Part 262 are not
adequately met. For more discussion on generator
responsibilities, see the October 30, 1980 Federal Register
notice referenced above.
Regarding the notification process, generator
notifications under section 3010 of RCRA are generally
required only once, at the time that RCRA regulations initially
become applicable to the generator. It is through the
notification process that a generator obtains an EPA
identification number. If the original generator has already
submitted a notification and received an EPA identification
number, and if this generator consents to perform the generator
duties for the still bottoms as described above, then,
additional notification is not required for the mobile unit to
perform the recycling operation. This arrangement appears to
fit the circumstances described in your letter. However,
should the agreement between ETG and a particular client
prescribe that ETG be the generator of record for the still
bottoms, including manifesting the residue, ETG would need to
obtain an EPA identification number for that particular site by
submitting a notification form (40 CFR 262.12(a)).
You also inquire about the applicability of the permitting
requirements to the generator or the mobile unit operator.
Your letter correctly states that a hazardous waste recycling
process is exempt from the RCRA permitting requirements
(40 CFR 261.6(c)). Therefore, neither ETG nor the generator
would be obligated to obtain a permit for the recycling
operation. Further, generators are allowed to accumulate
hazardous waste on-site in tanks or containers for up to 90
days without being required to obtain interim status or a
permit (40 CFR 262.34). It should be noted, however, that
90-day generators must comply with the technical standards of
Part 265, Subpart J (for tanks), and Subpart I (for
containers), as well as certain emergency response and
personnel training provisions. If the accumulation period
before the waste is introduced into the recycling unit exceeds
90 days, the generator will need to obtain interim status or a
permit for such storage.
-------
-3-
Wastes or residues from recycling activities are
considered to be newly generated wastes and therefore are also
allowed a 90 day accumulation period without a permit. Note
that these wastes are also "derived from11 wastes and are
assigned the same EPA waste codes as the spent solvent from
which they are derived (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).
You also indicate in your letter that ETC will not be
subject to the Part 268 land disposal restriction requirements
since a permit is not required. However, you should note that
the Part 268 standards apply independent of the permit program/
and any such requirements that are applicable to a particular
waste (e.g., the solvent still bottoms) must be complied with
regardless of the §262.34 accumulation provision.
I hope this information will be helpful to you.* If you
have further questions please feel free to call Frank McAlister
at (202) 382-4740.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph S. Carra
Director
Permits and State Programs Division
-------
9451.1989(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN 2609
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Donald A. Barbour
Nuclear Metals, Inc.
2229 Main Street
Concord, Massachusetts 01742
Dear Mr. Barbour:
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 1989 to EPA
Administrator William Reilly regarding inconsistencies between
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) and EPA's regulatory
programs. In that letter you identified both regulatory
requirements and routine radioactive waste management practices
as examples of inconsistencies between the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The first joint initiative undertaken by EPA and NRC was a
comparative study of the respective agencies regulatory
programs. The purpose of that study was to delineate
inconsistencies. None were identified although differences in
stringency were. However, implementation of the dual regulatory
program may reveal instances where compliance could result in an
inconsistency. However, RCRA permitting and/or administrative
requirements are not examples of inconsistencies. Neverthe-
less, I would like to respond to each of the concerns and
proposed resolutions you raised.
First, you indicated generators of mixed waste may routinely
treat the waste to conform with NRC waste form requirements
and/or Department of Transportation (DOT) shipping require-
ments. You expressed concern that this treatment might force
generators into the RCRA permitting scheme.
Admittedly, the overwhelming majority of mixed waste
handlers are already licensed by NRC for operations involving
the radioactive constituent of the waste. Also, hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal that may have been incidental to
radioactive waste management must now be brought into
conformance with regulatory requirements for hazardous waste
management including permitting. However, not all hazardous
waste handling processes must be permitted under RCRA.
Facilities engaged in recycling, resource recovery, totally
-------
-2-
enclosed treatment and certain in tank treatments within the
generators 90 day accumulation time do not require a RCRA
permit, for example. Generators need to assess their waste
management operations and processes to take advantage of these
and other exemptions which may be available.
Second, you suggested the benefits of storage for decay of
high activity waste may not be fully exploited by generators
because storage beyond 90 days would warrant a RCRA permit.
In addition to storage of high activity wastes to minimize
occupational exposures, storage for decay of short-lived
radionuclides is also a common practice. The latter practice
could potentially allow certain mixed wastes to be managed
solely as hazardous waste. Staff is currently assessing the
implications of RCRA on these practices. This effort, however,
has been hampered because of scanty information on the actual
number of facilities and waste volumes in this category.
Currently, the Agency is not considering changes to existing
storage rules although some modification may be justifiable in
the future.
Third, you commented that the absence of disposal capacity
will force generators that might otherwise be exempt from
hazardous waste permitting requirements to obtain RCRA storage
permits.
Mixed wa.ste disposal capacity like low-level waste disposal
capacity is"unlikely to be available until after the January 1,
1993 deadline established by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Policy Act Amendments of 1985. Even then, the probability of
national mixed waste capacity being available is small. This
uncertainty underscores the need to ensure that mixed wastes are
managed in a manner which protects human health and the
environment from the hazardous constituent of the waste. The
Agency is developing guidance jointly with NRC that will
integrate the respective regulatory regimes for storage. The
Agency has undertaken this initiative because of anticipated
long-term storage of mixed waste.
Fourth, you indicated dual manifesting would be cumbersome
and recommended use of the radioactive waste management
manifest.
As you know, NRC manifesting data elements differ for wastes
destined for disposal versus treatment or storage under RCRA.
Similarly, information necessary to satisfy EPA recordkeeping
and reporting requirements may not be data elements on the NRC
manifest. We have explored the practicality of using a single
manifest with NRC and both agencies agree that dual manifesting
represents a reasonable and expeditious approach.
-------
-3-
Fifth, you questioned whether mixed waste could be shipped
from a State where the waste was a hazardous waste and subject
to RCRA to a facility in a State where the waste was not
hazardous'waste.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 262.20(b) require generators
of hazardous waste "to designate on the manifest one facility
which is permitted to handle the waste described on the
manifest." The regulations are clear that the facility so
designated is the "designated facility" as defined in the
Section 260.10. That definition refers specifically to Section
262.20, the requirement that generators designate a permitted
facility. Thus, a "facility which is permitted to handle the
waste" roust also be a facility that fits the definition of
"designated facility." Under that definition, a designated
facility must: [1] have an EPA permit (or interim status) in
accordance with the requirements of Parts 270 and 124, [2] have
a permit from a State authorized in accordance with Part 271, or
[3] be a treatment, storage or disposal facility that is
regulated under Section 261.6(c)(2) or Subpart F of Part 266,
and that has been designated on the manifest by the generator
pursuant to Section 262.20.
The phrase "in accordance with" as used in the definition of
designated facility can be read to iaply that if a RCRA permit
need not be issued to a facility because the waste is not
hazardous under authorized State law, then the waste could be
delivered to that facility without violation of authorized State
or Federal law. It should be noted that this interpretation of
"designated facility" reflects the special situation where
hazardous waste in one State is shipped to a second State that
does not regulate the waste as hazardous.
Sixth, you expressed concern that transporters may need to
obtain a "State hazardous waste transporter permit" which could
impede mixed waste shipment.
Transporters are not required to obtain a RCRA permit.
Rather, transporters must comply with the regulations governing
handling, transportation, and management of hazardous waste.
EPA has also adopted DOT hazardous materials transportation
regulations as necessary to protect human health and the
environment in the transportation of hazardous waste. EPA's
transporter standards are found at 40 CFR Part 263.
You should note that while transporters are not required to
obtain a permit under Federal regulations, States are not
precluded from developing such regulations under authorized
State lav;. No authorized State 1ms instituted such a
requirement for hazardous waste transporters although Hew York
is considering such a State law.
-------
-4-
Last, you commented that any reconsideration or change in
the Federal regulatory status of used oil "should consider the
advantages of preserving present disposal options for
radioactively contaminated waste oil."
As you know, used oil is not "listed" as a hazardous waste
under RCRA. However, the Court of Appeals has overturned this
1986 decision, and the Agency is currently re-evaluating the
technical basis for listing used oil on an accelerated
schedule. To date, the Agency has not made a finding on the
regulatory status of used oil although, any such finding will be
predicated on environmental considerations.
However, authorized State hazardous waste programs may be
"broader in scope" 'than the Federal program. And, consistent
with this provision, used oil may be listed as a hazardous waste
under authorized State law. Several States have, in fact,
established such a waste listing. Handlers of mixed waste need
to be cognizant of the scope of authorized RCRA programs to
ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
I hope my comments have been useful in delineating the
Agency's position on regulation of mixed waste. Again, thank
you for your comments and analysis of what are certainly some of
the key areas of concern regarding dual regulation of mixed
waste. While immediate plans do not include revamping the RCRA
program specific to mixed waste, certainly the issues you raised
will receive additional attention as we continue to refine our
regulatory program.
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Carra
Director
Permits and State Programs
cc: John Greeves, U.S. KRC
-------
9451.1991(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR I 3 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Clarific
Sylvi
Office o
squirements and Liabilities
lirector
i/ (OS-300)
Jeffrey Zelikson, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (9H-1)
This memorandum is written in response to your February
20, 1991, request for clarification of the regulatory
requirements and potential liabilities of small quantity
generators pertaining to the use of hazardous waste manifests to
assist you in responding to William Apger.
The practice in question is a situation in which hazardous
waste is transported to a permitted (or interim status) storage
facility, accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest; a small
quantity generator has initiated the shipment, and has contracted
with the storage facility to clean up and remove the waste from
the generator's property. Once the waste reaches the storage
facility, the manifest is signed and returned to the generator.
The waste is later sent to another designated facility for final
treatment and disposal, and is accompanied by a second manifest
on which the storage facility is named as the generator. The
requestor asks if this practice conforms to the legal
requirements imposed under RCRA, if obtaining and following
recordkeeping requirements for the first manifest is sufficient,
ajrtd if the generator should request copies of the manifest
initiated by the owner/operator of the storage facility when the
waste is shipped to the second facility.
Small quantity generators who generate between 100 and 1000
kg of hazardous waste per month, as well as generators of more
than 1000 kg per month, are required to comply with regulations
pertaining to the manifest. If the generator, the transporter,
and the storage facility in the scenario presented each use the
uniform hazardous waste manifest during handling of the waste,
completing the required signatures (the generator, transporter,
and storage facility before a copy is returned to the generator
in accordance with 40 CFR 262 Subpart B) and maintaining the
required records, then the generator would appear to be in
compliance with the Federal regulations. Note that
conditionally-exempt small quantity generators, i.e., generators
Printed on Recydfd P*
-------
of less than 100 kg of hazardous waste in any given month, are
exempt from the manifest provisions.
As you are aware, States are allowed to impose regulations
which are either more stringent or broader in scope than the
Federal regulations; therefore, the generator should also check
with the State in which his facility is located.
The letter which you provided with your request for
assistance also states that the storage facility would, upon
request, furnish the generator with copies of the manifests which
are prepared at the storage facility for the subsequent
transportation of the waste to the ultimate treatment and
disposal facility. If the generator is requesting such copies
because of a concern about potential future liability, a request
for copies of these manifests could be regarded as a prudent
practice. As you know, the generator retains potential liability
under Superfund for future mismanagement of hazardous waste even
after it has left his site and is out of his possession.
Please contact me if you need further clarification on this
or other issues.
-------
9451.1991(02)
RCRA/SDPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 1991
1. Amendments to Part 262 Hazardous Waste Determination and Recordkeeping
Requirements of Part 262 and 268
The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Third Third final rule (June 1,1990,55 FR
22520) revised the waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 262.11. Prior to the
revision, section 262.11 set out an either/or scheme where, if the generator
determined that a waste was listed in Part 261, Subpart D, he or she need not
determine whether the waste exhibited a characteristic under Part 261, Subpart C
With the promulgation of the Third Third rule, the Agency amended section 262.11
to indicate that generators must determine whether listed wastes also exhibit any
hazardous waste characteristics for purposes of compliance with LDR.
A generator is required to develop and maintain records for hazardous waste under
two regulatory programs, LDR (Part 26S) and generator standards (Part 262). How
does the amended language of 40 CFR 262.11(c) affect the paperwork associated
with these two regulatory programs?
The amended language of section 26111 (c) does not affect the generator
paperwork required in Part 262. When a generator determines that a solid
waste meets a Part 261, Subpart D hazardous waste listing, he/she is not
-------
required to determine whether the listed waste exhibits any characteristics for
purposes of filling out Part 262 paperwork such as generator notification
forms (8700-12) and biennial reports. (However, the generator may elect to
determine whether the waste exhibits a characteristic for his/her own
information or for other reasons.) On the other hand, the paperwork of Part
268 must reflect the amended language of section 262.11(c) which states that
for the purposes of compliance with Part 268 a generator must determine if a
listed waste is also characteristically hazardous. (Emphasis added.)
The general principal of the section 262,11 waste identification modification is
that if both the treatment standard for a listed waste and the treatment
standard for a characteristic waste are in effect for a common constituent, then
the treatment standard for the listed waste applies because it is more specific
If, however, the treatment standard for the listed waste does not specifically
address the characteristic^), the waste codes for both the listed waste and the
characteristic waste(s) should be included on the notification paperwork of
section 268.7. (see 55 FR 22659) In the Third Third technical amendment rule
(January 31,1991,56 FR 3864), the Agency provided an example of this second
scenario. K062 is listed for toxicity as well as for the characteristic of
corrosivity. Because the K062 treatment standard does not specifically
address the characteristic of corrosivity, both K062 and D002 must be included
in the section 268.7 paperwork. (56 F£ 3872)
There is also a variation of the principle illustrated above If the most specific
treatment standard is subject to a national capacity variance or a case-by-case
extension and thus is not yet in effect, then the treatment standard for the
most specific waste code that is in effect must be met The January 31,1991,
Federal Register also provides an example of this situation. During the K048
variance period from August 8,1990, until November 8,1990, K048 was
subject to the treatment standards for EP toxic chromium and lead (D007 and
D008) since the treatment standards for these two characteristics were in
effect After the variance expired for K048, section 268.7 notification for the
K048 treatment standard would only apply because the listing treatment
standard is more waste specific than the two characteristic waste treatment
standards. (56 Eg 3873)
In conclusion, the amended language at 40 CFR 262.1 l(c) was intended for
compliance with LDR treatment standards. The generator recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of Part 262 remain unaffected.
Source: Rhonda Craig, OSW
Becky Cuthbertson, OSW
Research: Cynthia Hess
(202)382-7926
(202) 475-9715
-------
9451.1991(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR I 6 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Michael H. Oberg
Chief Operating Officer
United Marketing International, Inc.
P.O. Box 989
Everett, WA 98206-0989
Dear Mr. Oberg:
Thank you for your letter dated February 19, 1991 concerning
the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule and its relationship to
used oil filter disposal as outlined in a October 30, 1990
memorandum to Mr. Robert Duprey in EPA's Region 8 office.
The TC rule was effective in all states on September 25,
1990, regardless of the state's RCRA authorization status. The
TC will be implemented and enforced by EPA's Regional offices
until such time as states are authorized to implement and enforce
the TC. Please note that the compliance date for generators of
small quantities (from 100 to 1000 kg of total hazardous waste in
a calendar month) of TC-hazardous wastes was March 29, 1991.
Small quantity generators (SQGs) were required to begin managing
their TC-hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable
hazardous waste regulations on that date. Of particular concern
to the Agency is the proper management (e.g., storage, treatment,
transportation and disposal) of these wastes.
As a point of clarification, I would also note that under
the TC rule, generators are not specifically required to test
their waste. The regulations allow generators to use their
knowledge of the waste and/or the process that generated it to
determine if it is hazardous. They are, however, required to be
correct in their determination.
The Agency intends to fully enforce this rule. The Agency's
enforcement policy clearly is designed to identify and prosecute
violators and to deny any economic benefit resulting from
violations. Civil and criminal penalties are also available as
enforcement tools.
Finally, the Office of Solid Waste appreciates the
information you provided pertaining to recently completed studies
of used oil filters conducted by the University of Northern Iowa.
This study addresses the Agency's recommended best operating
practice contained in the October 30, 1990 memorandum which
suggested both draining and crushing of the oal filter to ensure
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
maximum removal of the oil. Of course, as discussed earlier,
each hazardous waste generator is ultimately responsible for
making their own determination as to whether their waste is
hazardous under the TC rule for any waste stream generated.
I hope this letter clarifies the nature of the Agency's
implementation of the TC rule. If you have any additional
questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Cochran of my
staff at (202) 382-4770 for general TC questions and Mr. Hugh
Davis in the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement at (202) 475-
9867, if you have TC enforcement questions.
Sincexely
' /\ / i»***^ 'Z*// /
Lvia K. Lowranpe"
Jirector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9451.1992(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT.QUESTION
AUGUST 1992
1. Treatment In a Generator's 90-Day
Containment Building
According to the March 24,1986, Federal
Register, generators may treat hazardous
waste in accumulation tanks or containers in
conformance with the requirements of §26234
and Subpans Jorl of Pan 265 without
obtaining a permit or interim status (51ER.
10168). In the August 18,1992, Federal
Roister (57 FR 37194), EPA promulgated
standards for a new hazardous waste
management unit known as a containment
building (Parts 264 and 265, SubpartDD), and
amended §26234 to allow generators to
accumulate hazardous waste on-site in
containment buildings for 90 days or less
without a permit or interim status
(§26234(aXiv);57ER37264). May
generators accumulating hazardous waste in
containment buildings in compliance with
§26234 and Part 265, Subpart DD treat the
waste without obtaining a permit or interim
status?
A generator accumulating hazardous waste
in a containment building for less than 90 days
in compliance with §262.34 and Pan 265,
Subpan DD (the technical standards for interim
status containment buildings) may treat these
hazardous wastes in the containment building
without obtaining a permit or interim status as
long as thermal treatment is not involved. The
August 18,1992, Federal Register states that
§262.34 has been revised to exempt generators
from permitting requirements when
hazardous waste on-
site in containment buildings (57 FR 37242
and 37253). Generators who accumulate or
treat hazardous waste in containment buildings
must comply with the general Part 262
regulations, as well as the following
requirements in accordance with
§262.34(a)(lXiv): comply with SubpartDD
of 40 CFR Pan 265; place in the facility's
operating record a certification by a
professional engineer that the building
complies with the design standards specified
in 40 CFR §265.1101; and maintain in the
facility's files documentation showing no
hazardous wastes remain in the unit for longe*
than 90 days (57 EB, 37264).
If a generator chooses to treat a prohibited
hazardous waste in containment buildings,
however, and is conducting such treatment in
order to meet applicable Pan 268, Subpan D
treatment standards, he or she must comply
with the waste analysis plan requirements of
§268.7(a)(4). Section 268.7(a)(4) has been
modified to reflect the addition of containment
buildings to §262.34 as accumulation/
treatment units (57 ER 37270).
Thermal treatment is regulated by the specific
standards for incinerators (Part 265, Subpart
O), boilers and industrial furnaces (Pan 266,
Subpan H), and thermal treatment (Pan 265,
Subpan P), and is therefore not eligible for the
§262.34 permit exemption even if the
treatment occurs inside a containment
building.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9451.1993(02)
OCT - T 1993
Mr. Mark Bell QfFK£Qf
1001 Fannin Street scxio WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Suite 2050 RESPONSE
Houston TX 77002-6778
Mr. Mark Bell:
Thank you for your letter of February 3, 1993, in which you
requested clarification on the amount, type, and frequency of
hazardous waste training for persons working in and around
facilities where hazardous waste is handled. We apologize for
the delay in our response.
The type of information you request is best provided based
on a site-specific assessment of each situation. This assessment
can be made by the authorized State agency (or, if the State is
not authorized, the EPA Regional office) that implements the
hazardous waste program in the State in which the facility is
located. 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.
In general, EPA requires generators of more than 1,000
kilograms per month (kg./mo.) of hazardous waste (or more than 1
kg./mo. of acutely hazardous waste) who accumulate waste on site,
to comply with the same personnel training requirements as
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (40 CFR 262.34 and
265.16). The generator's training program must be "designed to
ensure that facility personnel are able to respond effectively to
emergencies by familiarizing them with emergency procedures,
emergency equipment, and emergency systems..." (40 CFR
265.16(a)(2)).
These requirements are intended to ensure that personnel are
adequately prepared to properly handle the types of hazardous
wastes that are managed at the facility and to respond to any
emergencies that are likely to arise.
The regulations at 40 CFR part 262, 264 and 265, do not
specifically address some of the scenarios you present. We have
provided information from Federal Register preamble discussions
and EPA guidance documents listed below to assist you in
developing appropriate training programs. We recommend however.
ftocyctodfflccyclabi*
prtnMwmi3oy/CinoiiMt
conttfrw M Mttt 50% racycMd Hb«r
-------
that determinations on information such as this be obtained from
your State (or appropriate Regional office).
Additional information on personnel training for persons who
work with hazardous waste can be found in:
RCRAPersonnel Training Guidance Manual. U.S. EPA, September
1980, EPA FW-915. Order from: National Technical Information
Service (703)487-4650, Order number PB87-193 348 Cost:
$27.00
Permit Applicant'sGuidance Manual For the GeneralFacility
Standards of 40 CFR 264. U.S. EPA, September 1980, EPA FW-
915. Order from: National Technical Information Service
(703)487-4650, Order number PB87-151 064 Cost: $44.50
You also may find the following Federal Register notice
preamble discussions to be helpful:
49 FR 49570 December 20, 1984?
51 FR 10164 March 24, 1986; and,
45 FR 33182 May 19, 1980.
Generally, 40 CFR Part 262.34(d)(5)(iii) provides that "The
generator must ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar
with proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relevant to
their responsibilities during normal facility operation and
emergencies." Thus, if a person is handling hazardous waste, he
or she should have had training in proper waste handling and
emergency procedures appropriate to the types of waste handled,
the management methods used, and the hazards presented by the
waste type and waste management method. In addition "there must
be at least one employee either on the premises or on call...with
the responsibility for coordinating all emergency response
measures..." (40 CFR 262.34(d)(5)(i)). This may apply when
wastes are taken from a satellite accumulation area to a 90-day
storage area and to persons who will be responsible for managing
the waste (e.g., persons managing wastes in drums and tanks.)
If you have further questions about training needs, contact
your authorized State agency (or, if the State is not authorized,
the EPA Regional office) that implements the hazardous waste
program in the State in which the facility is located. If you
have questions about this letter, contact Ann Codrington of my
staff at (202) 260-8551.
Sincerely,
!
•-N.
sry D. Denit
Ac/tyAig Director,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9451.1993(03)
HOV 1 1993 OFF.CEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ethan R. Ware
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
Palmetto Center
1426 Main Street
POBox 11206
Columbia, SC 29211
Dear Mr. Ware:
Thank you for your letter dated January 4, 1993, concerning the management of
hazardous waste by generators under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
In your letter you asked whether 40 CFR §262.34, which allows generators to store and/or
treat wastes in accumulation containers or tanks without interim status or a RCRA permit,
applies to the situation of your clients. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.
You specifically asked whether the transfer of hazardous waste from one container to
another for treatment affects the applicability of the generator 90-day treatment exemption.
This type of waste transfer may occur during the accumulation period for two reasons. First,
40 CFR §262.34 does not preclude generators from transferring waste between tanks or
containers to facilitate storage or treatment. Second, the requirements of Subparts I and J of
40 CFR Part 265, compliance with which is a condition of the exemption, address the
addition and removal of wastes in tanks and containers and provide procedures to prevent
releases to the environment from such activities. Of course, the requirements of §262.34
would apply to each tank or container holding hazardous waste (see, e.g., 40 CFR §265.173
and 40 CFR §265.193).
However, please be aware that under §3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. §6926),-individual
States may be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste programs in
lieu of the federal program. When States are not authorized to administer the program, the
EPA Region in which the State is located administers the program and is the appropriate
contact for any case-specific determinations. Also note that under §3009 of RCRA (42
U.S.C. §6929), States retain the authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are
more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. Some States may not allow generators
to treat hazardous waste under §262.34, while other States may not allow this type of
transfer of hazardous waste for either storage or treatment.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
You indicated in your letter that the characteristic hazardous waste treated under
§262.34 by generators would no longer be defined as hazardous waste after treatment. For
the waste to become non-hazardous, a generator must remove the characteristic and comply
with the applicable RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) requirements, including 40
CFR §268.7(a)(4), for restricted wastes prior to land disposal. Therefore, if the generator's
waste is restricted from land disposal, he must either meet applicable treatment standards
during the on-site treatment period, or notify the treatment or storage facility in accordance
with 40 CFR §268.7.
Thank you for your interest in the safe management of hazardous wastes. If you have
any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Rick Picardi of my staff at
(202) 260-5756.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: EPA Regional RCRA Branch Chiefs
Susan Bromm (OWPE)
Dawn Messier (OGC)
Catherine Smith (OE)
RCRA Hotline
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9451.1993(03)
NOV 1 1993 OFF.CEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ethan R. Ware
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
Palmetto Center
1426 Main Street
PO Box 11206
Columbia, SC 29211
Dear Mr. Ware:
Thank you for your letter dated January 4, 1993, concerning the management of
hazardous waste by generators under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
In your letter you asked whether 40 CFR §262.34, which allows generators to store and/or
treat wastes in accumulation containers or tanks without interim status or a RCRA permit,
applies to the situation of your clients. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.
You specifically asked whether the transfer of hazardous waste from one container to
another for treatment affects the applicability of the generator 90-day treatment exemption.
This type of waste transfer may occur during the accumulation period for two reasons. First,
40 CFR §262.34 does not preclude generators from transferring waste between tanks or
containers to facilitate storage or treatment. Second, the requirements of Subparts I and J of
40 CFR Part 265, compliance with which is a condition of the exemption, address the
addition and removal of wastes in tanks and containers and provide procedures to prevent
releases to the environment from such activities. Of course, the requirements of §262.34
would apply to each tank or container holding hazardous waste (see, e.g., 40 CFR §265.173
and 40 CFR §265.193).
However, please be aware that under §3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. §6926),-individual
States may be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste programs in
lieu of the federal program. When States are not authorized to administer the program, the
EPA Region in which the State is located administers the program and is the appropriate
contact for any case-specific determinations. Also note that under §3009 of RCRA (42
U.S.C. §6929), States retain the authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are
more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. Some States may not allow generators
to treat hazardous waste under §262.34, while other States may not allow this type of
transfer of hazardous waste for either storage or treatment.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
You indicated in your letter that the characteristic hazardous waste treated under
§262.34 by generators would no longer be defined as hazardous waste after treatment. For
the waste to become non-hazardous, a generator must remove the characteristic and comply
with the applicable RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) requirements, including 40
CFR §268.7(a)(4), for restricted wastes prior to land disposal. Therefore, if the generator's
waste is restricted from land disposal, he must either meet applicable treatment standards
during the on-site treatment period, or notify the treatment or storage facility in accordance
with 40 CFR §268.7.
Thank you for your interest in the safe management of hazardous wastes. If you have
any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Rick Picardi of my staff at
(202) 260-5756.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: EPA Regional RCRA Branch Chiefs
Susan Bromm (OWPE)
Dawn Messier (OGC)
Catherine Smith (OE)
RCRA Hotline
-------
•fc
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9451.1994(01)
FEB I 0 1994 OFF1CEO[
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Thomas J. Dolce
GZA-AET
140 Broadway
Providence, RI 20903
Dear Mr. Dolce:
Thank you for your letter of December 17, 1993, regarding
counting waste in satellite accumulation areas. You specifically
asked if a small quantity generator who collects hazardous wastes
at satellite accumulation areas must count this waste for the
purpose of determining generator status.
The regulations at 40 CFR 261.5(c) state what is, and is not
included when making quantity determinations.
Hazardous waste that is not subject to regulation or
that is subject only to §262.11, §262.12, §262.40(c)
and §262.41 is not included in the quantity
determinations of this part and parts 262 through 266,
268, and 270 and is not subject to any of the
requirements of those parts. Hazardous waste that is
subject to the requirements of §261.6(b) and (c) and
subparts C,D, and F of part 266 is included in the
quantity determination of this part and is subject to
the requirements of parts 262 through 266 and 270.
To determine generator status, generators must count all
hazardous waste generated at their facility in a calendar month.
Wastes not included in the monthly determination are either not
subject to regulation or subject to only the notification and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR section 262.22, 262.12,
262.40(c) and section 262.41 as cited above.
Wastes stored in satellite accumulation areas are subject to
certain container standards (e.g., sections 265.171, 265.172, and
265.173(a)). The container standards are not among those listed
in section 261.5(c) as "not included in the quantity
determination." Therefore, wastes in the satellite accumulation
areas must be included in the generators's monthly waste quantity
Priitltd on Rtcycltd faptr
-------
determination as well as other on-site quantity determinations,
For further discussion of this and other generator
requirements please see 51 FR 10151, March 24, 1986. We have
enclosed a copy of this Federal Register notice for your
convenience. If you have questions about this letter, please
contact Ann Codrington of my staff at (202) 260-4777.
Thank you for your interest in the safe management of
hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of
Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9451.1994(01)
I 0 1994
O,,IC(OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Thomas J. Dolce
GZA-AET
140 Broadway
Providence, RI 20903
Dear Mr. Dolce:
Thank you for your letter of December 17, 1993, regarding
counting waste in satellite accumulation areas. You specifically
asked if a small quantity generator who collects hazardous wastes
at satellite accumulation areas must count this waste for the
purpose of determining generator status.
The regulations at 40 CFR 261.5(c) state what is, and is not
included when making quantity determinations.
Hazardous waste that is not subject to regulation or
that is subject only to §262.11, §262.12, §262.40(c)
and §262.41 is not included in the quantity
determinations of this part and parts 262 through 266,
268, and 270 and is not subject to any of the
requirements of those parts. Hazardous waste that is
subject to the requirements of §261.6(b) and (c) and
subparts C,D, and F of part 266 is included in the
quantity determination of this part and is subject to
the requirements of parts 262 through 266 and 270.
To determine generator status, generators must count all
hazardous waste generated at their facility in a calendar month.
Wastes not included in the monthly determination are either not
subject to regulation or subject to only the notification and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR section 262.22, 262.12,
262.40(c) and section 262.41 as cited above.
Wastes stored in satellite accumulation areas are subject to
certain container standards (e.g., sections 265.171, 265.172, and
265.173(a)). The container standards are not among those listed
in section 261.5(c) as "not included in the quantity
determination." Therefore, wastes in the satellite accumulation
areas must be included in the generators's monthly waste quantity
Prinltd on Rtcjcitd ftftr
-------
determination as well as other on-site quantity determinations,
For further discussion of this and other generator
requirements please see 51 FR 10151, March 24, 1986. We have
enclosed a copy of this Federal Register notice for your
convenience. If you have questions about this letter, please
contact Ann Codrington of my staff at (202) 260-4777.
Thank you for your interest in the safe management of
hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of
Solid Waste
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9451.1994(02)
SOLIO WASTE AND £'.'•_•• '
.MAR -4/994 BESPC*S£
Mr. John J. Stocker, President
Shipbuilders Council of America
4301 N. Fairfax Drive
Suite 330
Arlington, Virginia 22203
Dear Mr. Stocker:
Thank you for your letter of February 14, 1994, requesting
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issue generator
identification numbers to the Department of Defense (DOD), in
particular the Navy. Further, you request that the Navy's ID
number always appear on the hazardous waste manifest, along with
a contractor's number, if a contractor is used to prepare waste
for shipment. This would then make the Navy liable, in your
view, should the waste be mismanaged.
EPA certainly shares your concern that hazardous waste be
managed properly. As we have explained in previous letters, the
presence or absence of someone's ID number on the Manifest is not
the determining factor in assessing liability. Liability under
CERCLA is determined based on the statute, and the facts in the
case in question. The Navy may or may not be liable in a
specific case, regardless of whether their ID number or someone
else's ID number was on the manifest. Under RCRA, EPA allows
"co-generators" to decide between themselves who should take
primary responsibility for filling out the manifest and
fulfilling other generator responsibilities. As the preamble
discussions we have sent you explained, this does not mean that
one party has assumed liability for both parties. In fact, both
parties may be liable for any violations or for damages,
depending on all the facts in question. This is EPA's
longstanding policy, and we do not view 10 USC 7311 to require
any change of EPA's policy.
I understand that the Manifest Regulatory Negotiation
Committee did spend considerable time debating this issue Before
deciding not to craft any specific provisions to deal with it.
The Committee decided, as I understand it, that the manifest as
presently structured can accommodate the situation where more
Recycled/Recyc'ar.
Printed wiin Say Ca^o *
contains at least SO". •- .
-------
than one party are co-generators, and in fact a second ID number
can be placed on the manifest in the "other information" block.
The Committee decided against requiring an ID number to appear on
the manifest for each and every entity that may be a co-generator
in every situation.
In some instances EPA does issue ID numbers to DOD
installations. If a DOD facility is a site that produces
hazardous waste, they would normally be considered a generator
and (provided they generate more than 100 kilograms of hazardous
waste in a month) they would need to obtain an EPA ID number. At
this time, EPA does not have a national policy on how to handle
ID numbers for waste generated on ships. In some instances, EPA
has issued ID numbers to the ship, and in others the shore
facility or contractor providing service to the ship is issued
the ID number.
I hope this information is of assistance to you.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9451.1994(02)
OFFICE Cf
SOLID WASTE AND £>.
-------
than one party are co-generators, and in fact a second ID number
can be placed on the manifest in the "other information" block.
The Committee decided against requiring an ID number to appear on
the manifest for each and every entity that may be a co-generator
in every situation.
In some instances EPA does issue ID numbers _o DOD
installations. If a DOD facility is a site that produces
hazardous waste, they would normally be considered a generator
and (provided they generate more than 100 kilograms of hazardous
waste in a month) they would need to obtain an EPA ID number. At
this time, EPA does not have a national policy on how to handle
ID numbers for waste generated on ships. In some instances, EPA
has issued ID numbers to the ship, and in others the shore
facility or contractor providing service to the ship is issued
the ID number.
I hope this information is of assistance to you.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
FILE COPY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG 2 2 1995
9451.1995(01)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMESGESCY
RESPONSE
Mr. James M. Kuszaj
Ogletree, Keakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
4101 Lake Boone Trail
Post Office Box 31608
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
Dear Mr. Kuszaj:
Thank you for your letter of July 6, 1995, requesting EPA's current interpretation of the
requirements in 40 CFR §262.12 regarding EPA identification numbers. You ask the following
four questions related to obtaining more than one EPA identification number (I.D. number) for a
geographically contiguous piece of property.
• Is there any prohibition against maintaining multiple I.D. numbers for the same property?
• Can two autonomous divisions of the same company co-located on the same property be
considered separate generators and be issued separate I.D. numbers?
• Would the answer to the question above be different if the aggregation of waste from both
divisions caused one of the divisions to change regulatory classification. For example, to
move from a conditionally exempt SQG to a large quantity generator?
• Would EPA or the state need to be specifically informed that there are separate I.D.
numbers for the same property?
The regulations at 40 CFR §262.12 require a generator to have an EPA I.D. number
before treating, storing, disposing of, transporting, or offering for transportation, hazardous
waste. Because the regulations do not explicitly state how I.D. numbers should be distributed,
you should contact the state authorized to implement the RCRA program in your area with
specific questions. Notwithstanding the preceding, the following terms are useful in any
discussion of I.D. numbers and their applicability to generation sites.
The definition of generator found in 40 CFR §260.10 is "any person, by site, whose act
or process produces hazardous waste identified or listed in part 261 of this chapter or whose act
first causes a hazardous waste to become subject to regulation." The definition of a person in 40
CFR §260.10 is "an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, Federal Agency, corporation
(including a government corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality, commission;
political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body." Individual generation site means the
contiguous site at or which one or more hazardous wastes are generated. An individual
Rccycltd/Rccyclabl*
•tlnitd wttn SoyCanola ink on paper mat
contain* it Mat SO*. raeycMo fiber
-------
generation site, such as a large manufacturing plant, may have one or more sources of hazardous
waste but is considered a single or individual generation site if the site or property is contiguous.
In your letter, you describe two autonomous divisions of a company which occupy
different portions of a contiguous piece of property. The company as a whole would meet the
definition of "person" in 40 CFR §260.10 and although autonomous, the divisions would not
generally be considered separate generators if they operate on a geographically contiguous piece
of property meeting the definition of "individual generation site."
Although there is no specific prohibition in the regulations against a generator
maintaining multiple I.D. numbers for an individual generation site, the Agency expects each
individual generation site to have one I.D. number. Of course the approved state RCRA program
may have specific state law requirements which operate in lieu of the federal program.
Requests for multiple I.D. numbers for one individual generation site must be evaluated
on a case by case basis by the authorized state (or EPA Regional office in the case of Alaska,
Hawaii, Wyoming, Iowa and the U.S. Territories other than Guam) to determine whether the
entity (and perhaps its waste streams) can be separated in some meaningful way. Where the
entity's accounting practices dictate separate documentation for waste streams, it may make
sense for the State or Region to likewise monitor them separately. The Agency does not intend
for properties to be subdivided for the purpose of avoiding regulation, e.g. by slipping under the
small quantity generator limitation.
EPA assumes that states assigning multiple I.D. numbers for one individual generation
site do so because the entity (and perhaps its waste streams) is separate in some meaningful way.
Therefore, EPA does not expect to be informed where there is more than one I.D. number for an
individual generation site. However, since you state in your letter .that the two autonomous
divisions owned by the same company were not aware that the other had obtained a separate I.D.
number, it may be necessary to inform the state since formal application for two numbers for one
individual generation site has not been made and the requisite evaluation has not been done.
Finally, please be reminded that authorized states may impose requirements different than
federal requirements which may, among other things, have the effect of limiting or increasing the
number of I.D. numbers per individual generation site. If you have further questions on this
matter, please contact Ann Codrington of my staff at (202) 260-8551.
Sincerely,
Michael Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
-------
LAW OFFICES
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
•4IOI LAKE BOONE TRAIL
POST OFFICE BOX 3I6O8
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27682
TELEPHONE (919) 787-97OO
FAX (9)9) 783-9*13
JAMES M. KUSZAJ, PM.D.
•ARTNCB
July 6, 1995
OTMCM
OWCENVltLC. SOUTH CAROLINA
WASHINGTON. O. C.
ATLANTA. CCOKOIA
COLUMBIA. SOUTH CAROLINA
NASHVILLC. TCNNtSSCC
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
Re:
Generator Identification Numbers
40C.F.R. $262.12
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am writing to request EPA's current interpretation of the requirements in 40
C.F.R. §262.12 as they relate to generators of hazardous waste obtaining multiple EPA
identification numbers for a geographically contiguous piece of property.
My specific questions involve the following tacts:
Company A owns a large geographically contiguous piece of property. Two
autonomous divisions of Company A occupy different portions of the property. Each
division generates and manages its own hazardous waste. Each division applied for and
obtained from either EPA or the state a unique generator identification number. Since
the divisions were autonomous, neither was aware that the other had obtained a separate
I.D. number.
Given these facts, my questions are:
1. Is there any prohibition against maintaining multiple I.D. numbers for the same
property?
2. Can two autonomous divisions of the same company co-located on the same
property be considered separate generators and be issued separate I.D. numbers?
-------
Michael Shapiro
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
July 6, 1995
Page 2 _
3. Would the answer to Question 2 be different if the aggregation of waste from
both divisions caused one of the divisions to change regulatory classification. For
example, to move from a conditionally exempt SQG to a large quantity generator?
4. Would EPA or the state need to be specifically informed that there are separate
I.D. numbers for the same property?
Thank you for your attention to the matter. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, L.L.P.
M. Kuszaj
JMK/mvk
-------
!>' A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I" WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9451.1996(01)
MAR 12 1998 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Steven T. Warshaw
President
Olin Microelectronic Materials Division
Olin Corporation
501 Merritt 7, P.O. Box 4500
Norwalk, Connecticut 06856-4500
Dear Mr. Warshaw:
Thank you for your letter of February 21, 1996 regarding
states that Olin is proposing to enter into contractual
arrangements with certain of its customers who use Olin's
specialty chemicals to fabricate computer chips, integrated
circuits, and other electrical' devices. These contractual
relationships would be entered into as a part of Olin's Product
Stewardship Program.
Your letter explains that under the contracts, Olin would
retain legal ownership of the specialty chemicals supplied to
customers; would maintain a physical presence at the customer's
site; and would remove, accumulate, and manage any chemicals that
exit the customer's process units. Specifically, your letter
asserts that Olin would retain ownership of any hazardous wastes
that result from the use of its chemicals, and that Olin would
assume responsibility- for the proper management of these wastes
under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
According to your letter, Olin's purpose in writing .to EPA
is to obtain confirmation that Olin would be considered a
generator of the hazardous wastes which result from the joint
activities of Olin and its customers, such that Olin's compliance
with the hazardous waste generator requirements (codified in Part
262 of 40 CFR) would also fulfill its customers' obligations
~-
2x9
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canofa In* on paper mai
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
under these regulations. 01in also seeks confirmation that EPA
would, in the event, a joint liability results from these
relationships, look first to Olin for performance of the
generator obligations.
I am pleased to provide you with the requested confirmation.
First, it is correct that under the facts related in your letter,
Olin would clearly be. a generator of any hazardous wastes which
exit from the process units of your customers. Also under these
facts, EPA would look first to Olin for compliance with the
generator requirements set forth in Part 262 of 40 CFR. This
would be the case regardless of whether Olin or Olin's customer
actually operates the process unit. This follows from.EPA1s "co-
generator policy," which was first announced in the October 30,
1980, Federal Register notice which you cite in your letter, and
discussed -in numerous regulations and interpretive letters since
that date.
In the case where Olin operates the process unit, the status
of Olin .as generator of the waste is straightforward. In this
instance, Olin would be the owner of the materials being
processed, the operator of the process unit, and the person
removing the waste from the. process unit.. All of these roles are
acts which .contribute to the production of a hazardous waste,
within the meaning of the generator definition at 40 CFR §260.10.
Under this scenario, Olin would appear to be the more significant
contributor to the generation of the hazardous waste. The
customer would still be a jointly liable co-generator, though,
because it owns the process unit and the product being fabricated
with Olins chemicals. As explained in the co-generator notice
of October 30, 1980, EPA would typically look first to the
operator of the process unit (Olin) to fulfill the generator
duties. Thus, Olins compliance with the generator requirements
would discharge Olins and its customers obligations under the
regulations.
In the second scenario, the facts are altered to the extent
that your customer, rather than Olin personnel, would operate the
process unit generating the waste. Olin and the customer would
again be co-generators, since each is performing acts which
produces a hazardous waste. The customer is a generator because
it owns the product being fabricated, and because it owns and is
operating the process unit. Olin remains a co-generator because
of its ownership of the chemical raw materials, and because it
would be the person removing the waste from the process unit and
subjecting it to RCRA regulation. See 45 FR 72024 at 72026.
Under this second scenario, Olins contribution to the
generation of the waste is not as predominant as in the above
first scenario. Further, under the policy discussed above
whereby EPA generally looks first to the operator of the process
unit for compliance, the customer might appear to be the
generator with primary responsibility.
-------
However, as stated in the "co-generator" notice, this
presumption, would not apply in the case where there is a mutual
agreement among the parties for one of the co-generators to
perform the generator duties on behalf of all. EPA encourages
such an arrangement, and the contracts between Olin and its
customers would clearly fall within this policy. As EPA
explained in the October 1980, notice, EPA will look first to the
generator designated by a mutual agreement among co-generators.
The agreement overrides the policy that looks first to the
operator of the process unit, except in those cases where a
responsible party is not clearly, designated, or where EPA does
not know about the agreement. See 45 FR 72024 to 72027. I trust
that Olin will retain copies of its contracts to display to RCRA
inspectors, and that the contracts will be sufficiently specific
in designating Olin as the responsible generator.
I should emphasize, however, that the co-generator policy is
a Federal policy, and that since its announcement by EPA in 1980,
the RCRA program has been delegated (with few exceptions) to our
authorized state programs. So, you should contact the state
hazardous waste agency in each state where you propose to
implement this arrangement to verify that the state also follows
the same or a similar policy with respect to co-generators.
Under RCRA, states may generally choose to operate hazardous
waste programs that are more stringent than EPAs requirements.
Thank you for bringing 01ins Product Stewardship Program to
our attention. I laud you for promoting this excellent example
of corporate responsibility, and I wish your company every
success in carrying it out.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, (fiiirector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
April 1996
9451.1996(02)
1. Frequently Asked Questions on
Hazardous Waste Generator
Requirements
May large quantity generators (LQGs)
and small quantity generators (SQGs) treat
hazardous waste on site without obtaining a
permit or interim status?
EPA has consistently maintained that a
permit or interim status is not required if a
LQG or SQG treats hazardous waste in
accumulation units such.as tanks or containers
that are in full compliance with the
requirements of 40 CFR §262.34 and the
special unit-specific requirements found in
Part 265 (March 24,1986; 51ER 10146,
10168). This treatment must be completed
within the specified regulatory time
limitations.
Must SQGs submit a Biennial Report for
their hazardous •waste management activities?
No, SQGs (generators of greater man 100
kg but less man 1,000 kg in a calendar month)
are subject only to the reporting requirements
listed in 40 CFR §262.44. The Biennial
Report regulation at 40 CFR §262.41 is not
specifically listed in mat section.
The 40 CFR Part 262 regulations,
Standards Applicable to Generators, do not
mention conditionally exempt small quantity.
generators (CESQGs). Where are the CESQG
regulations found?
Unlike the LQG and SQG regulations that
are found'throughout Part 262, the CESQG
requirements are found in §261.5. CESQGs
are those generators who produce less than or
equal to 100 kg.of hazardous waste, less man
or equal to. 1 kg of acute hazardous waste, or
less than or equal to 100 kg of spill residue of
acute hazardous waste per calendar month.
Must generators preparing an off-site
shipment of hazardous waste list the EPA
waste codes on the manifest?
EPA manifest regulations at 40 CFR
§262.20 and Appendix to Part 262 do not
require generators to list EPA waste codes on
die manifest The shaded space provided on
the manifest for EPA waste codes is for the
convenience of state agencies, as some states
may require EPA waste codes to be listed on a
manifest (40 CFR §271.10(h)). The
Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations may, however, require listing EPA
waste codes as part of the DOT description
(40 CFR §179.203 (k)(4)).
-------
*. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
'* FILE m:
9451.1996(03)
MAY 1 1996
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Resolution of RCRA Issues Relating t6 the Wood
Preserving Industry
FROM: David Bussard, Director
Hazardous Waste Identification Division
TO: John B. Rasnic, Director
Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division
Office of Compliance
In your February 29th memo to me, you raised a couple of
issues that you wanted us to look into. The first of these was a
question as to whether the current regulations support a wood
preserving facility's claim that a drip pad sump is part of the
facility's wastewater treatment system and is therefore exempt
from certain RCRA requirements, even though the wood preserving
regulations require that the sump meet subpart J tank standards.
The answer is yes, depending of course on the particular
facts, drip pad sumps may generally satisfy the wastewater
treatment unit exemption. The requirement that wood preservers
must meet subpart J standards does not trump the wastewater
treatment unit exemption. I have attached a memo from Tim
Sullivan in the Region IX'office that I think does a very good
job-of explaining this.
You also asked whether, should we end up excluding recycled
in-process wastewaters at wood preserving facilities- from the
definition of solid waste, it would be possible that a previously
regulated facility could become a conditionally exempt small
quantity generator (CESQG) ; and, if so., would that facility need
to comply with RCRA requirements specifically crafted for wood
preservers.
Recyctodfftecyctabto • Printed with Vegetable OK Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
First, it is important to point out that .if any facility
meets the conditions set forth in the section defining and
explaining CESQG status (§261.5), it is considered to be
conditionally exempt from the definition of solid waste (and
therefore hazardous waste) and is thus.subject to very few
requirements under RCRA. In the case of the wood preserving
industry, they would be conditionally exempt from subpart W and
subpart J requirements, among a number of other requirements.
However, with respect to conditionally excluding wastewaters -that
are reused, one approach we could take in crafting a national
provision.(whether regulatory or legislative) is to grant the
conditional exclusion only when the wastewaters are used in
connection with a drip pad that is in compliance with RCRA
Subpart W drip pad standards. Should we do this, your question
would be moot.
It would be useful to know if anyone in your office" has. been
able to determine how many facilities might become CESQGs if
their in-process wastewater is not counted as solid waste; and
whether this issue has occurred at any facilities to date/ in the
absence of a national wastewater exclusion for those wastewaters
prior to reclamation. Second, I would be interested to hear
whether you think a typical wood preserving facility could
qualify for an exemption under §261.5, especially those
conditions under §261.5 (g)-(3) , (4) , or (5).
Finally, I would like to say that -I appreciate all the help
that Seth Heminway of your office has been able to provide us on
a number of issues related to this industry. My staff will
continue to work with Seth to resolve any key issues raised by
your draft Wood Preserving Compliance Notebook.
I look forward to seeing any information you can provide on
the CESQG issue.
Enclosure
-------
iSOl FARM CREDIT DRIVE
MCLEAN. VIRGINIA 22IO2
(703! 790-7900
FACSIMILE
(7O3) 821-2397
SHAW, PITT MAN, POTTS & TROWB RIDGE
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Z3OO N STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 2OC37
KO2) 663-8OOO
FACSIMILE
(2O2) 663-8OO7
3OI LIBERTY STREET, s.w.
L6ESBURG. VIRGINIA 23075
(7O3) 777-OOOa
METOO 170-8969
FACSIMILE
C7O3) 777-932O
BRENDA J. 3OYKIN
OO2) 663-913O
August 15,1995
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director, Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Satellite Accumulation Rule; Request for Interpretation
Dear Ms. Lowrance:
I am writing to request an interpretation of the rule that applies to generators who
accumulate hazardous waste in satellite accumulation containers. 40 C.F.R. § 262.34(c)
states that "[a] generator may accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste ... in
containers at or near any point of generation" provided that the generator complies with
certain requirements. The rule states that if the generator accumulates more than 55 gallons
of waste, he must "with respect to that amount of excess waste" move the waste to the
facility's long-term (e.g., 90-day) storage area within three days.
My question is whether the generator can temporarily have more than 55 gallons of
hazardous waste at a single satellite location. This couid occur, for example, if the generator
has filled one 5 5-gallon container with hazardous waste and intends to move that container to
the long-term storage area within three days. If the generator then starts filling a new
55-gallon container in the three-day period before he or she removes the old one, this would
mean that the total quantity of hazardous waste at the satellite accumulation location could
exceed 55 gallons temporarily (because it would include the filled 55-gallon container as well
as the amount that accumulates during the three-day period). I am uncertain whether the rule
would allow the generator to have more than 55 gallons at one time at a satellite location,
even under these circumstances, and I'would appreciate your clarification.
-------
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
August 15, 1995
Page 2
Please contact me if you require any additional information in order to respond to this
inquiry. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Brenda J. Boy kin
204)90-01 /DOCSDCI
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FILE
MAY I 1996 9451.1996(04)
OFFlCc OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Brenda J. Boykin
Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Ms. Boykin:
Thank you for your letter of August 15,1995 requesting an interpretation of the regulations that
apply to generators who accumulate waste in containers at or.near the point of generation where wastes
initially accumulate. Specifically, you ask whether the regulation at 40 CFR 262.34 (c) would allow the
generator to accumulate more than 55 gallons of non-acutely hazardous waste at one time at a satellite
location.
As you may know, the regulations at 40 CFR 262.34(c)(l) state that "a generator may
accumulate as much as 55 gallons of non-acute hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous
waste...in containers at or near any point of generation where wastes initially accumulate, which is
under the control of the operator of the process generating the waste..." Such accumulation may take
place provided that the waste is placed in containers that are in good condition, the waste is compatible
with their containers, the containers are marked with the words "Hazardous Wastes" or other words
that identify the contents, and the containers are covered when the generator is not adding or removing
waste. See 49 FR 49568 - 49572, Dec. 20, 1984. Should the 55 gallon limit be exceeded, Section
262.34(c) requires the generator to mark the container holding the excess accumulation of hazardous
waste with the date the excess amount began accumulating, and after three days, manage that excess
waste in accordance with Section 262.34(a).
Your question relates to the interpretation of 40 CFR 262.34(c)(2) which states that:
A generator who accumulates either hazardous waste or acutely hazardous waste listed
in §261.33(e) in excess of the amounts listed in paragraph (c)(l) of mis section at or
near any point of generation must, with respect to that amount of excess waste, comply
within three days with paragraph (a) of this section or other applicable provisions of
this chapter. During the three day period the generator must continue to comply with
paragraphs (c)(l)(I) through (ii) of this section. The generator must mark the container
holding the excess accumulation of hazardous waste with the date the excess amount
began accumulating.
According to these provisions, the generator has 3 days after the 55 gallon limit has been
exceeded to transfer the excess waste from the satellite area. In order to answer your question of
whether waste above the 55 gallon limit may be accumulated in the 3 day interim period and remain
subject to the accumulation area provisions, it is necessary to refer to the preamble language of
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
•contains m least 50% recycled liber
-------
December 20. 1984, which considers the potential hazards of accumulating hazardous waste in these
sites. In the December 20, 1984 Federal Register notice, the Agency states that "...the accumulation
at satellite areas of up to 55 gallons of non-acutely hazardous waste is reasonable and safe and does not
pose a threat to human health and the environment" (49 FR 49.569, Dec. 20, 1984). However, in the
discussion which followed, the Agency questioned the safety of the accumulation of non-acutely
hazardous waste in amounts above the 55 gallon limit. "Because the weight of evidence suggests
limited use by the regulated community of containers larger than 55 gallons and because spills of 110
gallons of non-acutely hazardous waste would pose a higher environmental threat, EPA does not
believe that the satellite accumulation level should be higher than 55 gallons." Id.
The preamble language above illustrates the Agency's view that waste accumulation in satellite
accumulation areas should not be excessive. Although it is clear that the Agency did not intend for
amounts as large as 110 gallons to be accumulated on a routine basis, it is not specific about whether
small amounts of non-acutely hazardous waste exceeding the 55 gallon limit may be accumulated
routinely. The Agency understands that due to the nature of the production process, there may be
special cases in which small quantities of wastes above the 55 gallon limit may need to be accumulated
for brief periods in one accumulation area. Thus, we interpret that the satellite accumulation provisions
of 40 CFR 262.34(c)(l) permit the generator to continue to accumulate nominal quantities of a non-
acutely hazardous waste in excess of the 55 gallon limit as long as the additional wastes accumulated
during the 3-days are managed in accordance with section 262.34(c)(l). Any excess waste must be
managed (including transferring that excess waste to the generator's 90-day accumulation area) in
accordance with section 262.34(a) within three days.
The Agency does not expect that any accumulation over the 55 gallon limit will be excessive
and believes that most facilities should be aware of the process waste generation rate and should be
able to arrange for the removal of any excess accumulation within the 3-day time frame, thereby
avoiding excessive accumulation of waste over the 55 gallon limit The Agency also understands that
there may be one-time circumstances during which quantities in excess of 110 gallons are generated.
In such cases, the Agency recommends that you contact your state waste management office for further
guidance on how such occurrences should be handled.
Also, because states may have regulations and interpretations mat are more stringent than the
federal regulations, the Agency strongly recommends that you check with your state waste management
office (or Regional office in unauthorized states) for questions specific to the amount of waste allowed
above the 55 gallon limit in the particular states where your clients operate. This interpretation is not
binding on authorized states.
I hope this response is of assistance. In you have additional questions, please contact Ann
Codrington of my office at (202)260-8551.
Sincerely yours,
/' m Michael Shapiro, Director
-' '-' Office o£S6lid Waste
cc: Bill Hamele
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9451.1996(05)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
KB. Young Mi Kiro RESPONSE
5080 Likini Street #913
Honolulu, Hawaii 96818
Dear Ms. Kim:
Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1996 to President Clinton
requesting information about the management of hazardous waste generated in
quantities less than 100 kilograms. Specifically, you ask why hazardous waste
is thrown away with ordinary garbage and what happens to the waste when it is
thrown away.
Generators of less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month are
currently referred to as "conditionally exempt small quantity generators"
(CESQGs) and are exempt from many of the hazardous waste regulations found at
Title 40 of the.Code of Federal Regulations. Although they are exempt from
the majority of hazardous waste regulations, these generators are still
subject to some requirements. First, they must identify their wastes to
determine whether they are hazardous; second, they cannot accumulate more than
1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste at any time; and third, they must either
treat or dispose of the waste onsite, or ensure that it is sent to a permitted
hazardous waste management facility, a permitted municipal or industrial solid
waste facility, or a recycling facility. Therefore CESQGs are not exempted
outright,•but are exempted on the condition that the waste is managed at an
approved facility. These provisions were intended to assure that human health
and the environment are protected.
Additionally, federal regulations allow states to adopt more stringent
regulations if they choose, and some states have chosen not to exempt CESQGs
from many of the hazardous waste generator requirements. These requirements
are imposed through state municipal or industrial waste permit, license, or
registration programs.
When designing the hazardous waste management program in the late
1970s, EPA chose 100 kilograms as the point at which significant regulation
would apply because it sought to exclude from the regulations persons whose
generation of hazardous waste does not pose a substantial threat to human
health or the environment. At that time more than 90 percent of the hazardous
waste was generated by large quantity generators. The Agency believes that in
order to be as effective as possible at implementing the hazardous waste
program with limited resources, it must focus on those generators who generate
hazardous waste in significant quantities, rather than attempt to cover every
generator of hazardous waste (there are more than 215,000 hazardous waste
generators who generate greater than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per year
and between 455,000 and 700,000 CESQGs in the U.S.). By excluding CESQGs from
most hazardous waste regulations, EPA is able to focus on the overall
environmental objectives of the Agency.
Additionally, small amounts of hazardous wastes may be included in
household wastes which are currently not regulated under EPA's hazardous waste
requirements. Many state and local governments impose regulations governing
the disposal of household wastes and may organize collection centers for
household hazardous wastes. In addition EPA has issued standards for
municipal solid waste landfills. These requirements for municipal landfills
Reeycled/Raeyciabl* • Printed with Vegeotole Oil Based hiKs on 100% Recyded Paper (40% Posteoosumer)
-------
which are implemented by the states, are structured so that the public is
protected from potential hazards associated with landfills that receive
hazardous waste. These landfills are subject to requirements that minimize
hazards including location restrictions (e.g., they cannot be located near
flood plains or faults), operating criteria {e.g., they must be covered every
day), and strict groundwater monitoring requirements. These measures help
ensure that the hazardous waste that ends up in landfills does not pose a
threat to human health and the environment.
For your information, we have included three EPA publications which may
be of help in clarifying EPA's waste management program for generators of
small quantities of hazardous waste. They are Solving the Hazardous Waste
Problem: EPA's RCRA program; Understanding the Small Quantity Generator
Hazardous Waste Rules: A Handbook for Small Business; Safer Disposal for Solid
Waste: The Federal Regulations for Landfills; Criteria for Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities: A Guide for Owners/Operators; and Household Hazardous
Waste Management: A Manual .for One-Day Community Collection Programs. We hope
this information addresses your concerns.
Sincerely yours,
Enclosures
lI Shapiro, Director
f Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9451.1996(06)
MAY I 1996
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND cMSRGENCV
RESPONSE
Peter J.Wojdyla
Pima County Risk Management
32 N Stone, 3rd floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
Dear Mr. Wojdyla:
Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1995 requesting an interpretation of several
questions regarding generator requirements and how they may apply to various on-site and off-
site scenarios. While we are responding to your questions based on EPA's implementation of
federal regulations, please be aware that the State of Arizona is authorized to implement its
RCRA program in lieu of the federal regulations and should be consulted regarding the
circumstances of a specific location. The state may have regulations that are more stringent than
federal regulations, and these state requirements govern operation at these sites.
Below is a summary of the questions you asked followed by our interpretation. For your
convenience we have attached copies of documents which relate to the issues you raise.
Question one
Your first question requests clarification of the definition of on-site to determine whether
two structures in one complex owned by a single owner are considered separate generators under
RCRA. You state in your letter that an office building and a factory are located on a single
property and that the office building generates one kilogram of hazardous waste while the factory
generates one thousand kilograms of hazardous waste. You ask whether the complex can be
considered one generator or two. You also ask for clarification of the terms "installation",
"facility", and "individual generation site" as they pertain to the definition of "on-site"
For the purposes of generator notification and obtaining EPA identification numbers, and
assuming that the two structures you describe are on-site as defined at 40 CFR §260.10, one
identification number is sufficient for the two structures. Also, the wastes generated on the
contiguous property would be subject to the requirements for large quantity generators of
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy.Canoia ink on paper mat
contains at least 50% recycled liber
-------
hazardous wastes.1 A manifest however, would have to be completed if waste must be shipped
on roads or other right-of-ways to which the public has access.
There is no regulatory definition for the term "by site". However, at 40 CFR §260.10,
EPA defines "on-site" as:
...the same or geographically contiguous property which may be divided by public or
private right-of-way, provided the entrance and exit between the properties is at a cross-
roads intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going along, the right of way
Non-contiguous properties owned by the same person but connected by a right-of-way
which he controls and to which the public does not have access, is also considered on-site
property.
EPA also defines the term "individual generation site" as "...the contiguous site at or on
which one or more hazardous wastes are generated. An individual generation site, such as a large
manufacturing plant, may have one or more sources of hazardous wastes but is considered a
single or individual generation site if the site or property is contiguous." (40 CFR §260.10) The
property you describe would meet the definition of individual generation site if it is contiguous
and would be "on-site" for the purposes of manifesting if the two structures were either a) not
divided by a public right-of-way, or b) the public right-of-way can be crossed directly without
traveling along it.
If the two structures were owned by different people, then under federal regulations one
identification number would be needed for each structure even if the regulated activity is taking
place on a contiguous piece of property. However, please check with your state for specific
guidance on the issuance of identification numbers for the scenarios you provide.
The definition of the terms "installation" and "facility" are not directly relevant to your
specific question. "Installation" is not defined in the RCRA regulations at 40 CFR §260.10. It is
only defined within the instructions to the Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Form, (EPA
form 8700-12). Since the form is used by all persons requiring an EPA identification number, the
term installation is meant to refer in general terms to all users of identification numbers.
"Facility", as defined in 40 CFR §260.10, refers to treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. The term refers, for permitting-jyspsses* to the area where hazardous waste treatment,
1 However, if acute hazardous waste is generated in quantities less than one kilogram, then
this waste may be counted and managed separately from non-acute hazardous waste. (See 40
CFR'§56*1.5(e} and (f)). For example, a generator of one kilogram or less of acute hazardous
waste and 1000 kilograms of non-acute hazardous waste may. manage the acute hazardous waste
according to the provisions for conditionally exempt generators while the non-acute hazardous
waste would be subject to requirements found at 40 CFR §262.34(d) for small quantity
generators.
-------
storage, and disposal activities occur and/or the waste management area that may be made up of
one or more waste management units and also defines the area subject to corrective action.
Therefore the definition of facility is not of direct relevance in the context of the description you
provide since your question does not concern waste management sites subject to permitting
requirements, but rather generation sites.
Question two
You state in your letter that Pima County has several different individual generation sites
that are divided by roads which are owned by the County. You ask whether consolidation of
several locations currently having different identification numbers would be of any significance.
Consolidation of two or more locations having different EPA identification numbers may
cause several changes in the notification and manifesting process. For example, a change in the
County's regulatory classification as a small or large quantity generator could result from the
consolidation of several locations having different identification numbers.
Should the County (the generator) decide to consolidate several locations into one site the
following conditions must be met: 1. The County must control the roads and public access must
be restricted. If the generator does not control the road, a manifest must be completed for
shipments that must travel off-site, (e.g., along a road) to the other property belonging to the
generator. 2. At a location where the generator controls the right-of-ways that divide the
property and restricts access, a manifest is not required to ship wastes to the different individual
generation sites. However, although there is no specific prohibition in the regulations against a
generator maintaining multiple ID. numbers for an individual generation site, the Agency expects
an individual generation site to have only one I.D. number. A state may approve of the use of
more than one ID. number in special cases. 3. The proper state or Regional office must be
notified of the change.
Also, please be aware that the Agency has proposed to change the definition of "on-site"
to include properties that, although contiguous, are divided by a public right-of way. (See 60 FR
56468, November 8, 1995)
Question three
You ask whether shipments of hazardous wastes between two properties under the same
ownership located at opposite corners of an intersection would be considered "on-site".
The Agency has stated in a November 4,1994, letter from Michael Shapiro to
Congressman Tim Johnson, "If the entry and exit between two parts of a campus [at a university]
are directly across from each other, or across the junction of two crossroads, they are considered
geographically contiguous" and would meet the definition of "on-site". Two properties under the
same ownership whose entrances are located eater-cornered to each other would meet the
-------
definition of "on-site".
Question four
You ask whether waste from a conditionally exempt small quantity generator could be
shipped for centralized handling to a site generating large quantities of wastes without obtaining a
permit for storage or treatment of hazardous waste.
The Agency is in the process of reviewing whether waste from a conditionally exempt
small quantity generator loses its exemption if taken to an intermediate location not identified at
40 CFR §261.5(g)(3) for purposes such as consolidation and storage prior to delivery to its final
destination. We therefore cannot provide an interpretation on this question until a determination
has been made.
Question five
You ask to whom must a large quantity generator send waste?
Large quantity generators and small quantity generators shipping waste off-site must
prepare a manifest and transport the waste to a facility designated on the manifest in accordance
with 40 CFR §262.20(b). EPA defines the term "designated facility" to mean
...a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility which (1) has received a
permit (or interim status) in accordance with the requirements of parts 270 and 124 of this
chapter, (2) has received a permit (or interim status) from a State authorized in
accordance with Part 271 of this chapter, or (3) is regulated under section 261.6(c)(2) or
Subpart F of part 266 of this chapter, and (4) that has been designated on the manifest by
the generator pursuant to section 260.20[sic (262.20)]. If a waste is destined to a facility
in an authorized State which has not yet obtained authorization to regulate that particular
waste as hazardous, then the designated facility must be a facility allowed by the receiving
State to accept such waste.
This definition includes only limited exceptions for facilities other than permitted or
interim status TSDFs. Therefore, a large quantity generator or small quantity generator could
manifest and transport hazardous waste to facilities other than permitted TSDFs provided that the
facility is appropriately designated on the manifest and meets the definition of a "designated
facility". (Small quantity generators possessing a reclamation agreement pursuant to 40 CFR
§262.20(e) are exempted from certain manifesting requirements as you mentioned in your letter.)
Question six
You ask whether a permit must be obtained if the owner of several small generation sites
-------
would like to utilize a centralized handling operation for packaging, transport, etc., and whether
all requirements at Part 263 apply.
If a generator generates waste in quantities over 100 kilograms and ships the waste to a
location other than one that is on-site as defined at 40 CFR §260.10, a manifest is required for
these shipments, and the regulations at Part 263 apply.
HoweVer, waste in transportation ( e.g., manifested off-site) may be consolidated at
transfer facilities defined at 40 CFR 260.10 as "...any transportation related facility including
loading docks, parking areas, storage areas and other similar areas where shipments of hazardous
wastes are held during the normal course of transportation".
Under certain specified conditions, the regulations allow transporters to store shipments of
hazardous waste at transfer facilities without obtaining a permit or interim status. The regulations
state that:
A transporter who stores manifested shipments of hazardous waste in containers meeting
the requirements of section 262.30 at a transfer facility for a period often days or less is
not subject to regulation under parts 264,265, 268 and 270 of this chapter with respect to
the storage of those wastes (40 CFR §262.12).
If the county designated an area as a transfer facility and met the conditions identified,
consolidation would be allowable at that location. In order for the transfer facility to be excluded
from permitting requirements, the waste must be stored during the normal course of
transportation (e.g., treatment, storage, and disposal facilities designated on the manifest cannot
qualify as transfer facilities.) Waste at such transfer facilities may be consolidated into larger
units or shipments may be transferred to different vehicles for redirecting or rerouting. (See
December 31,198045 FR 86966)
Question seven
The following clarifies how a facility may respond to a location where hazardous wastes
have been dumped illegally.
Persons who generate hazardous waste as a result of a discharge may temporarily store
those wastes without a permit if they comply with the requirements for 90 day accumulation
described on 40 CFR 262.34.
The Agency defines the term "discharge" or hazardous waste discharge" to mean "the
accidental or intentional spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping of
hazardous waste into or on any land or water (40 CFR §260.10).
The regulations at 40 CFR §270. l(c)(3) exempt only those management activities
-------
performed to provide an immediate response for discharges of hazardous waste from the
permitting requirements.
(i) A person is not required to obtain a RCRA permit for treatment or containment
activities taken during immediate response to any of the following situations:
(A) discharge of a hazardous waste;
(B) An imminent and substantial threat of a discharge of hazardous waste;
(C) A discharge of a material which, when discharged, becomes a hazardous waste.
(ii) Any person who continues or initiates hazardous waste treatment or containment
activities after the immediate response is over is subject to all applicable requirements of
this part for those activities.
Additional provisions exempting immediate response activities are found at 40 CFR
§264. l(g)(8) and §265. l(c)(l 1). To qualify for the exemption the treatment or containment
activity must be for the initial, immediate response to the discharge. Once the immediate threat
passes, all applicable RCRA standards apply including the accumulation provisions described at
40 CFR §262.34. EPA explains:
The exemption concerns only treatment and storage activities; it does not relieve anyone
of complying with any requirements for the disposal of hazardous waste. In addition, the
exemption applies only during immediate response; all hazardous waste management
activities thereafter are fully subject to RCRA regulations (January 19, 1983; 48 FR 2508,
2509).
Additionally, after the initial response has ended, an emergency permit may be available
for other emergency activities.
We hope we have clarified the issues you raised. Again, we strongly encourage you to
check with the state of Arizona because as an authorized state, Arizona may have regulations or
interpretations that differ from, or are more stringent than the federal requirements,
Please direct any questions about the interpretations in this letter to Ann Codrington, of
the Generation and Recycling Branch at 202-260-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
cc: Bill Hamele
Ethel DeMarr, Arizona DEQ
-------
PIMA COUNTY
RISK MANAGEMENT
32 N. STONE. 3RD FLOOR
TUCSON. AZ 85701
(602) 740-5295
September 18, 1995
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street Southwest
Washington, District of Columbia 20460
Re: Request for Written Interpretations
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am the Environmental Loss Control Officer for Pima County Risk Management in Tucson,
Arizona. Some of my duties include providing assistance for our various departments in
understanding federal regulations. I am in the process of performing a form of "desk audit" in
order to assist our operating units to comply with "RCRA" requirements in a consistent manner. I
find that some of the definitions and guidance given are subject to interpretation; I need to clarify
some of these issues before I attempt to provide direction to some of our operations which get
involved with hazardous waste and therefore RCRA compliance. In the past, I have approached
the Region for such interpretations, and when I asked for a written response, my questions were
forwarded to the "central office". In two cases, the Region and the "central office" provided
contradictory responses; for this reason, I am setting forth my questions in writing and asking for
a written answer, clarification, interpretation, and/or response to each.
I shall set forth each question or situation for which I am seeking guidance:
1. In 40 CFR 260.10, "Generator means any person, by site, whose act or process
produces hazardous waste . ...". What does "by site" mean? EPA Form 8700-12
utilizes the term "Installation" for notification purposes. It has also been suggested
that "Facility", as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, can be used to define "Installation"
for generator notification purposes in as much as a generator can be expected to
store hazardous waste for a time, no matter how short. Reflecting on these
various generator location descriptors, I am unsure as to the extent of a generator
for regulatory purposes. For example, if a complex, single ownership, has two
separate structures, one of which is an office building and the other a factory, and
the factory generates one thousand kilograms (1,000 kg) of hazardous waste per
calendar month and the office wastes one kilogram (1 kg) of spent flammable toner
per month, are there two (2) generators, one of which is conditionally exempt, or
just one (1) (with the office waste subject to full large quantity generator
-------
Mr. Shapiro
September 18, 1995
Page 2
regulation)? The term "by site" would seem to suggest there are 2 generators,
whereas if the "facility" definition is used, 1 generator. The term "Installation"
would appear to be able to cover either interpretation. What if they shared the
same structure? Also do the definitions of "On-sile" or "Individual generation
site" have any application in answering/interpreting the proffered situation?
2. As a political subdivision, Pima County owns many road "rights-of-way" and
could,-theoretically, conjoin its various locations. Is this of any significance under
"RCRA" regulations?
3. If two properties with the same ownership are located "kitty-comer" across an
intersection and access can be had at the opposing comers, would they be covered
by the term "On-site"!
A. If there are two (2) "generators", one of whicfris a large quantity generator (LQG)
and the other is a "conditionally exempt small quantity generator" (CESQG),
which are owned and operated by the same entity but separated geographically, it
would appear that the CESQG waste cannot be transported to the other generation
site for handling by the LQG (without it being a permitted TSDF) for the purpose
of combining it with its own wastes in order to see that it is appropriately
disposed. Is this correct? (As a public entity, the county attempts to keep its
hazardous wastes out of local landfills and see that it is appropriately disposed or
destroyed.)
5. It appears that an LQG must manifest and transport his hazardous waste(s) to
nothing other than a permitted TSDF, unless it is being handled "On-site". Is this
correct? And, except for contractual reclamation of hazardous waste, it appears
that the same is also true of small quantity generators (SQG). Is this also correct?
6. Pima County is a large county and has many operations/facilities located
throughout it. In order to transport hazardous wastes to a centralized handling
operation for packaging, transport, etc., must that operation acquire a TSDF
permit before being utilized? Also, do all the manifesting and transportation
requirements apply to moving the wastes to such a location?
7. At present, when there is a "wildcat dump" of what appears to be a hazardous
material within our "right-of-way" or on County property, we try to appropriately
mitigate the situation; this usually entails the containerization of the contaminant
and affected materials) and transport to one of our maintenance yards for holding
until an appropriate disposition can be made. If the material is a hazardous waste,
and we are knowledgeable of this fact, can this be done in other than an emergency
situation?
-------
Mr. Shapiro
September 18, 1995
PageS
Please provide me with written responses to the above. If guideline or program memoranda exist
which can assist in addressing the above, I would be grateful if they could also be provided.
Thank you for your attention and consideration. If you have any questions concerning this letter,
please call me at (520) 740-4001.
Very truly yours,
Peter J. Wojdyla, P.E.
Environmental Loss Control Officer
xc: Bob Healey, Director
Chris Straub, Deputy County Attorney
Becky Pearson, Public Works
-------
'\
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
'/
9451.1996(07)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary F. Toro, Compliance Officer
Consumer Product Safety Commission
From: Gregory Helms
Office of Solid Waste
Re: Management and Disposal of Waste Vinyl Mini Blinds
We have received your questions about management and disposal of lead-bearing vinyl
mini blinds that are being discarded by homeowners or retailers in connection with your
recommendations that they be replaced due to their potential to cause lead poisoning. The
attachment to this memo .restates and answers each of your questions.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act CRCRA1 only applies when blinds become
a waste, i.e., they are being discarded or disposed; any blinds being sent back to a manufacturer
for sale in other markets (e.g., for export) would not be regulated under RCRA. However, given
the health concerns about the blinds CPSC has identified, we hope you will encourage those with
stocks of blinds not to export these products. Key points in managing and disposing of waste
blinds are: 1) waste blinds from households or other residential buildings may be disposed of as
ordinary household trash (i.e., they are exempt from Federal hazardous waste regulation under
RCRA); 2) whoever discards blinds from sources other than households or residential buildings
is responsible for determining whether they contain enough lead to be considered a hazardous
waste, although such a determination can make use of information from other reliable sources; 3)
management and disposal requirements for hazardous waste blinds vary depending on the
volume of waste being disposed; 4) there is a federal minimum set of management requirements,
but states may have additional requirements, and should be consulted in planning management
and disposal of waste blinds.
Rocycled/RacyclabIa -Pnmixlwiin Vegetable Ol Based Inks on 100% Recycled I'apcr (40% Cosiconsumer)
-------
QUESTIONS ON LEAD-BEARING MINIBLINDS
1. What is the appropriate disposal method that consumers should be using for their
leadrbearmg vinyl miniblinds?
EPA's regulations state that wastes from households (i.e, garbage and trash) are not
regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (see 40 CFR
261.4(bj(l)). Therefore; consumers may dispose of their miniblinds in the same manner that
they discard ordinary household trash; They may put the blinds out with the garbage, or they
may contact a commercial trash hauler.
2. If consumers have numerous miniblinds in their homes to dispose of, e.g., if a
household had 15 miniblinds for disposal, would this be treated differently than a
household that had only one or two miniblinds?
No. EPA's regulations provide that wastes from nousenoias are not regulated as
hazardous, and there are no limitations on the quantity of the wastes.
3. What is the appropriate disposal method for apartment complexes, hotels, military
bases and hospital facilities .that house many people and may have over 1,000 lead-bearing
miniblinds to dispose of?
EPA's regulations provide that wastes from single and multiple residences, hotels,
motels, bunkhouses, crew quarters, and ranger stations are considered household wastes and are
not regulated.as hazardous under RCRA (see 40 CFR 261.4(b)). These facilities may therefore
dispose of the blinds in the same manner that they discard other trash or garbage.
However, hospitals and other non-residential buildings are not considered generators of
household wastes. They, are subject to the same disposal requirements that apply to retailers,
which are described hi the answer to question #4 below. Therefore, waste blinds generated from
military.base housing units would be exempt,'while waste blinds generated from offices, day care
centers, and other buildings would not be exempted as household waste.
4) How should retailers dispose of the miniblinds they have in inventory if they decide
to dispose of them and not return them to the place of manufacture? Retailers may have
tens of thousands of blinds in inventory.
Once a retailer decides to dispose of the miniblinds, he must 1) determine whether they
are a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 262.10 and #6 below), and if they are hazardous, 2)
determine his size status as a generator, because requirements vary depending on the quantity of
a hazardous waste generated. He should then contact his state hazardous waste agency for more
information on management and compliance in his state because states may have their own
regulations governing hazardous waste.
-------
The retailer can determine his generator status by calculating how much hazardous waste
he or she generates in a calendar month (40 CFR 262.10 (b) and 261.5 (b) and (c)). If the retailer
generates less than 100 kg of hazardous waste (mini-blinds plus any other hazardous waste
generated on site) then the retailer would be classified as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generator (CESQG). A retailer who generates between a 100 kg and 1000 kg of hazardous
waste in a calendar.month would be classified as a Small Quantity Generator (SQG); and a
retailer who generates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste in a single calendar month is
classified as a Large Quantity Generator (LQG).
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators have minimal requirements for
handling hazardous waste (40. CFR 261.5), and may dispose of waste blinds in non-hazardous
waste facilities, although disposal must be in state approved facilities. Some states have
additional requirements for CESQGs beyond the'Federal minimum, so retailers should always.
contact their state hazardous waste agency for .complete information on applicable requirements.
Both SQGs and LQGs are required to handle hazardous waste under EPA's hazardous
waste regulations (40 CFR 262 - 270), and ultimately ensure their disposal in regulated
hazardous waste disposal facilities. .The requirements for SQGs are similar but less stringent
than those for LQGs. Both SQGs and LQGs may be required to:
• obtain an EPA identification number (40 CFR 262.12)
* prepare the hazardous waste for shipment (package, label, mark, placard) (40 CFR 262.30
-262.33)
• manifest the waste for shipment to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, or
recycling facility (40 CFR 262.20 - 262.23,262.42)
• manage the hazardous waste on site in an environmentally sound manner (40 CFR
262.34).
• do record keeping and/or reporting (40 CFR 262.40 - 262-41)
• ensure the waste meets treatment standards before land disposal (40 .CFR 268)
• comply with export and import requirements when necessary (40 CFR Subparts E and F).
Again, some state requirements may vary from, the minimum federal requirements, so
contacting the state regulatory agency is important.
5. Should retailers treat consumer returned merchandise differently than inventoried
products?
As state regulations vary, generators of hazardous waste should always check with their
state .hazardous waste authority for more information on management and compliance.
Assuming the blinds are a hazardous waste, generally, retailers may dispose of
•miniblinds returned from consumers and those from inventoried stock either separately 01
together, A retailer who chooses to handle them separately may take advantage of the household
waste exclusion for the blinds returned from households (see questions 1,2, and 3). However,
the inventoried stock must be managed as described in the response to question 4. Because only
-------
miniblinds generated in a household (as defined in 40 CFR 2661.4 (b)(l)) are eligible for the
household waste exclusion, the retailer must be certain that miniblinds returned from other
regulated sources such as businesses and commercial facilities are not mixed with those from
households. The miniblinds returned from sources other than households should be handled
along with the inventoried stock as a regulated hazardous waste.
If a retailer does not wish to segregate different groups of blinds, or if he wishes to adopt
.the most environmentally conservative approach, he may handle both groups'togetheras'
described in the response to question 4.
6. Does EPA require testing to determine that waste is hazardous?
Once the retailer (or manufacturer) decides to dispose of.the miniblinds, he is required to
determine whether, they are a hazardous waste. This means the retailer must either test a
representative sample of the miniblinds to see if they are considered a hazardous waste (see #7.%
. below), or the retailer or manufacturer may also rely on knowledge of the composition and
properties of the'blinds in making this determination (40 CFR 261.10 (a) (2)). If the retailer
does not want to test the miniblinds, the most conservative approach is to handle all of the
miniblinds as if they were hazardous waste. Although testing is.not required, if subsequent
testing by EPA or others demonstrates that the waste was hazardous,.an incorrect determination
made based on knowledge would leave a waste generator (the retailer or manufacturer)
vulnerable to enforcement action.'
7. What test method does the EPA recommend to retailers to determine whether their
inventory is hazardous? 'Are there certified laboratories that can conduct these tests?
The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP; Method 1311) test would be used
to determine whether lead-bearing vinyl mini-blinds are a hazardous waste when disposed. EPA
does not certify laboratories that perform the TCLP test. However, many reputable commercial
laboratories are capable of performing the test. Testing labs can be identified by contacting the
International Association of Testing Labs, at 703-739-2188, or ACIL, at 202-887-5 872.
8. Where can retailers get a copy of the test method?
Retailers will generally want to rely on a testing, lab to understand the test method details.
Copies of the TCLP test method are available as a part of the EPA analytic methods manual,
SW-B46 (through NTIS, 703-487-4650), or from the analytical methods "information
communication exchange (MICE) hotline, at 703-821-4690.
9. What level of lead is hazardous for purposes of disposal?
The TCLP test uses a sample of the waste and a leaching solution (in a ratio of 1:20).
After mixing the waste with the leaching solution,'the leaching solution is tested for hazardous
-------
constituent concentration. If lead in the leaching solution is present at a concentration higher
than 5 mg/1 (or ppm), the waste would be considered to be hazardous, and would be required to
be managed and disposed as a hazardous waste.
10. Is there a contact person at EPA that can offer retailers guidance on disposal if their
inventory is determined to be hazardous?
For further assistance in understanding the applicable hazardous waste regulations, the
retailer should contact the hazardous waste agency hi his or her state. Other assistance resources
include the EPA Resources Centers, the RGRA hotline (800/424-9346 or 703/412-9810), or the
EPA Regional office.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP-2 3 1996 9451.1996(08)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Philip Kircher
Director of Government Sales
RGF Environmental Systems, Inc.
3875 Fiscal Court
West Palm Beach, FL 33404
Dear Mr. Kircher
Thank you for your letter of July 9,1.996 concerning the applicability of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations to your
chemical flocculation unit, the "Split-O-Mat," when used to treat wash water from C-130
aircraft engines. As you discussed with Charlotte Mooney, of my staff, at the federal
level we can explain how the federal regulations might apply to your unit, and what
criteria you (and/or the generator of a hazardous waste) should use to determine which
federal regulations would apply.
However, most state environmental agencies are authorized to implement the
RCRA hazardous waste program, and the states' regulations, rather than the federal
regulations, apply in authorized states. State hazardous waste regulations must be at
least equivalent to the federal regulations, but may also be more stringent. Because
authorized states implement and enforce their own hazardous waste programs,
authorized states generally make decisions about how the regulations apply to .specific
facilities within the states. Therefore, you (and/or the generator of the hazardous
waste) should work with the appropriate state agency to determine how the hazardous
waste regulations of a particular state would apply to the specifics of any particular
installation of your equipment. Since many of the state hazardous waste regulations
are similar to the federal regulations, the following discussion of the federal regulations
should help you become familiar with some of the possible regulatory requirements.
R«cycled/Recyclabl« . Primed with VegetaWe Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
Based on the Information you provided, it appears there are several ways your
unit might be regulated under the federal hazardous waste regulations. In general-,
treatment1 of hazardous waste is subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
Thus, assuming the cadmium contaminated wash water you describe exhibits the
hazardous waste characteristic of toxic'rty, treatment of that waste would generally
require a hazardous waste treatment permit. However, there are several exceptions
that may apply to your unit.
First, it appears likely that your unit would meet the wastewater treatment unit
exemption of 40 CFR 264.1 (g)(6), which exempts treatment units from RCRA permitting
if they meet the definition of wastewater treatment unit. This definition is found in 40
CFR 260.10 and reads as follows:
"Wastewater treatment unit" means a device which:
(1) Is part of a wastewater treatment facility that is subject to regulation under
either section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act; and
(2) Receives and treats or stores an influent wastewater that is a hazardous
waste as defined in §261.3 of this chapter, or that generates and accumulates a
wastewater treatment sludge that is a hazardous waste as defined in §261.3 of
this chapter; or treats or stores a wastewater treatment sludge which is a
hazardous waste as defined in §261.3 of this Chapter; and
3) Meets the definition of tank or tank system in §260.10 of this chapter.
To determine whether your unit would meet this definition, at each location you
should determine whether the facility is subject to section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean
Water Act (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting and
pretreatment standards, respectively), and whether the unit meets the definition of tank.
"Tank" is defined in 40 CFR 260.10 as "a stationary device, designed to'contain an
accumulation of hazardous waste which is constructed primarily of non-earthen
materials (e.g., wood, concrete, steel, plastic) which provide structural support."
Whether or not your unit meets the definition of tank will depend on the specifics of
each situation, and where questions arise, is a determination that should be made by
the appropriate state.
1 The term "Treatment" means any method, technique, or process, including
neutralization, designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological character or
composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste, or so as to recover
energy or material resources from the waste, or so as to render such waste non-
hazardous, or less hazardous; safer to transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable for
recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. (40 CFR 260.10)
-------
Second, your unit may also be considered a generator accumulation unit and
therefore subject to 40 CFR 262.34. This provision exempts generator accumulation
tanks and containers from RCRA permitting as long as they are managed in
compliance with certain requirements. Thus, this provision could apply if it were
determined that the wastewater treatment unit exclusion did not cover some of your
units because they were considered to be containers,2 rather than tanks. The 40 CFR
262.34 requirements include general standards for generators, accumulation time limits,
and specific design and management requirements for each type of accumulation unit
(e.g., tank or container). Since the military sites you are working with are generators of
hazardous waste, it is likely that they are already in compliance with the general
standards for generators. If that is the case, they would only need to revise their
procedures for compliance with the general standards as necessary to address the new
treatment activity, .to meet the accumulation time limits, and to comply with the specific
design and management requirements for the unit itself (e.g., compliance with Subpart I
of Part 265 for containers).
The discussion above assumes that facilities using your unit are already
regulated large quantity generators of hazardous waste (greater than 1,000 kilograms
of hazardous waste per month). It is also possible, however, that such a facility might
be a "small quantity generator" or a "conditionally exempt small quantity generator," in
which case less stringent requirements would apply. I have enclosed copies of two
documents that summarize the federal hazardous waste regulations for each of these
generator categories.
You should also be aware that if the treatment sludge generated in your unit
exhibits characteristics of hazardous waste, including the toxicity characteristic for
cadmium, the waste must be managed as a hazardous waste. Finally, there may be
requirements under the land disposal restrictions program (40 CFR Part 268) that would
apply to the treatment sludge or to the original wash water. Additional information
about the hazardous waste regulations can be found in the enclosed documents, and
by calling our RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346. The Hotline can explain the federal
regulations in detail, and can also provide contacts at the various state agencies to find
out about state regulations.
I hope this information concerning the federal regulations is useful. You (and/or
the generator of the hazardous waste) should check with the appropriate state agencies
2 The term "container" means any portable device in which a material is stored,
transported, treated, disposed of, or otherwise handled. (40 CFR 260.10)
-------
to determine the specific requirements that may be applicable in those states. If you
have further questions, please contact Charlotte Mooney, at (703) 308-7025.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Hazardous Waste Identification Division
Enclosures
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9452.1996(03)
OFFICE OF
Ms. Catherine A. McCord, Manager S°L'D WA$TE AND EMERGENCE
_ , _ , ° RESPONSE
Regulatory Programs and
Business Integration Division
Safety-Kleen Corporation
1000 North Randall Road
Elgin, TL 60213-7857
Dear M& McCord:
J In May, 1996, you and Larry Davenport first met with my staff in the Hazardous Waste
Identification Division (HWID)tp discuss the use of automated information technologies in the
hazardous waste manifest system. During this meeting, you indicated that Safety-Kleen Corp.
(Safety-Kleen) had developed the capability to store manifest records electronically at its recycle
facility-in Denton, Texas. Since Safety-Kleen may wish to implement this system on a national
basis, you asked HWTD to clarify if this electronic record system complied with current Subtitle C
requirements for the use and retention of the Uniform Manifest. By this letter, I am pleased to
provide you with the requested clarification.
Based on the information provided to EPA staff by Safety-Kleen's representatives, I
conclude that the automated manifest record system operated by the company at its Denton,
Texas recycle facility complies with current RCRA record retention and access requirements.
This conclusion follows from our finding that the image files stored by Safety-Kleen's. system
meet the requirements in our.current manifest regulations for maintaining manifest copies that
bear the handwritten signatures of the generator and subsequent waste handlers. Safety-Kleeh's
automated system is able to reproduce high quality copies of manifests that include the images of
the original handwritten signatures. In addition, the Safety-Kleen image file system appears to
incorporate data integrity and security features which further ensure the trustworthiness of the
records and their general admissibility into evidence. Finally, we find that the indexing and
automated retrieval features included in the system satisfy RCRA statutory provisions which
require facilities to provide RCRA inspectors with reasonable access to their facilities and to their
hazardous waste records, including the ability to inspect and copy records. In the enclosure
included with this response, we explain this interpretation and our findings in greater detail.
I understand that you have previously received a consistent interpretation from officials in
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, which implements the authorized RCRA
hazardous waste program in the State of Texas. To the extent that Safety-Kleen expands its
Recycled/Recyclable
Primed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper mat
contains at least 50% recycled flaw
-------
automated record system .to facilities in other States, you must verify with the appropriate State
agencies that the system will comply with each State's manifest retention regulations and the
Rules of Evidence that.govern the admissibility of computer generated records in that State's
Courts and agencies. Authorized States may implement RCRA programs that include
requirements more stringent than the Federal requirements, and not every State has adopted Rules
of Evidence that are as liberal as the Federal Rules insofar as admitting electronic copies of
documents into evidence.
This response is directed specifically at the system as configured in Denton and described
to EPA and OMB staff by Safety-Kleen's representatives at a meeting here on October 3, 1996.
However, similar systems used by others could also meet our requirements, if they are designed
and operated in accordance with the guidance contained in this letter and the enclosure. In this
regard, the generation and storage of image files that include handwritten signatures, the inclusion
of design and operating controls which ensure record accuracy, integrity and security, and the
inclusion of indexing and file retrieval features which ensure reasonable inspector access are the
key factors in this decision.
Thank you for taking the time to share with us information about your company's
innovative efforts in adopting an automated approach to manifest record keeping. We believe that
systems such as these will demonstrate that automated information technologies can indeed
reduce record keeping burdens, while making access to the data more efficient and timely.
If you have any questions about this response, please contact Michele Anders, Chief of the
Generator and Recycling Branch, on 703-308-8551, or Richard LaShier on 703-308-8796.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: David Nielsen, OECA/RED Ann Codrington, HWID/GRB
Ann Stephanos, OECA/RED David Schwarz, OPPE
George Wyeth, OGC Dell Billings, DOT/RSPA
Palmer Kelly, OECA/OCE Nick S wanstrom, OECA/OCE
Rich LaShier, HWID/GRB Chris Wotz, OMB
David Updike, CIRMD
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
Tom Kennedy, ASTSWMO
-------
OSW's Interpretation and Findings Regarding
Safety-Kleen Corp.'s Automated Manifest Record Storage System
I. Issue: Does Safety-Kleen Corp.'s automated manifest record keeping system, which uses
a scanner and Personal Computer (PC) to generate and store electronically image
files of completed and signed manifests, comply with the current RCRA regulatory
requirements addressing the retention of signed manifest copies by waste handlers,
and the RCRA statutory requirement that hazardous waste facilities provide
RCRA inspectors with access to their records for inspection and copying?
n. Background
In May, 1996, representatives from Safety-Kleen Corp. (Safety-Kleen) met with
management and staff from OSW's Hazardous Waste Identification Division (HWID) to discuss
the use of automated information technologies in the hazardous waste manifest system. During
this meeting, HWID was advised that Safety-Kleen had developed the capability to store manifest
records electronically at its recycle facility in Denton, Texas. Safety-Kleen expressed a desire to
proceed with implementing this capability on a national basis, and asked OSW to clarify if this
electronic record system complied with current Subtitle C requirements for the use and retention
of the hazardous waste manifest.
Subsequently, HWID staff conducted a series of internal meetings on the topic of
electronic storage with staff from several interested EPA offices, including the Office of General
Counsel, the Office of Regulatory Enforcement, the Office of Criminal Enforcement, and the
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Since the RCRA manifest requirements touch upon
areas within the scope of the hazardous materials transportation laws, staff from the Department
of Transportation were also invited to participate in these discussions. These internal discussions
focused on the technical and legal issues presented by electronic record storage, considering both
the facts presented by Safety-Kleen and the other types of automated systems that are likely to be
encountered as information technologies are relied on increasingly to supplant paper record
systems. This discussion will continue as a part of the manifest revisions rulemaking that is now
underway in OSWER.
After several internal meetings, we invited Safety-Kleen's representatives to again meet
with interested staff, to provide additional information on the design and operation of the Denton,
Texas record keeping system, and to answer staff questions on the security and accessibility of the
stored files. This meeting, attended bv EPA and OMB staff, occurred at EPA Headquarters on
October 3, 1996.
A. Safety Kleen's Storage System
At the October 3rd meeting, Safety-Kleen-was represented by Ms. Catherine McCord, the
company's manager for Regulatory Programs and Business Integration, and by Mr. Larry
-------
Davenport, the company's vice president for Information Services. Ms. McCord and Mr.
Davenport provided much helpful information which clarified staffs understanding of the features
and operation of the Denton, Texas automated storage system. Briefly, we understand these to be
the key features of the Denton system:
1. upon receipt or a snipment at ttte uenton recycle facility, a hard copy of each
manifest is scanned, and the image file created by the scanner is saved to disk. The
manifest, when scanned, contains the handwritten signatures required under 40
CFR 262.23(a), and these signatures are captured as part of the image file copies.
2. Shoray aner scanning tne maniiests, sarety-JKJeen's clerical staff enter some 20
elements of data about the shipment and the manifest into a system index. This
index enables Safety-Kleen personnel or RCRA inspectors to access the manifest
files by date of receipt, manifest number, facility name, or other descriptors.
3. The index and manifest retrieval features of the system are Windows™ based
applications that support an intuitive, graphical interface with the user. The index
to the retrieval system is activated by "double-clicking" on the index icon that
appears on the desktop, and the search for specific manifests is activated by pull-
down menus and dialog boxes that prompt the user for the fields and data that
define the search parameters.
4. The system automatically displays a list of all manifests that respond to a specific
search request. The user can then select any item from the displayed list with the
computer mouse, and the system will then display the image file of the manifest.
The output can be examined on the monitor, or printed as hard copy. Print-outs
from the system are typically of the same quality as photocopies of the original
documents, and all handwritten signatures appear on the records.
5. At the end of each day, an additional copy of each manifest file scanned .into the
Denton storage system is transmitted electronically to the company's headquarters
in Elgin, Illinois.
B. The Federal Manifest Regulations
The record retention requirements for hazardous waste generators are set forth at 40 CFR
Part 262, Subpart D. Taken together, §262.40(a) and §262.23(a) require generators to retain
signed copies of completed manifests for a period of 3 years, and provide that the "signed"
manifest copies must bear the handwritten signatures of the generator, the transporters accepting
the waste for transportation, and the owner or operator of the designated facility, who certifies to
the receipt of the waste by signing the manifest. I note that there are similar provisions in the
Subtitle C regulations for transporters and treatment, storage and disposal facilities, which taken
together, require a "handwritten signature" to be obtained whenever there is a change in the
-------
custody of the waste, and require retention for 3 years of these signed copies among the records
of the regulated waste handlers. See'§§263.20(d)(l), 263.22(a), and 264.71.
C. Statutory Requirement for Access to Records
Section 3007(a) of the RCRA statute provides that any person who generates, stores,
treats, transports, disposes of, or has handled hazardous wastes shall, upon the request of any
duly designated RCRA inspector, furnish information relating to hazardous wastes to the
inspector, and permit such a person at all reasonable times to have access to and to copy all
records relating to hazardous wastes.
HI. Detailed Discussion
A. The Requirements for Copies Bearing Handwritten Signatures
As summarized above, the current Federal manifest regulations require the generator and
each subsequent handler involved with an off-site shipment of hazardous waste to sign the
manifest "by hand," and to keep in their files for a 3-year period a copy of the manifest which
bears these signatures. The key regulatory compliance issue presented by Safety-Kleen's system
is whether the electronically stored image files are created and maintained in such a manner that
they qualify as "copies" bearing the necessary "handwritten" signatures. We conclude that the
image files meet this standard, because:
(1) The handwritten signatures from the hard copy records are captured by the scanner,
incorporated into the stored image files, and reproduced accurately in the output
generated by the computer system. Safety-Kleen demonstrated to EPA that the output
displays signatures that look no different than the signatures that initially appeared on the
scanned hard copies, and the reproduced manifest copies (and signatures) are of the same
or better quality than those which are produced by photocopy machines or fax machines.
"Significantly, this, system does not attempt to substitute "digital signatures," PIN
Numbers, or other electronic surrogates for the original handwritten signatures,
(2) The image files appear to meet the standards included in the FederalRules of
Evidence for the admission of copies and computer generated records into evidence in
judicial proceedings brought in the Federal courts. We believe that the law of evidence
provides the proper standard for determining whether these electronic documents (the
image files and any printouts generated by the system) are acceptable "copies" within the
meaning of our manifest retention regulations. The regulations require these manifest
copies to be retained in order that they may be inspected by RCRA inspectors, and in a
proper case, admitted in evidence in RCRA enforcement proceedings or other proceedings
(e.g., CERCLA liability) where the information on the manifests may be considered
relevant. Thus, their acceptability as inspectable records and possible evidence should be
-------
evaluated according to the law of evidence on the admissibility of computer generated
records.
A significant factor which distinguishes the admissibility of computer generated records
from other types of business records is the trustworthiness of these electronic records. In this
context, trustworthiness can be affected by the reliability of the hardware and software that make
up the computer system, and by the reliability and accuracy of the data entry and data processing
methods used by the operator. In addition, the trustworthiness of electronic records can be
enhanced by the presence of "computer security'! controls that are directed at controlling
unauthorized access to the system and data, and at preventing inadvertent or intentional loss or
corruption of the data stored in these records.
Based on the features of the Safety-Kleen system tnat was explained to tFA and UMB
staff, we are reasonably assured that the company's electronic manifest records are accurate and
secure. This conclusion is supported by these facts:
4 The scanning equipment and software installed by Safety-Kleen are extremely accurate.
Fewer than 1% of the manifests that are scanned present difficulties during scanning, and
most of these can be corrected by obtaining a better copy of the manifest for scanning or
by sharpening the image quality before saving the image to disk.
4 Safety-Kleen is merely scanning the original hard copies of completed manifests into its
computer system, and not entering new data manually. The quality of the image is verified
before the record is saved to disk, and the scanning of the paper forms provides minimal
opportunities for data entry errors or for alteration of records.
4 The Denton facility transmits each night a back-up copy of the electronic manifest records
to corporate headquarters in Elgin, Illinois. Thus, in the event of a fire, flood, or other
accident involving the. Denton site, the records of waste activity .will be secured in Elgin.
Therefore, we believe that these materials would be admissible in evidence, so tnat they are
acceptable manifest "copies" bearing the waste handlers' "handwritten signatures," as required by
the RCRA regulations.
B. Reasonable Access to Records
The final factor which we considered in determining the acceptability of Safety-Kleen's
automated records system'is the real world accessibility of the electronically stored manifest
records to RCRA inspectors. Section 3.007 of the RCRA statute states that any person who
generates, stores, treats, disposes, transports, or otherwise handles hazardous wastes must permit
EPA or State enforcement personnel access at reasonable times to their facilities as well as to the
records relating to their hazardous wastes. ^Reasonable access to facility records includes the
right to inspect and to copy all such records. RCRA §3007(a). Therefore, in considering the
-------
merits of any electronic storage system, we must be satisfied that the system would not in any
significant way impede the access of RCRA inspectors to the manifest records. In other words,
would a RCRA inspector entering a facility with an automated record system enjoy a level of
access to individual manifests that is at least comparable to that which he or she would encounter
with respect to paper copies maintained in file drawers?
We conclude that Safety-Kleen's system provides adequate assurances of inspector access
to electronic manifest files. As the company demonstrated to us, the index and retrieval features
of the automated system are implemented from the Windows™ desktop, and do not require more
than rudimentary familiarity with the Windows™ operating system and its pull-down menus and
dialogue boxes. The data elements that may be searched are suggested in a pull down menu, and
once a selection is made (e.g., manifest #, date of receipt, facility name) the user is prompted for
the data that define the search request. The index and retrieval systems are very intuitive, and
lead one to a list;of responsive files, which if selected, generates the image of the manifest for
examination or printing. We believe that an inspector would only need a few minutes to become
familiar with the operation of this system. Once comfortable with the retrieval system, the
inspector would actually enjoy a superior level of access compared to paper files, since the index
feature now supports searches on about 20 data elements. Thus, an inspector should be able to
focus his or her inspection efforts much more efficiently with the automated system and target the
search as necessary.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that Safety-Kleen's image file
storage system meets current RCRA requirements for retention of copies bearing the handwritten
signatures of waste handlers, and for ensuring reasonable access by enforcement personnel to
Safety-Kleen's manifest records for inspection and copying. This interpretation is directed
specifically at the system as configured in Denton, Texas, and described to EPA and OMB staff
by Safety-Kleen's representatives at our meeting on October 3, 1996. However, similar systems
used by others could also meet RCRA requirements, if they are designed and operated in
accordance with the guidance contained in this interpretation. In this regard, the generation and
storage of image files that include handwritten signatures, the inclusion of design and operating
controls which ensure record accuracy, integrity and security (and thus admissibility of the records
in evidence), and the inclusion of indexing and file retrieval, features which ensure reasonable
inspector access are the key factors in this decision.
Because this issue touches upon the use of innovative information technologies, and
involves regulations and interpretations that have national significance, we are distributing this
interpretation to the Regional Waste Management Division Directors and to the Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. We will also make this interpretation
available through the OSWER Home Page on the Internet.
-------
9452 - THE MANIFEST
Part 262 Subpart B
ATKl/l 104/23 kp
-------
9452.1984(02)
October 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Violation of EPA Hazardous Waste Manifest Regulations
by Federal Facilities
FROM: Bruce R. Weddle
Director
Permits and State Programs Division (WH-563)
TO: Stormy Friday
Director
Facilities and Support Services Division (PM-215)
The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulation became
effective on September 20, 1984. This regulation mandated a
hierarchy for all generators of hazardous waste to follow in
acquiring manifest forms and shipping hazardous waste off site.
A number of States and Regional offices have told us that
some Federal facilities including EPA facilities, are not using
the correct form for manifesting hazardous wastes to treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. In order to correct the
problem and bring all Federal facilities into compliance, we
would like you to notify all EPA facilities that might be
generating hazardous waste of the form acquisition hierarchy.
The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulation
(March 20, 1984 FR) states that the generator must use the
manifest form of the consignment State if that State prints and
distributes the form. If that State does not print the form,
then the generator must use the manifest form of the generator's
State if the State prints and distributes the form. If neither
State prints and distributes the form, then the generator should
obtain the form from any source such as a printer.
Attached is a list of contacts, including phone numbers, of
State printing and distributing the form. Any EPA facility
(e.g., our laboratories) that is manifesting hazardous waste to
any of these States, should call State for forms or that
assistance. There may be a charge for manifests in some States.
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
-2-
If you need additional information or clarification, please
call the EPA Hotline. The Hotline number is 382-3000 for the
Washington area and 800-424-9346 outside the Washington area.
Attachment
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9452.1984(03}
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 84
2. Sec* cf the States that hav« received authorisation froa «>A to Manas/* their
cvn RCRA progra.iw regulate a larger universe of wastes than dew* B»A. l*«re
on the Urdf era Hazardous watte H*nite»t
wr.ich the generator would ctteck cr nark fee those line entries which are
regulated ty federal lav as hazardous wastes or hazardous iraterial*.
The use of the (MM for State requirements is discussed in greater detail in
the prear±.lo to the Lr.ifcrra Eatardcus Waste hanirest rule published in th*
March 20, 1984 federal Peqisfasr (49 fV 1049>-10496).
Source i Carolyn Barley (202) 382-523*
Research! Hilary Saner
-------
9452.1985(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 85
Snail Quantity Generators
4. International Fabricare is a trade association that represents dry cleaning and
laundry establishments. This industry will be affected by the new Small Quantity
Generator (SQG) program pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
of 1984 (P.L. 98-616). Starting August 5, 1985, SQGs generating between 100 kg. and
1000 kg. per month must accompany hazardous waste shipments with a Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest. One of the items on the manifest that must be completed is item 12,
"Containers." "Containers" specifies the number and type of containers. On desig-
nating 'the container type, the SQG completing the manifest must select one of 12
types. Cry cleaners sometimes package and ship hazardous wastes in plastic, bottles,
similar to Clorox bottles. How should item 12 be completed?
Once a hazardous waste is packaged per DOT/EPA regulations, the container
must be categorized according to item 12 on the manifest. A plastic
bottle would be categorized as "DP." "DF" means fiberboard or plastic
drums, barrels, or kegs. In obtaining and completing the manifest, the
SQG should first contact the State regulatory agency responsible for
hazardous waste management as provided in 40 CFR 262.21. The State
agency will provide information regarding where to obtain the manifest
and how to complete the portions required by the State, if any.
More importantly the SQG must package and label the hazardous waste accordina to
DOT regulations specified in 49 CFR Parts 172, 173, 178, and 179. All RCRA haza-
dous wastes which are subject to 40 CFR Part 262 manifest requirements a-e also "
hazardous materials subject to DOT shipping requirements (40 CFR $263 10). in
complying with DOT requirements, technical assistance is available from DOT by
Re9ulations' "*«*1» Transportation
Source: Curt Overcast (202) 382-4761
Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217
-------
9452.1985(02)
Mr* Frank L. Deaver
Corp. Environmental Services Manager
Tektronix, Inc.
Tektronix Industrial Park
P.O. tox SOO
Beaverton, Oregon 97077
Dear Mr* Deaveri
Thank you for your letter of September H, 1985, concerning
the Haste Minimisation Statement on the Onifont Basardous Waste
Manifest (UHWW) Conn.
IB your letter, you indicated that Tektronix employees are
reluctant to sign the statement unless the signature block is
modified to indicate that the Tektronix employee signing the
statement is signing as an agent of Tektronix. To* have included
a suggested modification to the form and have recreated tFA's
concurrence on that modification.
EPA views the changes which you suggested as two separate
modifications. The first modification which Tektronix has proposed
is to preprint in the signature block area of Item It the words
TEKTRONIX, INC. to indicate the generator and to add the word "BY"
to indicate that the employee signing the for* is signing as an
agent of Tektronix, Inc. EPA concurs with this modification since
it is consistent with the modifications EPA allows generators to
make to the form (see page 10499 of the enclosed march 20, 1984,
Federal Register).
The second modification which Tektronix, Inc. is proposing to
make to the OHMN form is to add a block below Item 16 for an
employee to print or type his or her name. This modification is
not permissible since the inclusion of an additional space alters
the form* Tme only changes to the form which may be made are
Identified in the March 20, 1984, federal Keqister (page 10499).
However, X wmmld like to suggest the following modification which
makes use of the existing space on the form* I believe this accom-
plishes the same goal as your proposed modification without altering
the design of the formi
Printed/Typed Name
TBTmOMZX, IMC. -(Employee's name)
Signatures TlKTmOMU, IMC
BYi (Bmployee*s Signature)
W*
-------
-2-
Other altmrmetives which Tektronix may want to consider would
be to add tfcft pferase 'on behalf of TtETBORXX me." to the signature
block of Xtem li (se« the attached July 11, HIS, letter to the
Boeing Company) or to include additional information about the
signature in Xtem 15, Special Handling Instructions and Additional
Information.
X understand that Carolyn Barley of my staff spoke with
Jim Green of Tektronix to discuss your proposed modification and to
recommend the above alternate modification. Mr. Green indicated in
that conversation that SPA'a recommanded modification may resolve
Tektronix'a concerns. Bowever, Mr. Green has already ordered 5,000
copiea of the form with the Tektronix modification Included on it
and the order cannot be rescinded. Mr. Green requested IPA's con-
currence on using those copies if the additional space was voided.
He emphasised that future printings would not include this additional
space. Because Oregon is an authorised State, its rules apply in
lieu of EPA's. Therefore, you must discuss the use of existing forms
with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (D*0). X suggest
that you contact Mr. Mike Downs, Administrator of DBO's Basardous
and Solid Masts Division (563~22t-5J5f).
X trust that this letter adequately addresees your concerns
on this subject. If you have other questions concerning the OBUM,
X suggest that you call Carolyn Barley (202-382-2217).
Sincerely Tours,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid *asta
Enclosures
cci Nike Downs, Oregon DEO
Charles Findley, ffA legion X
WH-563tCBtccslO-3-8Ss382-2217sCC*s disk8,doc38
Controlled Correspondence OSW-183
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG1
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9452.1986(01)
Mr. Jeffrey L,
Waste Systems
470 Market, S,
Suite 100-A
Grand Rapids,
Dauphin
Institute
w.
MI 49503
or
SOLID WASTE AND CMEROf NCX WESSONS
of Michigan, Inc.
Dear Mr. Dauphin:
This letter responds to your request, dated April 1, 1986,
for clarification of the waste minimization certification
requirement for small quantity generators of hazardous waste.
The waste minimization certification requirement was created
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), signed
by the President on November 8, 1984. Section 3002(b) of HSWA
requires that generators of hazardous waste regulated under Section
3002(a)(5) certify, on the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, that
they have in place a program to reduce the quantity and toxicity
of the hazardous waste they generate, to a degree determined by
the generator to be economically practicable and that the proposed
method of treatment, storage, and disposal is that practicable
method currently available which minimizes present and future
threats to human health and the environment. This statutory
provision does not apply to generators of less than 1000 kg per
mon th.
The HSWA also required EPA to establish standards for
generators of 100-1000 kg per month. These standards were
promulgated on March 24, 1986* On the same day, EPA proposed
that the waste minimization certification requirement also
apply to 100-1000 kg/mo generators. If the Agency finalizes
this proposed requirement, the waste minimization certification
statement in item 16 of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest
will apply to 100-1000 kg/mo generators just as it applies to
generators of greater than 1000 kg/mo. I have enclosed copies
of both Federal Register notices, for your information.
The certification contained in item 16 of the manifest form
consists of two parts, the waste minimization certification and
the general certification of accuracy. Only one signature is
required.
The waste minimization certification requirements of HSWA
do not authorize EPA to "interfere with or to intrude into the
production process by requiring standards for waste minimization;
-------
rather, it. specifically provides that the substantive determinations
of "economically practicable" and "practicable methods currently
available" are to be made by the generator in light of h-is own
particular circumstances. Thus, from an enforcement/perspective,
the Agency will be concerned primarily with compliance with the
certification signatory requirement. Each generator subject to
the waste minimization requirement should make a good faith effort
to minimize the amount and toxicity of waste generated and to
select a means of treatment, storage, or disposal most likely to
minimize the present and future threat to human health and the
environment (50 FR 28734). The legislative history of HSWA
makes clear that "judgements made by the generator [for the
purpose of the waste minimization certification] are not subject
to external regulatory action (S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 1st
Sess. 67 (1983)).
The HSWA, however, require the EPA to submit a report to
Congress, by October 1, 1986, on the feasibility and desirability
of: (1) establishing standards of performance or of taking
additional action under the Act (RCRA) to require the generators
of hazardous waste to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity
of the hazardous waste they generate; and (2) establishing with
respect to hazardous wastes required management practices or other
requirements to assure such wastes are managed in ways that minimize
present and future threats to human health and the environment.
In addition, the report shall include any recommendations for
legislative changes which EPA determines are desirable and feasible
to implement the national policy of minimizing the generation and
the land disposal of hazardous waste by encouraging process
substitution, materials recovery, properly-conducted recycling
and reuse, and treatment.
The Agency supports all environmentally sound strategies
for reducing the amount of hazardous waste which must be disposed
of, including waste exchanges. The Agency's position on waste
exchanges, therefore, remains consistent with that expressed in
John Skinners' March 1, 1985 letter to you.
I hope that this answers your questions about the waste
minimization certification requirement. Thank you for your
interest in the hazardous waste program.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Haste
Enclosures
-------
9452.1986(02)
bear State Hazardous Waste Directors
On Kerch 24, 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) promulgated final regulation* for nail quantity generators
of between 100 and 1000 kilogram* of hazardous waste in a calendar
month (51 Federal Pegister 10146). Effective September 22. 1966,
thi* rule requires these generators to uae the multi-part "round-
trip* Hazardous Kaste Manifest (fora 6700-22 and 22A) for all
off-cite shipments of hazardous waste.
In a Federal Register notice accompanying the March 24, 1966
final rule, the Agency explained that since it had not specifically
addressed the issue of waste minimization in the proposed rule for
small quantity generators, it vas requesting public cement on
whether these generators should bo required to certify to waste
minimisation on the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. As explained
in the March 24, 1986 final rule, the requirement that generators
of 100-1000 kg/mo certify to waste minimiration on the manifest
would automatically go into effect on September 22, 1986, the date
these generators became subject to the Section 3002 generator
standards, unless the Agency acted to exempt them.
On September 22, 1966, the Administrator of EPA signed a final
rule explaining its decision not to exempt small quantity generators
from the waste minimisation requirement (see enclosed rule). In
response to comments, the Agency has instead modified the waste
minimization statement on the manifest as it applies to small
quantity generators to require only a good faith effort to minimise
vaste generation and selection of what they believe to be the best
available and affordable treatment, storage, and disposal alternative.
la addition to modifying the manifest form to include the new
waete minimization language for small quantity generators, EPA
has also modified the form to include a technical correction to
the waste minimization statement applicable to generators of
1000 kg/mo and a new OMB expiration date and form number* The
revised form is effective immediately.
-------
Enclosed are camera-ready copies of the revised manifest form.
Camera-ready copies are also being sent to the manifest coordinators
in those States which currently print and supply the manifest (see
enclosed list). Although your State may not print and supply the
form, we anticipate that many generators in your State, including
small quantity generators and private printing firms, will request
copies of the revised fora.
If you have any questions about the new manifest form or about
the waste minimization requirement, please contact Bob Axelrad on
(202) 382-4769 or Carolyn Barley on (202) 382-2217.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
cct State and Regional Manifest Coordinators
bcc: George Garland, State Programs
-------
9452.1986(03J
Mr. Robert Fixter
Assistant Environmental Manager
S«w Wast* Inc.
115 Jacobus Avenue
South Kearney* New Jersey 07032
Dear Mr. Pixteri
Thank you for your letter of January 15, 1986, requesting
clarification of the tern 'waste minimization" as it appears in
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HWSA) of 1984. In
particular, your letter requests guidance as to whether the
following practice would be considered a waste minimisation
program.
A commercial treatment, storage, and disposal
(TSD) facility accepts waste solvents and oils
from off-site, the TSD blends these wastes on-
site to meet certain specifications for use as
a fuel extender by off-site Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (PCRA) permitted industrial
furnaces. The wastes are subsequently recycled,
as fuel extenders and reused in an economically
beneficial manufacturing program.
The HSWA establishes a national policy for minimization of
hazardous waste, and requires that waste minimization considera-
tions be addressed in RCRA transport manifests, biennial reports,
and on-site TSD permits. The Agency has not developed guidance
on what constitutes a waste minimization program or a waste mini-
mization activity and, at this time, has no plans to do so. It
is hoped that activities such as source reduction and recycling
will be explored by individual generators to reduce the volume or
quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste generated.
The reports that accompanied the HSWA spelled out Congress1
Intent with regard to the waste minimization requirements in
HSWA. As the report states, both waste minimization requirements
for the transport manifest and biennial report refer to a certi-
fication by the generator that a program is in place to reduce
-------
the volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste to the
degree determined by the generator to be economically practicable,
and that the proposed method of treatment, storage or disposal
is that practicable method currently available to the generator
which minimizes present and future threats to human health and
the environment. While the requirement to make the waste minimi-
zation certification is mandatory, the nature of the criteria for
such certification and the determination of compliance with those
criteria are to be made solely by the generator.
This makes it clear that Congress1 objective for waste
minimization program certification is to encourage generators
to seek voluntarily ways or programs to reduce the quantity and
toxicity of generated waste. The reports further state that
recycling pollutants, contained in effluents, emissions, wastes,
or other pollution streams is one, but by no means the only, way
of implementing this national policy of waste minimization. A
fundamental premise of RCRA is and continues to be to encourage
the reuee of materials.
As the legislative history suggests and as the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has stated, generators that recycle wastes
on-site or send their waste off-site to be recycled are engaging
in an activity which may be considered waste minimisation.
The Agency appreciates your concern with the wast*
minimization program definition. If you should have any further
questions, please contact James R. Berlow, Manager of the Treat-
ment, Recycling, and Reduction Program at (202) 382-7917.
Sincerely,
Marcia Hi 11 Urns
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
-------
.-i ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOcflCY
9452.1987(01)
FE5 2 4 19ST
Mr. Phillip J. Sparta
Assistant Managing Director
Environmental Technology Southeast
1819 Albert Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Dear Mr. Spartat
This is in response to your letter of January 21, 1987
regarding the particioation of a wastewatar treatment unit in the
manifest system.
Although you were previously informed that a generator of
hazardous waste may designate a vastewater treatment unit on the
manifest as a facility allowed to accept this waste, we now
believe the previous interpretation is incorrect. In particular,
under 40 CFS 4§264.1(g)(6) and 270.1(c)(2), the substantive
requirements of Part 264 and the permit requirements of Part 270
do not applV to owners or operators of wastewater treatment units.
The interim status requirements of Part 265 also do not apply to
such units. (See 40 CFK §265.1(c)(10).)
EPA's manifest system regulations (40 CPR f|262.20(b) and
263.21) require that a generator send hazardous waste only to a
"desionated facility." As provided in $260.10, a designated
facility must have an FPA permit, interim etatus, or a permit
from an authorised State, or must be a facility regulated under
th« special provisions of §261.6(c)(2). Because wastewater
treatment facilities, other than publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) that are permitted-by-rule under {270.60, meet none of
these conditions, they cannot be listed as a designated facility,
and therefore, they cannot receive hazardous waste from off-site.
I apologize for any problems our previous interpretation may
have caused you. Please contact Michael Petruska or Carolyn Barley
of ny staff at (202) 475-3S51 if you have additional questions
on this natter*
-------
9452.1987(02)
Gregory Zak
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Dear Mr. Zak:
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1987, in which you
request concurrence fro* EPA on Illinois' decision not to allow
use of the continuation sheet (fora 8700-22A) to the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest.
The instructions to the manifest (Appendix to 4O CPU Part 262)
state that the continuation sheet Bust be used if sore than two
transporters are used in transporting the waste or if no space is
required for the DOT description and related information. However,
fro» vy conversations with various States, I am aware that the the
use of more than two transporters is rare. Further, since imple-
mentation of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest form in
September 1984, the DOT has simplified procedures for shipping
"lab packs' (50 FR 11700, March 25, 1985, enclosed) which in some
instances eliminates the need to list each sample on the manifest.
As a result, a continuation sheet is often unnecesary.
EPA views Illinois' decision not to allow the use of the
continuation sheet but rather to require an additional manifest
for any shipment which consists of more than two transporters or
more than four DOT proper shipping names as being consistent with
the Federal program. Please call me on 202-382-2217 if you hav*
further questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Barley
Enclosure
-------
9452.1989(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
SEPTEMBER 1989
1. Manifest Requirements and the Off-Site Definition
Within an industrial park, a corporation leases four contiguous plots of
property to wholly owned subsidiaries on one large piece of land. As all
the companies use similar solvents, the corporation has built a central
recycling facility which would accept transported spent solvents from each
of the different production plants. While each of the four companies has a
separate EPA ID Number, all facilities are connected via private roads on
the corporation's property. If the solvent wastes are trucked from one
company, over another's leased property in order to get to the central
recycling facility, do the manifest regulations apply?
PRODUCTION
PLANT
(LEASED FROM
PARENT)
PRODUCTION
PLANT
PRIVATE
PRODUCTION
PLANT
PRODUCTION
PLANT
O
cc
O
m
PUBLIC ROAD
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
SEPTEMBER 1989 (Continued)
When wastes are moved within a corporate park without use of public
roads, the waste is not considered to be transported off-site. Therefore,
a manifest is not required. Section 262.20 of 40 CFR requires "a
generator who transports, or offers for transportation, hazardous waste
for off-site treatment... must prepare a Manifest...." The definition of
"off-site" is interpreted as that which is not on-site. Section 260.10
defines "on-site" to mean, "the same or geographically contiguous
property which may be divided by public or private road...Non-
contiguous properties owned by the same person but connected by a
right of way which he controls and to which the public does not have
access, is also considered on-site property." As long as the right of
ways are controlled by the lessors, and the public access is restricted,
the movement of hazardous waste does not constitute transportation
"off-site"; a manifest, therefore, is not required.
58
-------
9452.1990(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
FEBRUARY 1990
I. Manifesting Requirements and EPA Identificaton Numbers
Two facilities, one a nuclear power plant and the other a conventional
coal burning power plant, are owned by the same company and occupy
adjacent tracts of land divided by a river. The company owns a dam on
the river that connects the two tracts. For safety reasons, the dam is not
utilized for the transport of 'hazardous waste between the facilities. A
public highway forms the boundary of the properties along one edge.
Transport of hazardous waste between the facilities occurs via this public
highway. The two facilities currently share one EPA identification
number. Can the facilities continue to share one identification number or
must each have its own number? Is a manifest required to transport
hazardous waste between the facilities?
Each of the facilities will be required to obtain its own EPA
identificaton number. Due to the safety hazard associated with using
the dam to move wastes from one facility to the other, no effective
company-controlled connecting right-of-way exists. The facilities are
two individual sites. Hazardous wastes transported along the public
highway from one site to the other must be accompanied by a
manifest in accordance with 40 CFR 262.20, which states that a
generator who transports, or offers for transportation, hazardous
waste for off-site treatment, storage, or disposal must prepare a
manifest.
-------
9452.1991(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
•jetiCE OF
AASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
JUL 2 6 199!
Brian Engel
U.S. Pollution Control
515 West Greens Road, Suite 500
Houston, TX 77067 sc
Dear Mr. Engel:
Thank you for your letter of June 10, 1991, which requested
clarification on some of the instructions for completing the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. Specifically, you described a
situation in which waste is transfered from rail to highway on
its way to the designated facility. You asked whether an agent
of the generator, acting in the generator's behalf, would be
allowed to choose the highway transporter from among a group of
pre-approved transporters at the point of transfer from rail to
highway. You proposed this procedure as an option to replace the
current practice in which the highway transporter chosen by the
generator and listed on the manifest is replaced by another pre-
approved transporter, thereby requiring that the manifest be
altered en route, making the document difficult to read.
Although your option has merit from the point of neatness
and legibility of the manifest, I do not believe that it fits in
with the functional purpose of the manifest which is to track the
movement of the waste from the point of generation to the point
of disposal. If the generator leaves the Transporter 12 block on
the manifest empty when the waste is transported from his site,
there would be no indication that the generator knew how the
waste would get from the rail to the facility. That could
presumably be addressed by the generator's indication on the
manifest of a limited number by the rail transporter to the
designated facility. We still however, consider the generator
responsible for knowing who is transporting the waste, so we
would require that the generator be notified before the waste was
transferred to one of the approved final transporters and that
the selection (and approval by the generator) is noted on the
manifest.
This procedure might better reflect the actual situation at
the time the generator signs the manifest than the current
requirements. It would, however, require at least as much space
on the manifest as the current procedure of putting down the most
likely transporter and then modifying the manifest if necessary,
and would require the same step of communication with the
generator before making the notation of the actual transporter on
the manifest. For that reason, we think the existing
requirements are sufficient.
Printed on Recycled Paoer
-------
We appreciate your making a helpful suggestion. At some
point we would like to reexamine the manifest forms and a variety
of issues that arise in their use, but we are unable to commit
our resources to that at the moment. We will keep your
suggestion on file for reconsideration if we get the opportunity
to complete a reexamination of the manifest forms. For now, we
cannot approve the approach you recommend.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9452.1993(01)
I
}
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 28 1993 0*net OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Janes C. Ross
Logistics Manager
Sanyo Energy (U.S.A.) Corporation
2001 Sanyo Avenue
San Diego, CA 92173
Dear Mr. Ross:
Thank you for your letter of January 4, 1993. In your
letter, you asked a number of questions regarding movements of
hazardous waste i..'.jkei cadmium batteries from Mexico to Japan via
the United States.
You asked if hazardous waste generated in Mexico shipped
under a U.S. customs bond through the United States to Japan is
subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Regardless of where hazardous waste is generated or its Customs
tariff classification, it is subject to RCRA and RCRA regulations
while within U.S. jurisdiction, namely, within U.S. borders.
With regard to imported hazardous waste, from the moment the
hazardous waste enters the U.S., it is subject to and must be in
compliance with all applicable provisions of the RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste program. This means that the U.S. importer for
the hazardous waste must possess an EPA identification number;
must use appropriate DOT packaging, labels, and markings for
hazardous waste shipments; must prepare a hazardous waste
manifest for use during transportation in the U.S.; must use a
transporter which also possesses an EPA identification number;
and must comply with other requirements found in 40 CFR Part 262.
Transporters transporting hazardous waste in the U.S. are subject
to 40 CFR Part 263.
If the shipments of hazardous waste are then exported from
the U.S. to Japan, then export provisions found at 40 CFR Part
262 Subpart E also apply. These include requirements to submit a
notification of intent to export to EPA; to attach an EPA
Acknowledgement of Consent to the shipment's manifest once
consent is received from the importing country government; to
submit an annual report documenting the shipment; and other
Subpart E requirements.
You also ask if the hazardous waste batteries would qualify
for an exemption from regulation found at 40 CFR Part
26l.6(a)(3)(ii). Section 261.6(a)(3)(ii) states "The following
recyclable materials are not subject to regulation under parts
-------
262 to 266 or parts 268, 270 and 124 of this chapter, and are not
subject to the notification requirements of section 3010 of RCRA:
(ii) Used batteries (or used battery cells) returned to a battery
manufacturer for regeneration;...". Unfortunately, your letter
does not provide sufficient information for such a determination
to be made, saying only that the batteries will be sent to Japan
for recycling, rather than being sent to a manufacturer for
regeneration, as stipulated in the exemption. However, based on
your teitpaon^ conversation with Angela"Cracchiolo of my staff,
the operations to be conducted in Japan would include smelting of
the nickel cadmium batteries, an activity not within the scope of
the 261.6(a)(3)(ii) exemption. In addition, Part 262.11 requires
that the generator of a solid waste make the determination if
that waste is a hazardous waste.
The hazardous waste manifest for a shipment of hazardous
waste batteries going from Mexico to Japan via the U.S. would be
prepared showing the name and address of both the U.S. importer
and the foreign (Mexican) generator and the EPA identification
number of the U.S. importer in the generator block and the name
and site address of the foreign (Japanese) consignee in the
designated facility block.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please
contact Angela Cracchiolo of my staff at (202)260-4779. Thank
you for your interest in safe and effective management of
hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
K. Lowran/e, Director
Office of Solid Haste
-------
9452.1993(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 29 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Stephen C. Okosisi
3281 S. Highland, Suite 807
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
Dear Mr. Okosisi,
Thank you for your letter dated January 21, 1993, concerning
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.
Specifically, you requested clarification about how certain
hazardous waste manifest and biennial reporting requirements
apply to a mixture ,.f several federal RCRA hazardous wastes with
different waste codes. Let me first address your question about
the hazardous waste manifest.
Information entered in Section J of the Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) is not required by federal law,
but may be required by state regulations. The federal RCRA
regulations require that a generator determine if the state to
which the waste is being sent supplies a manifest and requires
its use; if not, then the generator must check with the state in
which the generator is located. If neither state supplies a
manifest and requires its use, then the generator may obtain a
manifest from any source (40 CFR 262.20). If the manifest in
your specific situation is required by a state, you should
contact that state to determine the most appropriate way to ent«r
multiple waste codes on a single manifest. Also, federal RCRA
regulations do not require that RCRA waste codes be entered in
line lla of the manifest; however, a RCRA waste code may be
required in Line lla if the waste code is part of the proper DOT
shipping name.
With respect to your question on biennial reporting, the
federal biennial reporting requirement is not contingent upon
Aside from how the manifest is filled out, it may not r-«
appropriate to classify the mixture described in your letter (i •
a mixture of D001 waste and several U-listed wastes) as only cc-%:
based on your letter, the waste mixture carries all of th«
listings, and is also D001 if the mixture continues to exhibit tn«t
characteristic. You should note that some regulatory requirement •
e.g., the Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions, are keyed to tf.«
waste codes, and you must comply with all requirements »«j«
applicable by the waste codes.
Printed on flacyc/W Paper
-------
which waste codes happen to appear on the hazardous waste
manifest, but on which hazardous wastes are generated by the
reporter during the reporting period.
Please understand that the regulatory agency (i.e.,.EPA
Region or State) responsible for implementing the RCRA program in
the State where the generator is located should be contacted on
any RCRA requirements with which you may have questions. If you
have any questions on the information I have described in this
letter, please call Ross Elliott of my staff at (202)260-8551.
Thank you for interest in the safe management of hazardous waste.
Sincerel
Director
Of/fice of Solid Waste
cc: Mr. Jeffrey Zelikson, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region IX
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9452.1993(03)
20 J993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Jeff R. Bowman, REA
Operations Manager
Environmental Dynamics
1916 Grandstand Drive
San Antonio, Texas 78238
Dear Mr. Bowman:
Thank you for your letter dated July 16, 1993, regarding the hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). I will also
take this opportunity to respond to the letter you attached from Mr. Andrew B. Wallace
dated March 31, 1993. I apologize for the delay in responding to both letters. In both
letters, specific questions were asked regarding the hazardous waste identification and
generator regulations, and I have attempted to answer each one based on the federal
RCRA regulations using the information you have provided. For convenience, I have
enumerated the answers to match the incoming questions.
1. Assuming that the waste you have described is a solid waste (as defined in 40
CFR 261.2), and that this waste does not meet the other definitions of ignitable in
40 CFR 261.21(a)(2) through (4), this waste does not appear to meet the
definition of ignitability in 40 CFR 261.21(a)(l). You are correct in asserting that
the absence of free liquids precludes the application of the ignitability
characteristic as defined in 261.21(a)(l).1 However, you should be aware that
EPA has recently proposed amending SW-846 with respect to how the presence of
free liquids is determined when testing a waste for ignitability and corrosivity. I
have enclosed a copy of this proposed rule, dated August 31 1993, and encourage
you to comment on it if you wish. [Note: this response is applicable to the
questions raised in the March 31, 1993 letter from Mr. Wallace.]
2. The relative proportions of the chemicals you described in the paint stripper add
*I should also point out that although there may be instances where a solid waste does
not contain free liquids (and therefore would not be classified as D001 under §261.2(a)(l)),
some type of flashpoint determination may still be required by waste management facilities
as a condition of accepting the waste.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Cinoli to* on MMT Mt
conttlnt M (MM 80% racycMd flMr
-------
up to only 90 percent Assuming that the other 10 percent consists of inert
materials that do not contribute to the function of the product, the paint stripper
being disposed that you described would be classified as U080 if the methylene
chloride were the sole active ingredient of the product, or as U220 if the toluene
were the sole active ingredient. In each of these cases, the hazardous
characteristics of this waste would need to be evaluated in order to comply with
the Part 268 LDRs (see 40 CFR 262.11(c)). If both methylene chloride and
toluene are active ingredients, neither listing applies and the material would need
to be evaluated as to whether or not it exhibits any RCRA characteristic.
3. If the material described were used to strip paint, it would be classified as F002
and F005, due to the presence of at least 10 percent before use of each of these
chemicals. The hazardous characteristics of this waste would need to be
evaluated in order to comply with the Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) (see 40 CFR 262.1 l(c)). If this particular paint stripper contains any
amount of a solvent listed under F003 as well, that listing would also apply.
4. The federal RCRA regulations do not specifically address this situation. The
regulations in 40 CFR 262.20(d) describe the general situation where hazardous
waste shipped under a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest is redirected to an
alternate facility. Because you are asking about compliance with a State
hazardous waste manifest (the use of which is mandated by that State), I would
recommend contacting the RCRA-authorized State(s) where the alternate TSD
facilities are located, as well as the State in which the generator is located.
Where a State is not RCRA-authorized, the EPA Regional office would be the
appropriate contact for making situation-specific determinations such as these.
5. The federal RCRA regulations do not specifically address this situation. The
proper labelling and marking of containers is outlined in 40 CFR 262.31, 252.32,
and 262.34(a). I would suggest that you label and mark containers holding
hazardous waste clearly and in a manner that avoids any confusion.
6. I cannot make any generic determinations as to whether or not the situation you
described is a violation of RCRA. The federal RCRA regulations do not specify
the number of drums that may be open at any one time in a container storage
area. If a facility has a RCRA Part B storage permit, this permit might delineate
specific procedures tailored to that particular facility. Otherwise, generators must
comply with the requirement in 40 CFR 265.173(a) that containers remain closed
except when adding or removing hazardous waste.
7. See number 6 above.
8. The RCRA generator regulations do not preclude the consolidation (or bulking)
of several small containers into a larger container, provided the large container is
clearly labelled and marked, and the wastes are compatible. If you planned to
ship the large container containing the smaller containers, you would need to
-------
ensure that this configuration meets applicable State and federal DOT
requirements, and that the manifest identifies all applicable EPA hazardous waste
codes.
9. The generator must designate on the manifest all of the transporters that will be
used to transport hazardous waste. The federal RCRA regulations do not address
the situation where, for whatever reason, another transporter not identified on the
original manifest is needed to continue the transportation of the shipment. The
regulations in 40 CFR 263.20(d) describe the requirements for one transporter
delivering a manifested shipment to another transporter.
10. The regulation at 40 CFR 262.11(c) requires that generators must determine
whether or not any listed hazardous waste also exhibits a hazardous characteristic,
for purposes of compliance with the Part 268 LDRs. This is because the LDRs
require that if a listed waste also exhibits one or more hazardous characteristics,
the waste must be treated to meet the treatment standard for each of the waste
codes, with one exception. Where the Part 268 treatment standard for a listed
hazardous waste also addresses the characteristic(s) exhibited by that waste, the
treatment standard for the listed waste operates in lieu of the standard for the
relevant characteristic^). I have enclosed a copy of some preamble language
from one of the final rules on LDRs (June 1,1990 Federal Register: 55 FR
22659) that explains in more detail the overlap of listed and characteristic waste
codes.
With regard to how waste codes should be entered on the manifest, please note
that information in the section of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for
Waste Number (Section I) is not required by Federal law, but that States may
require one or more waste codes in this section. Of course, the RCRA waste
code(s) may be part of the proper U.S. DOT Shipping Description, and should be
entered in Line 11 if required by DOT. If you have additional questions on the
U.S. DOT regulations, please contact the DOT helpline at (202)366-4488.
11. See Number 10 above.
12. See Number 10 above.
13. The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest requires that the information required in
Item 11 of the manifest be entered for each waste. If additional space is needed,
use the appropriate continuation sheet.
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 Region administers the program and is the
appropriate contact for any case-specific determinations. Please also note that under
Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate
-------
regulatory requirements. that are more stringent than federal regulatory requirements.
I hope that the answers I was able to provide will help clarify some or most of
your questions. In some cases I could not provide a complete answer; many of your
questions appear to be derived from specific circumstances at your facility or facilities, or
those of your clients. I would therefore recommend that to the extent any of your
questions are situation-specific, and particularly for the questions that I did not address
completely, that you contact the State agency authorized for the hazardous waste
program in the State where your facility, or your client's facility, is located. Where a
State is not RCRA-authorized, the EPA Regional office would be the appropriate
con:~ct for making situation-specific determinations such as these.
If you have any additional questions concerning the information I have provided,
please contact Ross Elliott of my staff at 202/260-8551. Thank you for your interest in
the safe management of hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
ruce Weddle
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc Mr. Andrew B. Wallace, Environmental Dynamics, Inc.
Enclosures (2)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9452.1993(03)
20/993
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Jeff R. Bowman, REA
Operations Manager
Environmental Dynamics
1916 Grandstand Drive
San Antonio, Texas 78238
Dear Mr. Bowman:
Thank you for your letter dated July 16, 1993, regarding the hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). I will also
take this opportunity to respond to the letter you attached from Mr. Andrew B. Wallace
dated March 31, 1993. I apologize for the delay in responding to both letters. In both
letters, specific questions were asked regarding the hazardous waste identification and
generator regulations, and I have attempted to answer each one based on the federal
RCRA regulations using the information you have provided. For convenience, I have
enumerated the answers to match the incoming questions.
1. Assuming that the waste you have described is a solid waste (as defined in 40
CFR 261.2), and that this waste does not meet the other definitions of ignitable in
40 CFR 261.21(a)(2) through (4), this waste does not appear to meet the
definition of ignitability in 40 CFR 261.21(a)(l). You are correct in asserting that
the absence of free liquids precludes the application of the ignitability
characteristic as defined in 261.21(a)(l).1 However, you should be aware that
EPA has recently proposed amending SW-846 with respect to how the presence of
free liquids is determined when testing a waste for ignitability and corrosivity. I
have enclosed a copy of this proposed rule, dated August 31 1993, and encourage
you to comment on it if you wish. [Note: this response is applicable to the
questions raised in the March 31, 1993 letter from Mr. Wallace.]
2. The relative proportions of the chemicals you described in the paint stripper add
ll should also point out that although there may be instances where a solid waste does
not contain free liquids (and therefore would not be classified as D001 under §261.2(a)(l)),
some type of flashpoint determination may still be required by waste management facilities
as a condition of accepting the waste.
Rtcyc!«d/R*cyclabl«
PrlntM with Soy/Cinoli ink on MW
content tt M*t $0% racycM «•*
-------
up to only 90 percent Assuming that the other 10 percent consists of inert
materials that do not contribute to the function of the product, the paint stripper
being disposed that you described would be classified as U080 if the methylene
chloride were the sole active ingredient of the product, or as U220 if the toluene
were the sole active ingredient. In each of these cases, the hazardous
characteristics of this waste would need to be evaluated in order to comply with
the Part 268 LDRs (see 40 CFR 262.11(c)). If both methylene chloride and
toluene are active ingredients, neither listing applies and the material would need
to be evaluated as to whether or not it exhibits any RCRA characteristic.
3. If the material described were used to strip paint, it would be classified as F002
and F005, due to the presence of at least 10 percent before use of each of these
chemicals. The hazardous characteristics of this waste would need to be
evaluated in order to comply with the Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) (see 40 CFR 262.11(c)). If this particular paint stripper contains any
amount of a solvent listed under F003 as well, that listing would also apply.
4. The federal RCRA regulations do not specifically address this situation. The
regulations in 40 CFR 262.20(d) describe the general situation where hazardous
waste shipped under a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest is redirected to an
alternate facility. Because you are asking about compliance with a State
hazardous waste manifest (the use of which is mandated by that State), I would
recommend contacting the RCRA-authorized State(s) where the alternate TSD
facilities are located, as well as the State in which the generator is located.
Where a State is not RCRA-authorized, the EPA Regional office would be the
appropriate contact for making situation-specific determinations such as these.
5. The federal RCRA regulations do not specifically address this situation. The
proper labelling and marking of containers is outlined in 40 CFR 262.31, 262.32,
and 262.34(a). I would suggest that you label and mark containers holding
hazardous waste clearly and in a manner that avoids any confusion.
6. I cannot make any generic determinations as to whether or not the situation you
described is a violation of RCRA. The federal RCRA regulations do not specify
the number of drums that may be open at any one time in a container storage
area. If a facility has a RCRA Part B storage permit, this permit might delineate
specific procedures tailored to that particular facility. Otherwise, generators must
comply with the requirement in 40 CFR 265.173(a) that containers remain closed
except when adding or removing hazardous waste.
7. See number 6 above.
8. The RCRA generator regulations do not preclude the consolidation (or bulking)
of several small containers into a larger container, provided the large container is
clearly labelled and marked, and the wastes are compatible. If you planned to
ship the large container containing the smaller containers, you would need to
-------
ensure that this configuration meets applicable State and federal DOT
requirements, and that the manifest identifies all applicable EPA hazardous waste
codes.
9. The generator must designate on the manifest all of the transporters that will be
used to transport hazardous waste. The federal RCRA regulations do not address
the situation where, for whatever reason, another transporter not identified on the
original manifest is needed to continue the transportation of the shipment The
regulations in 40 CFR 263.20(d) describe the requirements for one transporter
delivering a manifested shipment to another transporter.
10. The regulation at 40 CFR 262.11(c) requires that generators must determine
whether or not any listed hazardous waste also exhibits a hazardous characteristic,
for purposes of compliance with the Part 268 LDRs. This is because the LDRs
require that if a listed waste also exhibits one or more hazardous characteristics,
the waste must be treated to meet the treatment standard for each of the waste
codes, with one exception. Where the Part 268 treatment standard for a listed
hazardous waste also addresses the characteristic(s) exhibited by that waste, the
treatment standard for the listed waste operates in lieu of the standard for the
relevant characteristic(s). I have enclosed a copy of some preamble language
from one of the final rules on LDRs (June 1, 1990 Federal Register: 55 FR
22659) that explains in more detail the overlap of listed and characteristic waste
codes.
With regard to how waste codes should be entered on the manifest, please note
that information in the section of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for
Waste Number (Section I) is not required by Federal law, but that States may
require one or more waste codes in this section. Of course, the RCRA waste
code(s) may be part of the proper U.S. DOT Shipping Description, and should be
entered in Line 11 if required by DOT. If you have additional questions on the
U.S. DOT regulations, please contact the DOT helpline at (202)366-4488.
11. See Number 10 above.
12. See Number 10 above.
13. The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest requires that the information required in
Item 11 of the manifest be entered for each waste. If additional space is needed,
use the appropriate continuation sheet.
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 Region administers the program and is the
appropriate contact for any case-specific determinations. Please also note that under
Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate
-------
regulatory requirements. that are more stringent than federal regulatory requirements.
I hope that the answers I was able to provide will help clarify some or most of
your questions. In some cases I could not provide a complete answer; many of your
questions appear to be derived from specific circumstances at your facility or facilities, or
those of your clients. I would therefore recommend that to the extent any of your
questions are situation-specific, and particularly for the questions that I did not address
completely, that you contact the State agency authorized for the hazardous waste
program in the State where your facility, or your client's faculty, is located. Where a
State is not RCRA-authorized, the EPA Regional office would be the appropriate
contact for making situation-specific determinations such as these.
If you have any additional questions concerning the information I have provided,
please contact Ross Elliott of my staff at 202/260-8551. Thank you for your interest in
the safe management of hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
ruce Weddle
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc Mr. Andrew B. Wallace, Environmental Dynamics, Inc.
Enclosures (2)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2
| ^|7Z ? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9452.1996(01)
IIIM A OFFICE OF
JUIM -4 jggg SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Stephen T. Smith
Koppers Industries, Inc.
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1800
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your letter of May 10, 1996 regarding the
clarification of requirements involving the counting of wood
preserving waters that are hazardous waste and the completion of
the Biennial Report as required under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. Specifically, you request that
the Biennial Report and instructions be corrected to comply with-
the requirements of 40 CFR 261.5(c)(3) for determining generator
status and the requirements at 40 CFR 262.41 for the Biennial
Report.
You stated in your letter that hazardous wastewater from
wood preserving plants (listed as F032, F034, and F035) is
either returned to the preservative process for reuse or is
pretreated and discharged to a POTW. You refer to provisions at
40 CFR 261.5(c)(3) to support your assertion that these hazardous
waste waters are reused and are therefore not subject to the
quantity determination of part 262 and should not be reported on
the Biennial Report.
The provisions at 40 CFR 261.5{c)(3) pertain to making a
quantity determination and explain what must be counted when
determining generator category. These provisions state that
"when making the quantity determination of this part and 40 CFR
part 262, the generator must include all hazardous waste that it
generates, except hazardous waste that.,..is recycled, without
prior storage or accumulation, only in an on-site process subject
to regulation under 40 CFR 261.6(c)(2)—"
If the process you describe meets the conditions of 40 CFR
261.5(c)(3), i.e., the material is recycled without prior storage
or accumulation in an on-site process subject to regulation under
40 CFR 261.6(c)(2), then the waste is not subject to the quantity
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper mat
cont«R**t least 50% recycled fiber
-------
determination; nor is it required to be counted in determining
generator status. However/ if the waste is stored or accumulated
prior to rexlse, it is subject to the quantity determination and
must be counted when determining generator status. Should this
process not meet the conditions of 40 CFR 261.5(c)(3), it may
meet the conditions of 40 CFR 261.5(d)(3), which states that "in
determining the quantity of hazardous waste generated, a
generator need not include spent materials that are generated/
reclaimed and subsequently re-used on site/ so long as such spent
materials have been counted once." (Emphasis added.)
I understand from my staff that they are currently working
with Pam Rogers at AWPI to set up a meeting with you to discuss
Biennial Report requirements pertaining to the counting of
hazardous wastewaters.
Thank you for your continued interest in this issue.
Sincerely/
/f /, , Ur/'. /I. ('. C.\. *..
''.x* *"''**"* •
Michael Shapiro/ Director
s .^ Office of Solid Waste
-------
FILE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN l o 1995 9452.1996(02)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Scott Kuhn, Manager RESPONSE
Corporate Compliance Communications
Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.
220 Outlet Pointe Boulevard
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
Dear Mr. Kuhn:
Thank you for your letter of June 6, 1996, in which you requested a clarification of an
apparent conflict between two sections of the hazardous waste regulations: the waste
characterization requirements in 40 CFR 262. 1 1 and the LDR notification requirements in 40
CFR 268.9(a). This letter will also serve as a followup to a telephone conversation held on July
15, 1996, between you and Allen Maples, of my staff.
Though you mention that a possible conflict exists between these two sections of the
regulations, your question was more related to which waste code should be used on the RCRA
manifest. You referred to the situation where a waste stream has a specific listing code and also
exhibits a characteristic for one of the constituents which make up the waste code. To use your
example of wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations, this waste stream has
the listing code of F006, but is also characteristic for cadmh'TP, which would have the
characteristic waste code of D006.
Your specific question was which of these waste codes should then appear on the RCRA
Manifest? For manifest purposes, it really -does not matter which waste code is shown, the listing
waste code or the characteristic waste code. The RCRA manifest is primarily a shipping and
transportation document and what is important is that the waste code selected most accurately
identify the waste for emergency response purposes. Therefore, the generator/shipper is in the
best position to decide which waste code to use. Since state regulations might differ, it would be
important to contact the State agency where the waste shipment is being sent
With regard to how waste codes should be entered on the manifest, please note that
information in the section of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for Waste Number (section
I) is not required by EPA regulations, but that States might require one or more waste codes in
this section. The RCRA waste code(s) may be part of the proper U.S. DOT shipping description
and should be entered in Line 1 1, as required by DOT (see 40 CFR 172.203). If you have
additional questions about the U.S. DOT regulations, please contact the DOT helpline at (202)
366-4488.
ftocyctod/ltocyctabi*
PIMM •(« Soy/cwioto ** en ptpw ttun
eonMn* al MMt 50% r*eyO*d flbv
-------
Letter to Mr. Scott Kuhn Page Two
Thank you for your interest in the RCRA hazardous waste program. I hope that this letter
has helped to clarify your questions. If you have any additional questions, please contact Allen
Maples, of my staff; at (703) 308-8798.
Sincerely yours,
David Bussard, Director
Hazardous Waste
Identification Division
-------
9453-
PRE-TRANSPORTATION
REQUIREMENTS
Part 262 Subpart C
ATKl/l 104/24 kp
-------
9453.1982(01)
AUG 3119821
MEMORANDUM
d'j ao-oay Accumulation ot Hazardous waste in Tanks
FROM i John H. bk Inner
Ac tiny Director
Office ot Solid* Haste, (WH-462)
TO i Thomas W. Devine
Director
Air and Mast* Management Division, Rag ion IV
III is ia in response to your memorandum ot Juna 29, 1962
regarding the 90-da* accumulation ot hazardous waste in tanks*
in your memo, you requested headquarters' rationale for allow-
ing generators to accumulate hazardous waste in tanks under 40
C?K 26^.34. Xou pointed out that accumulation* tin* tanks is
virtually the sane activity as storage in tanks, and tt!»ce*Core
it seen* inconsistent to apply different standards to the two
activities.
section 262. J4 allows generators who accumulate hazardous,
waste as a normal part of their manufacturing or industrial
processes to do so tor short periods ot tine without detaining
a KCKA permit for storage or qualifying cor inter ia status.
This distinction between accueulation ana storage was made
tor practical and administrative reasons. IPA determined
tnat generators should not be ourdcneu with the KCKA permitting
process tor snort-term accumulation that is incidental to their
operations. We allow generators to accumulate hazardous
waste in both containers and tanks because we oelieve that it
venerators adnecp to the standards in Fart 2fe> subparts I
and J that they can aately accumulate hazardous waste for 90
uays or less without Having to obtain a pernit. The require-
ments of $462. J4 were designed to oe consistent with both goals
ot relieving generators of KCft* permitting procedures applic-
aole to storage facilities wnne ensuring protection of human
health and the environment during accumulation.
Regarding yuur corcwent that "an ««pty tank has not been
defined*, the preamble to the January 11* 1V82 final rule on
yu-day accumulation (4? £fc 1250) gives the following guidance!
"A tank will be considered 'empty' when it's contents have
been drained to the fullest extent possible, uince many tank
-------
flp not allow tor cor.k.i«ti« arain«*,« aue to ,
or »5pnous, it is not ex^ectea th*t luut ot the waste*
always be reaoved." AS yuu sug
-------
9453.1984(01)
8 J984
*r. Mlcha-l A. V
Technical Sales Representative
CiClS International
?Z2\ Kenrore Avenge
Buffalo, **« York 14207
s Charlton of th* Depart»
-------
other questions on EPA's regulations. please write to me «t
the following address:
Permits and State Progrjms Division (WH-S63)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 * Street SW
Washington, DC Z0460
As an alternative source of help on questions of this t/pe.
you way vlsh to call the RCKA/Sup«rfund Hotline on 800-424-9346.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce K. Wedflle
Acting 01rtctor
Permits tna State Prograws Division
(WH-553)
cc: Moraan NosencRuck
Thomas Cnarlton
WH-5S3/CBar1ey/08 MAY 84/332-4697/CO's Disk 112 Doc
REWRITTEN; 5ar1ey/5-9-84/cd:Thoopson/S-ll-8*/cd:
bcc: Dan Derklcs:Bruce Vtddl«:Thompson:Btrlty:L«vy
-------
9453.1984(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
MAY 84
F006 (wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations) is
shipped to a company that puts the waste Hgnt Into a smelter to debater
it. The dew'tersd waste Is held until a load is accumulated and then shipped
to a metals reclaimer. The fines produced from smelting are held and later sent
off-site for disposal.
A) Does the smelting company need a permit for storage?
B) Is the dewatered waste still F006?
C) Must the smelting company be a storage facility to hold the dewatered
sludge after smelting?
D) Are the fines from smelting subject to storage standards since they were
derived from F006 which is suoject to storage standards when stored off-site
from the generator?
A) Since the smelting company puts the waste right Into the smelter for
recycling, no storage permit is needed to accept the F006.
B) No; the material after reclamation is no longer considered •
solid waste.
C) Since tne dewatered sludge is no longer a waste, a storage permit is
not needed.
0) No; the production of the fines is viewed as tne generation of FQU6 per
261.3{c)(2) and the fines can be accumulated for less than ¥0 days per
262.34 without needing a storage permit.
Source: Matt Straus
Research: Denise Wright
-------
9453.1985(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 84
A company cvns several facilities which generate waste solvents. The
company is considering using an outside contractor with a mobile recycling
unit to go to each facility on a regular basis to recycle the waste solvents
orrsite. The contractor would generate from the recycling process a useable
solvent product and still-bottom wastes. The contractor would leave both
the product solvent and still-bottom waste at the facility in which the
recycling took place. Under RCRA, who is considered the generator of the
still-botton wastes; the facility or the contractor with the mobile unit?
Also, would the generator be allowed 90-day accumulation of the still-botton
wastes per 5262.34?
This situation where one person owns and operates a manufacturing unit
and another person is used to reclaia spent solvents and spent catalysts
is addressed in the October 30, 1980 Federal Register (45 fR 72024). The
definition of generator in 5260.10 is "... any person, by site, whose act
or process produces hazardous waste..." Thus, both the owner/operator of
the facility and the operator of the mobile recycling unit could be
considered generators of the still-bottom hazardous wastes. However
"the Agency ... recamends that where two or more parties are involved,
they should mutually agree to have one party perform the generator
responsibilities. Where this is done, the Agency will look to that
designated party to perform the generator duties. If EPA does not know
which party by mutual agreement is appointed to carry out the generator
duties, the Agency will ... initially look to the operator of the unit
to fulfill the generator duties..." (45 FR 72020). The 90-day accumu-
lation period would apply in this case per 5262.34.
Source: Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217
Research: Gordon Davidson
-------
9453.1985(02)
I
ut
Dr. Alex Katona MAR j 2 19S5
Occidental Chemical Corporation X
360 Rainbow Boulevard South o
Box 728 »
Niagara Falls, New York 14302 r
x
Dear Dr. Katona: ^
»
Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1985, which x
was referred to me by Dr. Bell in. In your letter, you ^
state that the Grand Island, NY Research and Development tn
Laboratory Complex of Occidental Chemical Corporation OB
performs analytical work on samples that contain TCDD. J*
The laboratory, therefore, generates laboratory wastes j-
consisting of used rubber gloves, contaminated disposable w
clothing, used disposable glassware, etc. that are ,1
contaminated with TCDD at the ppt level. You requested "
clarification of certain questions relating to RCRA CD
permitting requirements. ^
o
Before we respond to your specific questions, however, ST
we would like to clarify the scope of the listing. In **
particular, wastes resulting from laboratory operations ^
such as contaminated clothing, glassware, etc., are not o
currently subject to the dioxin hazardous waste listing.* £
Unused portions of the specific EPA hazardous wastes that °
are analyzed by a laboratory however, are EPA hazardous
waste and are subject to the new regulation, with this in
mind, the answers to your questions are as follows:
0 Is the exclusion (40 CFR 262.34) from the RCRA
permitting requirements available for generators
who accumulate diox in-con tain ing hazardous waste on-
site for less than 90 days?
- Yes. Generators who store their wastes in either
a tank or a container and are able to ship their
waste off-site within 90 days can take advantage
of the requirements in 40 CFR 262.34 ( i.e. , they
do not need a RCRA permit).
Although these wastes are not currently included in
the January 14, 1985 dioxin listing, we would suggest
that you manage them in a very careful manner (i.e.,
»s if they were listed wastes).
-------
0 If we determine that we cannot realistically take
advantage of the leso-than-90-clay-accumulation-titne
exclusion for dioxin-containing waste, we will also
bo requiroa to suhnit a Part A application £or
Intorin Status storage of the other nazaroous waste
that we generate in the laboratory complex and which
we have been shipping to date without noed for an
Interim Status permit?
- No. Any waste that you are aole to snip ott-site
witnin 90 days that is stored in either a tank or
a container can still take advantage of he require*
nents in 40 CFR 262.34, whether or not you need a
permit for any other part of your operation.
I hope this answers your questions. If you need
further clarification, you may wish to call Dr. Bell in at
(202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-5623)
-------
9453.1985(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 85
4. Hazardous WasteFuel Marketers
Section 266.34 outlines the requirements of Hazardous Waste Fuel Marketers. This
section states that generators who "market" fuel directly to burners are subject
to prohibition* under Section 266.31(a), notification under $3010, applicable
storage requirements under S262.34 and A through L of Parts 264 and 265, and
certain recordk«eping and reporting requirements.
A generator ship* hazardous waste fuel to a burner without the occurrence of a
monetary transaction. Will the generator be considered a marketer under
Section 262.34?
Yes; the absence or presence of monetary transactions under Part 266 has no
bearing'on a marketer's status. The act of initiating a shipment of hazardous
waste from a generator directly to a burner for legitimate energy recovery
constitutes marketing. A hazardous waste fuel blender/processor initiating
a shipment to a burner for energy recovery is also marketing hazardous waste
fuel.
Source: Bob Holloway (202) 382-7936
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACENi 9453.1985(05)
5 W5
Mr. Francis Torres-Fernandez
Cepeda, Sanchez-Betances & Sifre
Attorneys at Law
Suite 700
Banco Central Building
Hato Key, Puerto Rico 00917-1866
Dear Mr. Torres-Fernandez:
I am responding to your letter of November 2, 1985, in which
you raised the following two issuess
1. Can a generator of hazardous wastes that operates a TSD
facility isolate from its waste stream a particular hazardous
waste and accumulate it on-site in a tank for a period not
exceeding 90 days and thus benefit from the provisions under
40 CFR 262.34, although in the past it handled that waste in
the same TSD unit it operates?
2. Can an operator who owns a tank or a container having interim
status use that same tank solely to accumulate hazardous wast*
under 40 CFR 262.34 without having to comply with the RCRA
provisions other than those specified therein?
In both situations, the answer is "yes*. In the first
situation we assume the tank used to accumulate the "isolated*
waste stream was previously used for accumulating hazardous
waste for more than 90 days, but it will no longer be used for
that purpose. The applicant should check with the Regional office
(or authorized State) to determine the closure requirements for
their facility.
Where facilities previously filed a RCRA permit application
that included the units that are now to be used for less than
90-day accumulation, the applicant should notify the Regionl Office
-------
(or authorised State) about the change in operation »o the Agency
will not include this activity in the permit. Almo, the applicant
should make it clear to on-slte personnel, via a notice or sign,
that these units can not be used for accumulating hazardous waste
for core than 90 days and they oust be operated in compliance vith
the provisions of 40 CPR 262.34*
Please contact ne if you have any further questions.
Sincerely*
Peter Guerrero
Chief, Permits Branch
Permits and State Programs Division
ccs Barry Tornick, Region II, */incoming
-------
9453.1985(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 85
satellite Accumulation
3. Section 262.34(c) codifies the satellite accumulation provision promulgated in
the December 20, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 49568). This provision allows
a generator to accumulate up to 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or one quart or
acutely hazardous waste) in containers at or near any point of generation
without a storage permit or interim status, and without comylyiny witn the
provisions of §262.34(a) and (b). Does this provision allow the generator
three days after the accumulation limit is exceeded to transport the excess
waste t» the designated 90-day storage area? when does the 90-day storage
period begin, the aay the accumulation limit is exceeded or tne day the waste
arrives in the designated $262.34 storage area?
The satellite accumulation provision in 262.34(c) allows the generator three
days after the 55-gallon accumulation limit is exceeded to transport the
excess waste to the S262.34(a) storage area. Section 262.34(c) states that
a generator who accumulates waste in excess of the accumulation limits "must,
with respect to the amount of excess waste, comply within three days with
paragraph (a) of this section or other applicable provisions of this
chapter." Section 262.34(a) states that "a generator may accumulate
hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a permit or interim
status provided that the requirements of S262.34 (a)(l)-(4) are met."
Thus, within three days of accumulating over 55 gallons, the generator is
required to comply with all applicable RCRA requirements with regard to
that excess, including §262.34(a). The 90-day storage period begins as
soon as the three day period has expired when the excess amount becomes
subject to the $262.34(a) requirements.
Source: Chaz Miller (202) 382-2220
-------
9453.1986(01)
April 16, 1986
Mr. W. Ernst Minor, Vice President
Government Affairs
Solid Tek Systems Incorporated
4412 Aicholtz Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Dear Mr. Minor:
Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1986, regarding
our regulatory program pertaining to the solidification/fixation
of containerized hazardous liquids.
You expressed concern about the permitting requirements
applicable to generators who use solidification or fixation to
treat hazardous waste which is accumulated on-site for 90 days or
less in conformance with 40 CFR §262.34. The current rules do
not require a permit for a generator who treats a waste when it
is in an accumulation tank or container in compliance with
§262.34. As the Agency has explained in the preamble to the
recent rule-making on small quantity generators, nothing in
§262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste in an
accumulation tank or container covered by §262.34 and Subparts J
or I of Part 265. See 40 Federal Register 10168 (March 24,
1986). Therefore, a generator is not required to have a permit
or interim status if the only on-site management the generator
performs is solidification/fixation (or other treatment) in an
accumulation tank or container during the period of accumulation.
You also inquired about a contradiction that you perceive in
our regulations. You stated that §262.10(b) allows a generator
to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste on-site and only
comply with specific sections of part 262. Therefore, you
believe that §262.10(b) may allow on-site solidification/fixation
without a permit. On the other hand, you point out that the
"Note" after §262.10(f) states that a generator who treats,
stores, or disposes of hazardous waste on~site must meet
applicable standards and permit requirements.
A generator who treats, stores, or disposes on-site must
comply with all applicable standards and permit requirements in
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266, and 270. Section 262.10(b) provides
that a generator who treats, stores, or disposes on-site must
only comply with certain of the generator (Part 262)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
requirements for ignitable, reactive, or incompatible waste under
Subparts I and J of Part 265 (referenced by §262.34).
Finally, EPA notes that treatment often renders waste less
or nonhazardous, or more amenable for further treatment,
recycling, etc. The hazard posed by waste shipped off-site can
thereby be reduced, and recycling can be promoted. A requirement
to obtain a permit for any on-site treatment would very likely
discourage such practices.
2. Treatment in containers. Although nothing in §262.34
specifically precludes treatment in containers, 90-day generators
are subject to the container management standards of Part 265,
Subpart I. One provision of Subpart I (§265.173(a)) requires
that containers be kept closed during storage, except when adding
or removing waste. Other sections of Subpart I provide that
containers must be handled to prevent leaks or ruptures
(§265.173(b)), and address hazards pose by incompatible,
reactive, or ignitable waste (§§265.172, 265.176, and 265.177).
These requirements limit the extent that treatment could occur in
containers. The examples you provided (burning in open drums or
tanks) would be considered open burning under §260.10, and as
such, would generally be recognized as a method of disposal.
Disposal does change a facility's regulatory status, and is not
allowed under §262.34. Further, open burning (except for certain
explosive wastes) is prohibited under §265.382. Finally, if
there are cases of treatment that do not appear to be adequately
regulated under §262.34, .EPA can take action to mitigate an
imminent hazard under RCRA Section 7003.
Please feel free to contact Michael Petruska at 475-6676 if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: James Scarbrough, Chief
Region IV Residuals Management Branch
Hazardous Waste
Division Directors, Regions I-X
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9453.1986(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 86
2. Small Quantity Generator Accumulation
On March 24, 1985, EPA promulgated regulations allowing a generator
to operate two distinct on-site accumulation areas for wastes
generated at different monthly rates (51 PR 1014).
A generator has two accumulation areas on-site. In one area, the
generator stores waste identified as small quantity generator (SQG)
waste. According to S262.34(d), an SOG that generates between 100
and 1000 kg. in a calendar month may store this waste on-site for up
to 180 days without a permit or interim status provided that the
ouantity of waste accumulated never exceeds 6000 kg. The SQG
waste can be stored for 270 days if it is transported 200 miles or
more.
In another area at the same site, the generator stores large quantity
generator (LOG) waste which was produced during the months the
generator exceeded the 1000 kg/month limit. A LQG may store this
waste on-site for up to 90 days without a permit or interim status.
Must the generator count waste stored in his LOG accumulation area
when determining if the 6000 kg. accumulation limit is exceeded in
(5262.34(d)(l))?
Section 262.34(d) states that a generator who generates greater
than 100 kg. but less than 1000 kg. of hazardous waste in a
calendar month may accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 180
days or less without a permit or interim status provided that,
among other requirements, the quantity of waste accumulated on-
site never exceeds 6000 kg. This provisicm applies only to waste
streams produced during calendar months when less than 1000 kg is
generated. If more than 1000 kg is generated, it is fully
regulated as large quantity generator waste. The 6000 kg cap
for the SQG waste stream applies to all waste accumulated on-site.
"On-site" means all contiguous property (§260.10). The definition
does not refer to "units" or "accumulation areas". Therefore,
the generator must count all waste, including both SOG and LOG
that is on-site, in order to determine compliance with $262.34(d)(l).
Source: Bob Axelrad (202) 382-5218
Maureen Smith (202) 382-7703
Research: Inqrid Rosencrantz
-------
9453.1986(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
rWASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JiW I T 1986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: On-site Treatment
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Harry Seraydarian, Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division,
Region IX
The purpose of this memo is to respond to your April 9,
1986, request for clarification of a recent statement with
respect to permitting of treatment activities occurring in a
generator's accumulation tanks or containers.
As noted in your memo, the preamble to the final small
quantity generator regulations promulgated on March 24, 1986,
states that "... no permitting would be required if a generator
chooses to treat their hazardous waste in the generator's
accumulation tanks or containers in conformance with the
requirements of Section 262.34 and J or I of Part 265." This
interpretation is applicable to all generators subject to Section
262.34.
This statement is based upon a legal interpretation of what
the existing rules allow at this point in time rather than a
deliberate and significant shift in Agency policy with respect
to accumulation or treatment. The preamble discussion continues,
"Nothing in Section 262.34 precludes a generator from treating
waste when it is in an accumulation tank or container covered by
that provision (emphasis added)." The interpretation is
predicated on the fact that the Agency has allowed certain types
of storage to occur at generation sites (i.e.., accumulation for
periods of 90, 180, or 270 days, depending on generator type)
without the requirement for permitting or interim status. Since
the Agency has never developed standards specific to treatment
in tanks and containers, the same technical standards applicable
to such storage (i.e., Subpart I or J of Part 265) would also
be applicable to treatment.
-------
-2-
In choosing to communicate this Legal interpretation
in the small quantity generator final rule, OSW sought to
avoid forcing small firms to stop conducting beneficial
treatment of small quantities of hazardous waste in their
accumulation tanks and containers by requiring them to
either cease treatment or expend significant resources to
obtain a RCRA permit. We do not believe that allowing
some treatment to occur while wastes are being accunulated
prior to subsequent management, in full compliance with
applicable tank or container standards, is currently
prohibited under the existing regulatory scheme.
With respect to the limits of treatment which may
occur without a permit on-site, this legal interpretation
only applies to treatment occurring in a generator's own
accumulation tanks or containers subject to, and in compliance
with. Section 262.34. This means that the tank or container
in which treatment occurs must be appropriately marked
with the date the accumulation period began, the tank or
container must be completely emptied every 90 days (or
180/270 days for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo), and must
be operated in strict compliance with Subparts I or J of
Part 265. Any amendments to these Subparts which may be
promulgated in the future would also apply. Treatment in
other than tanks or containers (e.g., incineration, land
treatment or treatment in surface impoundments) would
continue to require a permit.
We would expect that generators that treat hazardous
waste on-site in tanks or containers and who have obtained
interim status, a full permit, or have a Part B application
pending might wish to exit the permit process on the basis
of this interpretation. Since such on-site treatment
without a permit has never been legally precluded under
RCRA, those who now wish to avail themselves of this inter-
pretation may do so, provided they comply with all applicable
rules respecting withdrawal of permit applications. If
however, a unit that now qualifies for Section 262.34 has,
in the past, been subject to regulation because it did not
qualify for the Section 262.34 exemption, the Region should
determine whether the unit has residual obligations under
Part 264 or 265 (e.g., closure requirements). In addition,
the fact that such a unit was once under interim status
provides a basis for action under Section 3008(h), where
appropriate.
However, we would caution these generators, as well as
those who may wish to alter their accumulation practices
in order to conduct treatment without a permit, not to
rely upon the continued existence of this legal interpretation
in making process changes requiring substantial capital
outlays. Specifically, OSW is now considering publication
-------
-3-
of an advanced notice of proposed rulemalcing that would seek
comment on a number of issues related to the 90/180/270 day
accumulation provisions. Should the Agency decide at some
time in the future to either modify the 90 day accumulation
rule in some manner or to write specific standards for
treatment, the obligations of generators with respect to
treatment in accumulation tanks could change.
cc: Regional Division Directors
Eileen Claussen
Bruce Weddle
Jack Lehman
-------
9453.1986(04)
July 25, 1986
Kevin A. Lehner
RMT, Inc.
Suite 124
1406 East Washington Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Dear Mr. Lehner:
Thank you for your letter of April 4, 1986, requesting
clarification of the Agency's recent statement with respect to
permitting of treatment activities occurring in a generator's
accumulation tanks or containers.
As noted in your letter, the preamble to the final small
quantity generator regulations promulgated on March 24, 1986,
states that "... no permitting would be required if a generator
chooses to treat their hazardous waste in the generator's
accumulation tanks or containers in conformance with the
requirements of Section 262.34 and J or I of Part 265." Although
this statement did appear in the small quantity generator
regulations, it is applicable to all generators who accumulate
waste in compliance with Section 262.34.
The following information may help to place this
interpretation in context and assist you in advising your clients
as to the most appropriate course of action. First, you should
be aware that this statement is based upon an interpretation of
what the existing rules allow at this point in time rather than a
deliberate and significant shift in Agency policy with respect to
accumulation or treatment. As the preamble states, "Nothing in
Section 262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste when it
is in an accumulation tank or container covered by that
provision." The interpretation is predicated on the fact that
the Agency has allowed certain types of storage to occur at
generation sites (i.e., accumulation for periods of 90, 180, or
270 days, depending on generator type) without the requirement
for permitting or interim status. Since the Agency has never
developed standards specific to treatment, the same technical
standards applicable to such storage (i.e., Subpart I or J of
Part 265) would also be applicable to treatment.
Thus, we do not believe that allowing treatment to occur
while wastes are being accumulated prior to subsequent
management, in full compliance with all §262.34 requirements,
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
-2-
including applicable tank or container standards, is currently
prohibited under the existing regulatory scheme.
Since the term "accumulation" is not defined in the
regulations, the Agency would not distinguish between
accumulation for handling other than treatment and accumulation
for the sole purpose of on-site treatment. Thus, each of your
process descriptions do not appear to be subject to permitting at
this time, provided all of the Section 262.34 requirements are
met.
With respect to the limits of treatment which may occur
without a permit on-site, this interpretation only applies to
treatment occurring in a generator's accumulation tanks or
containers subject to, and in compliance with, Section 262.34.
This means that the tank or container in which treatment occurs
must be appropriately marked with the date the accumulation
period began, the tank or container must be completely emptied
every 90 days (or 180/270 days for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo),
and must be operated in strict compliance with Subparts I or J of
Part 265. Treatment in other than tanks or containers (e.g.,
incineration, land treatment or treatment in surface
impoundments) would continue to require a permit.
We would expect that generators that treat hazardous waste
on-site in tanks or containers and who have obtained interim
status, a full permit, or have a Part B application pending might
wish to exit the permit process on the basis of this
interpretation. Since such on-site treatment without a permit
has never been precluded under RCRA, those who now wish to avail
themselves of this exemption may do so, provided they comply with
all applicable rules respecting withdrawal of permit
applications. Specifically, these facilities will need to comply
with Part 264 or 265 facility closure requirements unless they
can demonstrate that their treatment tank or container has always
been operated in strict conformance with the requirements of
Section 262.34. In addition, these generators would also be
subject to Section 3008(h) corrective action provisions.
Finally, we would also caution those generators who may wish
to alter their accumulation practices in order to conduct
treatment without a permit, not to rely upon the continued
existence of this exemption, particularly where making process
changes requiring substantial capital outlays may be involved.
Specifically, EPA has recently published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking that discusses eliminating the accumulation
exemption for large quantity generators. Should the Agency
decide at some time in the future to either modify the
accumulation rule in some manner or to write specific standards
for treatment, the obligations of generators with respect to
treatment in accumulation tanks could change.
This has Jbeeu retyped from the original document.
-------
-3-
If I can be of any further assistance, or if you have
additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9453.1986(05)
RCRA/SUPERPUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 86
4. Releases from 90-Day Accumulation Tanks
Are releases of hazardous waste frcrn 90-day accumulation tanks (40 CFR
262.34) regulated under RCRA?
Such releases are not generally covered by the RCRA regulations.
The generator is not subject to corrective action under Section
3004(u) of RCRA unless the generator is engaged in other activities
which would require that he obtain a permit. Section 3004(u) only
applies to permitted facilities. Section 3008(h) administrative
orders only apply to facilities with interim status. Therefore,
the existing RCRA corrective action authorities do not apply to
releases from 90-day accumulation tanks unless other units at
the facility require interim status or a permit.
A leaking 90-day tank which is not cleaned up could be considered
open dumping under RCRA and could be covered by Section 7003, the
imninent hazard provision of RCRA.
EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in
the July 14, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 25487) requesting caments
on the possibility of requiring permits for 90-day storage tanks.
Source: Dave Pagan (202) 382-4740
Research: .Betty Wilson
-------
9453.1986(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 86
3. Prohibition onStorage of Restricted Wastes
The land disposal restrictions rule for listed solvents and dioxin wastes
was promulgated in the November 7', 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 40572).
40 CFR 268 Subpart E establishes prohibitions on storage of restricted
hazardous wastes. The wastes restricted as of November 8, 1986 are
those meeting the F001 through F005 listings under S261.31 except for
wastes generated by a small quantity generator of 100 - 1000 kg/mo, or
a CERCLA response action or corrective action required under RCRA, or
a solvent-water mixture or sludge, solid, or soil containing less than
one percent total F001 through F005 constituents listed in Table CCWE
of §268.41 (51 FR 40642). According to §268.50(a)(l), generators who
store hazardous waste solely for the purpose of accumulation of quantities
as necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal
beyond the 90-day limit set in §262.34(a) may qualify for interim
status under §270.70 and must apply for a permit. Section 268.SOU)
does not mention the possibility of obtaining a 30-day extension due
to extenuating circumstances, as provided in 5262.34{b). Does this
mean that the option of obtaining a 30-day extension no longer exists
for generators storing restricted wastes?
No, the generator may still qualify for an extension under
§262.34(b) if the waste must remain on-site for more than
90 days because of unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable
circumstances. The new land disposal restrictions regula-
tions do not delete or amend §262.34(b), but rather impose new
restrictions on storage that apply in addition to the requirements
in $262.34. Section 262.34 specifies the circumstances under
which a generator can store hazardous wastes without interim
status or a permit, while S268.50 requires that storage of
prohibited wastes during that time must be for the specific
purpose stated above. In addition, according to $270.10(e)(l)(ii),
the generator has thirty days from the date he first becomes
subject to Part 265 standards to submit a Part A permit
application, so it is conceivable that a generator may obtain
an extansion and still apply for a permit. The final decision
to grant an extension under S262.34(b) on a case-by-case basis
still rests with the Regional Administrator.
Source: Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4805
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
9453.1986(07)
DEC 5B86
Ma. Janet L. Weller
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton
1752 K Street, N.V.
Washington, DC 20035
Dear Me. Veller:
Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1986, requesting
an interpretation of the activities allowed under 40 CPR 262.34.
In your letter, you refer to the preaable discussion in the
March 24, 1986 final regulations for small quantity generators
which states that no permit would be required if a generator
chooses to treat its hazardous waste in a tank or container that
is fully in compliance with all of the requirements imposed by
§262.34. You are correct in noting that this interpretation
applies to all generators subject to §262.34*
Enclosed for your information is a memo which further
clarifies the scope and limitations of this interpretation. If
you have any further questions on this issue, please feel free to
contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, at (202) 382-4769 or
Maureen Smith in the Office of General Counsel at (202)
382-7703.
Sincer
MsVEldkWilliams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9453.1986(08)
.;• * e. &
Mr. J. Alex Barber
Director
Division of Waste Management
Co»"ionw«»alth of Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection
Port Poone Plara
IP Peilly Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Dear Mr. Rarberj
*y ecologies for the delav in getting back to you on your
letter of Auoust 27, 198*, concemino the treatment of hazardous
waste in a generator's accumulation tanks and containers.
As you know, the Agency stated in the preamble to the final
small caiantity Generator regulations in the March 24, 1986,
federal *»niater that treatment could occur IP a generator's
accu«ni 1 *11 on tankn and container* without a perrait, provided the
tre«tr'*?nt was performed strictlv in accordance with 40 CPR 262.34.
While I can appreciate the points you raise in your letter with
r^inect to consistency of interpretation, I believe that this
policy discussion was, and remains, appropriate for several
reasons.
First, while it appears on the surface to be a »»i1or shift
in oolicy, It represents a long-stan<31no opinion of our Office of
General Counsel that .consistency dictates that treatment and
storage which is renulated identically at permitted facilities
al*o be regulated identically at generation sites. At this tine,
we do not have special treatment standards in the regulations for
any treatment activities except for incinerators. Thus, when we
p«r*\it treatment facilities, or permit storage facilities, the
identical standards apply. If the etoraeie or treatment occurs in
a tank, the tank standards must be met. If the activity occurs in
a container, the container standards apply. It in true that
additional permit reouirewents, including financial responsibility
and corrective action, are imposed at both treatment and storage
facilities where permitting is required and I fully agree that
this appropriate.
-------
-2-
while we have differentiated in the regulations between long
tenn storaoe and accumulation at generation sites* they are
nevertheless at their core identical activities. We have chosen
to exempt from permitting reouirement* (as veil as associated
financial responsibility and corrective action provisions) storage
(!.«., accumulation) which occurs at generation sites for less
than 90 days (or 180 or 270 days in the ease of small quantity
Generators). Since the regulations do not impose additional
standards for treatment when it occurs in a storage facility,
there is no basis for regulating treatment at an exempt storage
facility.
whether or not the §262.34 exemption from permitting for
storage, as well as treatment, is appropriate is an issue which
we are now beginning to re-examine. As you know, we published
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on July 14, 1986, which
sought comment on various aspects of the exemption. Should we
change the $262.34 regulations for on-site accumulation, it
would of course affect the status of treatment as well. Similarly,
if we develop treatment standards for additional activities
which we believe warrant special standards, these activities
would also lose their exemption from permitting.
We ultimately chose to communicate this legal interpretation
in the small Quantity generator regulations because we believe
that it is essential that treatment not be unduly diacouraoed
under our regulations, particularly at a time when disposal
options are being severely limited under a variety of statutory
and regulatory provisions. Zn particular* we were concerned that
a substantial amount of treatment was occurring at generator
sites which were unregulated prior to the September 22, 1986
effective date for small quantity generator regulations. It was
important to clearly state the Agency's position on this matter.
As a practical matter, although this policy will allow
some treatment which has been carried out without a permit up
to this point to continue, we believe it will have little or
no impact at permitted or interim status treatment facilities.
While permitted or interim status treatment units at oenerator
sites may now become strictly accumulation units and thus
exit the permit process* we would assume that these tanks or
containers have not been operated strictly in accordance with
the accumulation provisions in the past (e.g.* emntied every
90 days) and thus have been legitimately and appropriately brought
into the permit system. Furthermore, exiting the permit
process must be accomplished strictly in accordance with the
procedures already established (e.g»t in compliance with the
closure rules). """""
-------
-3-
Again, let me assure vou that I understand your niseivinos
with respect to this discussion. However, I must also point out
that it i« our position that this is and has been the leqal
situation with respect to treatment in accumulation tanks and
containers since the $262*34 provisions were promulgated.
I hope that this has helped to clarify our position on this
issue. If you wish to discuss the issue in wore detail, please
feel free to contact Maureen Swith in the Office of General
Counsel at (202) 382-7703 or Bob Axelrad, of ny staff, at (202)
382-4769.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9453.1987 (01)
19 ©87
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Brent C. Bradford
Executive Secretary
Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 16690
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0690
Dear Mr. Bradford:
Robert Duprey, Director of the Waste Management Division
in Region VIII, forwarded your letter of January 8, 1987 to
this Office. This letter contains our response to the
questions you raised regarding issues relating to the Federal
regulations for satellite accumulation under 40 CFR 262.34(c).
1. What is the intent of the Federal regulation with respect
to the total amount (volume) of hazardous waste at each
satellite accumulation area?
A generator may accumulate as much as 55 gallons of
hazardous waste, or one quart of acutely hazardous waste,^ in
containers at or near any point of generation where the w'aste
initially accumulates and which is under the control of the
operator of the process. EPA believes that only one waste would
normally be accumulated at each satellite area, and that the
exempted accumulation should be limited to 55 gallons.
Although the total amount of hazardous waste that may be
accumulated at any one satellite area is limited to 55 gallons,
EPA intentionally did not limit the total number of satellite
areas at a generator's facility nor specify the size of the
containers to be used for accumulation (though we believe
many facilities will use 55-gallon drums).
-------
-2-
2. Does the Federal regulation limit the number of containers
that can be placed at a satellite accumulation area?
The Federal regulations do not limit the number of containers
that can be placed at a satellite accumulation area; rather, the
regulations limit the total gallons accumulated to 55.
3. As described in the Utah proposed interpretation, will Utah
be equivalent to the Federal regulations if the State allows
more than 55 gallons of hazardous waste to be accumulated in
more than one drum..., but require personnel training, preparedness
and prevention and contingency plans?
No, a "satellite accumulation area" is limited to a total
accumulation of 55 gallons, not 165 gallons as proposed.
4. Is Utah's interpretation of "three days" to mean three "working1
days equivalent to EPA's intent?
Yes.
5. Will Utah be equivalent to EPA if we require that the date
be placed on the full drum?
Yes, if a facility uses 55-gallon drums, then the date
excess accumulation began must be clearly marked on the drum.
I trust that the above discussion answers your questions and
concerns relating to the Federal satellite accumulation require-
ments. If not, Chet Oszman of my staff (202-382-4499) is willing
to provide clarification as needed.
Sincerely,
Susan E. Bromm
Acting Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Kent Gray, State of Utah
Robert Duprey, Region VIII
Patricia Brechlin, Region VIII
Chester Oszman, PSPD
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
uJ
° REGION VIII
999 18th STREET-SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405
JAN 2 3 1987
Ref: 8HWM-WM
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Bruce R. Vteddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division (WH-563)
FROM: Robert k', Duprey, Director
Waste Management Division
SUBJECT: Satellite Accumulation in the State of Utah
The State of Utah has requested information from EPA Region VIII
concerning the interpretation of the regulations on Satellite Accumulation.
We are forwarding this request dated January 8, 1987, to you.
Please contact Ms. Patricia Brechlin of my staff at FTS 564-1507 if you
have any questions pertaining to this matter.
Enclosure
cc: Kent Gray
-------
Norman H. Bangerter
Governor
Suzanne Dandoy, M.D., M.P.H.
Executive1 Director
January 8, 1987
538-6170
Robert Duprey
EPA Region VIII
One Denver Place,
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado
Dear Mr. Duprey:
Suite 1300
80202-2413
The Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee recently adopted regulations
on Satellite Accumulation. These Satellite Accumulation regulations were
adopted verbatim to the federal language. See 40 C.F.R. 262.34(c).
The ambiguity in both the January 3, 1983 and December 20, 1984 Federal
Register preambles and in the final rule make it very difficult to produce a
solid interpretation of these Satellite Accumulation regulations.
The Committee now is in the position of having regulations in-place that
are open to several interpretations and thus present problems with
enforceability.
To deal with this problem, Utah is now considering clarifications to these
regulations.
The following points of interpretation have been determined:
1. Two different types of satellite accumulation areas are proposed to
be recognized:
Type A: A low volume, slow accumulation point of generation which
produces only one waste stream, and thus will utilize only one
55-gallon drum (as the accumulation container).
Type B: A point of generation which produces multiple low volume,
slow accumulation waste streams. Thus, more than one 55-gallon drum
will be utilized, one for each waste stream. This multi-drum
satellite accumulation area will be limitedjto a three drum maximum
(165 gallons).
Kenneth L /Vkema. Director • Division of Environmental Health
288 North 1460 Wesi
PO Box 16690 . Salt Lake Giv. Uian 84116-0690 • 18011 S38-6!2i
-------
2. Type A satellite accumulation areas will be subject only to the
requirements as stated in 40 C.F.R. 262.34(c). Type B satellite
accumulation areas will require generator compliance with all personnel
training, contingency plans, and preparedness and prevention regulations
at each Type B satellite accumulation area.
3. The date that will be placed on the drum will be the date the drum is
full. It is this full drum that will be managed, not the "excess
accumulation".
4. The generator must move the drum off-site or to central storage
within three "working days" of the date that is placed on the drum.
5. The 90-day storage clock begins with the date which is placed on the
drum.
6. Generators who utilize Satellite Accumulation areas must have a list
available to all inspectors which identifies where hazardous waste is
produced and the type of hazardous waste produced at each satellite
accumulation area.
The Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee is concerned with several
points and requests a response to the following questions:
1. What is the intent of the federal regulation with respect to the
total amount (volume) of hazardous waste at each satellite accumulation
area?
2. Does the federal regulation limit the number of containers that can
be placed at a satellite accumulation area?
3. As described in items 1 and 2 of the Utah proposal, will Utah be
equivalent to the federal regulations if we allow more than 55 gallons of
hazardous waste to be accumulated in more than one drum at a Type B
satellite accumulation area, but require personnel training, preparedness
and prevention and contingency plans?
4. Is Utah's interpretation of "three days" to mean three "working" days
equivalent to EPA's intent? See A9 FR 12/20/84 page 49569.
5. Will Utah be equivalent to EPA if we require that the date be placed
on the full drum? (ie. On which container is the date to be placed?)
Utah requests assistance from EPA on this issue. Please review the Utah
proposal on satellite accumulation as outlined in this letter and provide the
information by January 21, 1987. The Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee
proposes to deal with this issue at it's meeting scheduled for February 4,
1987.
The Committee is interested in responding to industry concerns regarding
their ability to handle hazardous wastes under this rule.
-------
Before preparing your response, please call Kent Gray of this office to
make sure that industries* concerns are adequately understood.
Questions or comments should be directed to Kent Gray of this office.
Sincerely.
Brent C. Bradford
Executive Secretary
Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee
cc: Brian Buck, Chairperson; Solid and Hazardous Waste Subcommittee
Lou Johnson, EPA. Region VIII
Jim Rakers, EPA Region VIII
Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee Members
AHW:dt
9830U
-------
«or.
••f
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENt 9453.1987(02)
\ MtfrTy WASHINGTON, D.C. 204*0
OFFICE OF
•OLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MAR 2 5 is-::
Kathryn T. All ford
ML Treating Che ideals
NL Industries, Inc.
17402 Wallisville Road
Houston, TX 77049
Dear Ms. Allford:
Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1987. Your
question concerning on-site treatment by a generator is covered
by 40 CFR §262.34, the "90-day generator" rule. You are correct
in your assessment of the rule. That is, a generator who otherwise
aeets the requirements of 40 CFR §262.34 need not obtain a RCRA
hazardous waste permit to conduct treatment in a tank system. In
your specific situation, you are well within the 90-day time
limit, and as long as you meet the other requirements of §262.34,
you should have no regulatory problem* in setting up your treatment
system.
If you have further questions, call Mike Petruska of my
staff at (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453.1987(03)
July 1, 1987
Bernard E. Cox, Jr., Chief
Hazardous Waste Branch
Land Division
Alabama D.E.M.
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Dear Mr. Cox:
This is in response to your letter of June 11, 1987,
requesting clarification of EPA's policies concerning the
regulatory status of on-site treatment by generators under 40 CFR
§262.34. The following addresses, first, EPA's general policy in
this area, and then the specific container-related examples you
provided.
1. General policy. Although you appear to believe that EPA
has amended its interpretation of the hazardous waste rules in
March 1986, EPA actually discussed the relationships between
storage treatment, and disposal in the preamble of the
January 12, 1981 Federal Register. (See 46 Federal Register
2806-2808). In particular, EPA noted that treatment can occur
either at a disposal or a storage facility and that the conduct
of treatment does not affect a facility's regulatory status.
(Id. at 2808. )ix Nothing in §262.34, or in preambles
specifically related to the section (often called the "90 day
generator" rule) preclude treatment. EPA believes that treatment
activities should similarly not affect the regulatory status of
90-day generators.
Of course, EPA's most important consideration is protection
of human health and the environment. In discussing treatment at
storage facilities, EPA noted that the general requirement of
§264.17, which applies to all storage facilities, addresses
hazards posed by ignitable, incompatible, or reactive wastes.
(See 46 Federal Register 2806; January 12, 1981.) EPA concluded,
therefore, that the most serious hazards likely to be posed
during treatment would be addressed under these provisions.
(Id.) Ninety-day generators similarly must comply with special
-Vie view this preamble discussion as more definitive than
the statements and guidance you quote from 1980.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
requirements. For example, such generators do not need to comply
with manifest requirements since the waste is not transported
off-site. Section 262.10(b) provides no exemption from our rules
other than certain of the Part 262 requirements. Therefore/ the
statement contained in the "Note" after §262.10(f) is appropriate
and accurate.
A generator who treats, stores, or disposes on-site must
comply with all applicable standards and permit requirements in
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266, and 270. Section 262.10(b) provides
that a generator who treats, stores, or disposes on-site must
only comply with certain of the Generator (Part 262)
requirements. For example, such generators do not need to comply
with manifest requirements since the waste is not transported
off-site. Section 262.10(b) provides no exemption from our rules
other than certain of the Part 262 requirements. Therefore, the
statement contained in the "note" after §262.10(f) is appropriate
and accurate.
Finally, I would like to clarify when our containerized
hazardous liquids rule will be published. The rules will be
proposed this summer and then finalized about a year later.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact Paul Cassidy of my staff at (202) 382-4682.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
9453.1987(04)
July 14, 1987
Michael C. Weisberg
MCW, Inco., Consulting Engineers
101 Laughing Cow Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Dear Mr. Weisberg:
This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1987, in which
you request an interpretation of how the EPA hazardous waste
regulations apply to a generator recycling hazardous waste on-
site. First, from the information you provided, we start with
the premise that the generator has a spent liquid ink waste that
exhibits the characteristic of ignitability. The answers to your
specific questions are as follows:
(1) A generator who complies with the special accumulation
provisions of 40 CFR §262.34 may treat his waste on-
site in his accumulation tanks or containers without
obtaining a permit or having interim status. Among
other things, the rules require that the waste remain
in the accumulation/treatment vessel for a maximum of
90 days. Further, a company may market treatment
equipment to waste generators (or anyone else) without
a permit or any approval from EPA. EPA only regulates
those persons who actually manage hazardous waste.
(2) When a characteristic hazardous waste is treated so
that it no longer exhibits any characteristic, the
resultant waste is no longer considered hazardous.
(3) You may recycle waste at your customers' sites if you
so wish. Generators of waste (your customers) are
responsible for complying with 40 CFR Part 262. In
addition, if they store waste in tanks or containers
for more than 90 days (or store it in any other type of
unit for any length of time), they would need to get a
storage permit.
However, as you point out, EPA does not currently
regulate the actual process of reclamation, so the
distillation activity you describe would not lead to
additional requirements for a waste generator.
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
-2-
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska, of my staff, at (202) 475-6676.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9453.1987(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTJON AGENCY
AUG I 2 1987
Honorable Lane Evan*
House of Representatives
Washington, O.C. 20515
Dear Mr* Evans*
This letter is in response t.o your recent, inquiry regarding
the concerns of Illinois State Representative Richard A.
Mautino. The issue he raises Involves the temporary storage
of hazardous waste by manufacturers pending disposal at a per-
mitted treatment or disposal facility.
Under regulations implementing the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), generators of hazardous waste may
accumulate waste on-sdte for 90 days or less without, a permit
provided that, the wastes are handled in a protective manner.
(40 CFR 264.34) These regulations further provide that a
30-day extension of this 90-day period may be granted if the
wastes remain on-sit.e "due to unforeseen, temporary, and
uncontrollable circumstances." (40 CFR 264.34(b))
The provision allowing for a 30-day extension has-, not
been eliminated from the Federal regulations, contrary to
Representative Mautino*s understanding. This Federal provision,
which has also been adopted in the Illinois State program,
would provide the flexibility that Mr. Mautino recommended.
Mr. Mautino suggests that a hazardous waste generator should
be granted an additional 30-day extension in certain cases,
e.g., if the generator's special waste hauler went out of
business or if a landfill closed, and the generator would
need ext.ra t.ime t.o find ot.her haulers or an alternate landfill.
Bot.h Federal and state regulations would allow this extension,
if t.h« state found t.hat it was necessary because of "unforeseen,
temporary, and uncontrolled circumstances."
-------
Illinois, as ft State authorized to administer their own
hazardous wa»t.e program in lieu of the Federal program, may
grant a 30-day extension when it deems appropriate without
obtaining clearance from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
I hope this information will prove useful to you* If X
can be of any further assistance, please let. me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant. Adminstrat.or
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9453.1987(07)
NDV 17
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY F4f
Gary Smith
Burns and Levinson
Counsellors at Law
50 Milk Street
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1987,
regarding labeling of steel drums.
The hazardous waste regulations under EPA's Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act do not require a shipper to provide
documentation listing all previous contents of a steel drum used
for transportation of used automotive parts. EPA's regulations for
preparation of hazardous waste for transport, found in. 40 CFR Part
262, subpart C, require only that the generator comply with the
applicable packaging, labeling, marking and placarding requirements
under Department of Transportation (DOT) regulation (49 CFR Parts
172-179). In addition, there is no EPA requirement to list all
previously contained materials on the Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest. Furthermore, if the used automobile cores sent for
remanufacture are not hazardous wastes, EPA would not regulate
their transportation at all.
In summary, nothing in EPA's hazardous waste regulations
supports the claims in the flyers concerning documentation of past
materials held in steel drums. If such a documentation requirement
exists, it may be the result of a state or local ordinance.
Sincere!
Mar da
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453.1987(08)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SOLID WASTE AND 6MERGENCV
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Requested Re-interpretation of On-site
Treatment Exemption
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562B)
TO: Robert F. Greaves, Acting Chief
Waste Management Branch (3HW30)
This is in response to your request for a re-interpretation of
the on-site treatment exemption. We have reviewed your concerns
regarding our interpretation. While in general we continue to
believe that treatment in tanks or containers is allowed under
section 262.34, the questions you posed indicate that the rule as
currently written is unclear and should be clarified.
1. General policy. Although 40 CFR 270.l(c) does state that a
permit is required for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazard-
ous waste, please note that Section 270.l(c)(2)(1) exempts gene-
rators who accumulate hazardous waste on-site in compliance with
Section 262.34 from the requirement to obtain a RCRA permit. The
exemption does not depend on whether or not treatment is conducted.
The reason for this general policy is as follows. First, as you
have stated, Section 262.34 does not preclude treatment in
accumulation units. Also, the performance standards under Part
265, Subparts I and J, apply to the generator's containers and
tanks regardless of whether storage, treatment, or both processes
occur in them.. In addition, both Subparts I and J contain special
handling requirements for ignitable, reactive, and incompatible
wastes, and these requirements should adequately control treatment
typically conducted in tanks or containers. Finally, treatment
often renders waste less hazardous, or at least easier to transport
or more amenable for recovery. For all of these reasons, OSW
believes that treatment is not only allowable under section 262.34,
but also is consistent with sound waste management.
-------
2. Thermal treatment. You raised the concern that generators
could conduct thermal treatment such as detonation or open burning
under Section 262.34 and thereby avoid permitting for obviously
dangerous activities. Certainly, detonation and open burning were
never intended to be allowed under Section 262.34. As explained
above, a large part of the Agency's rationale in allowing treatment
under Section 262.34 was that the same standards would apply for
both treatment and storage. All thermal treatment is subject to
Part 265, Subpart P; if this was not the case, the standards would
not be the same, and the premise of the Section 262.34 exemption
would be violated. The regulatory language of Section 262.34 is
not clear on this point, and OSW is considering promulgating
amendments to clarify applicability of the section.
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael Petruska at FTS 475-8551.
cc: Waste Management Branch Chiefs,
Regions I, II, and IV-X
-------
9453.1987(09)
Dr-r\ ; *~ '^0*7
rL, i w i3OI
Eric J. Dougherty
8409 H. Morven Road
Parkviiie, MD 21234
Dear Mr. Dougherty:
This is in response to your November 13, 1987 letter to
Robert Scarberry concerning land disposal of solvents. The answers
to your questions are as follows.
First, you are correct that industrial wastewater discharges
subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) are excluded from the hazard-
ous waste regulations, and it does not matter how the wastewater
was generated. You should note, however, that only the discharge
is excluded. If hazardous wastewaters are collected, stored,
treated, or disposed of prior to discharge, this prior management
is subject to the hazardous waste regulations (including the land
disposal restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268).
Second, EPA does not have groundwater discharge guidelines
per se. Facilities that have RCRA interim status or that seek a
RCRA hazardous waste facility permit are subject to a number of
requirements designed to protect groundwater in 40 CFR Parts 264,
265, 266 and 268^ as well as the corrective action provisions of
RCRA Sections 3004(u) and 3008(h). Facilities that generate
hazardous waste but which are exempt from interim status and
permitting requirements under the accumulation provisions of 40 CFR
Section 262.34 (this is likely the case for the automotive mainten-
ance facilities you asked about) are subject to container and tank
management standards designed to prevent releases to groundwater.
When releases do occur, EPA or the appropriate State agency can
take enforcement action under RCRA Sections 3008(a) and 7003 to
require the facility owner or operator to stop the discharge and to
clean-up contaminated soil and groundwater.
-------
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael Petruska at 9202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453.1988(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 88
2. "Lab Packs" at Generator Sites
Is a permit required for a service company (under
contractual agreement to manage a generator's hazardous
waste) to come onto a generator's site and re-package small
containers of hazardous waste into large containers with
absorbents?
A generator may accumulate wastes pursuant to Section
262.34, and nothing in Section 262.34 precludes a
generator from treating waste when it is in an
accumulation tank or container provided that the
performance standards under Subparts I and J of Part
265 are met (51 FR 10168), and provided that the
treatment is not thermal treatment or incineration
which are subject to Part 265 Subpart P and 0
respectively. Further, the addition of absorbent
material to waste in a container or the addition of
waste to a container holding absorbent material also is
exempt from permitting in accordance with Section
265.1(c)<13). Because a service company may act on
behalf of the generator, a permit would not be required
for a service company to re-containerize the wastes
and/or add absorbent material prior to shipping off-
site. The Agency's current policy on treatment at a
generator facility is that treatment often renders
waste less hazardous or at least easier to transport or
more amenable for recovery. For these reasons, EPA
considers that such treatment is not only allowable
under S262.34, but treatment is consistent with sound
waste management (memo, dated 12/15/87, from Marcia
Williams to Robert Greaves).
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475-8551
Research: Bob Adamson
-------
" «•«"- *«»i«UHM£NTAL FRACTION AGENCY
9453.1988(03)
FEE 2 4 1
K.G. Wiman FEB 25 '.93?
Chief, Office of Engineering
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. coast Guard (G-ECV-5B)
Washington, DC 20593
Dear Mr. Wiman.
This is in response to your letter of September 23, 1987,
concerning the RCRA regulations and the generation of ATON
batteries. As you noted, my office recently issued an interpre-
tive memo to EPA Region X concerning generation of these
batteries. As discussed below, we do not view the memo as a
departure from past EPA policy, and for that reason, it did not
occur to my staff to consult with the Coast Guard.
The definition of generator for the purposes of RCRA is by
site, rather than by central facility. A site may include each
vessel that is a point of waste generation. EPA dealt with a
situation analogous to yours when it promulgated its small quantity
generator regulations on March 24, 1986. In the preamble to that
rule, we clarified that off-shore drilling facilities are separate
generation points, and as such are subject to the 40 CFR Part 262
generator requirements. (See 51 EB 10162.) Also, when EPA amended
the hazardous waste regulations to exempt waste generated in
product or raw material tanXs and vessels, EPA used examples of
units that would be regulated absent the exemption that included
vessels (i.e., water craft). (See 45 FR 72025; October 30, 1987.)
Therefore, we have always considered waste generation at-sea as
potentially subject to regulation, and the July 30, 1987 memo to
Region X correctly interprets current EPA regulations.
Since tne July 30, 1987, memo was sent from OSW to Region X, I
understand that our staffs and staff from the U.S. Navy have met
and discussed this issue.. From that discussion, there are three
points that I would like to clarify. First, if a buoy is brought
onto a ship and the ATON battery is removed, the ship can be
considered the generation site (instead of the buoy.) This may
help reduce paperwork for you, as each servicing vessel could
-------
- 2 -
comply with 40 CFR Part 262 instead of each buoy. Second, so
long as the spent batteries remain on-site, i^e.. on board the
ship, the 90-day accumulation provision of 40 CFR 262.34 would
allow storage of the batteries if the regulatory conditions are
met. Third, while it is generally true that a ,fac*-M^v must
have a RCRA permit or interim status to receiveXfilBbous waste
from off-site, please note that 40 CFR Section lU^^K does
allow storage of hazardous waste in DOT-approve4t5|^Bpainers for
10 days or less at transfer facilities without ajp^fcit or
interim status. Your shore bases may be able to operate under
this "10-day rule" in lieu of becoming RCRA storage facilities.
Also, as & result of that meeting, my staff has concluded
that EPA should re-evaluate the exemption in Section 261.4(c)
for product and raw material vessels to determine whether it
should be expanded to cover other vessels. At this meeting we
also discussed resource limitations that would affect the
timing of a formal reevaluation of the exemption. One way to
expedite this evaluation and possible rulemaking would be for
the Coast Guard to provide staff support for the project, i.e..
perhaps a three day per week detail over several months. If
this were possible, we could begin this effort much sooner.
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-9888. Also, please feel
free to contact Mike on whether a detail would be feasible.
Sincerely,
Jeffery D. Denit
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
•«.». WO : !*•>-«* I-IJJ
-------
9453.1989(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMHARY
APRIL 89
2. Generator Standards Applicable to Transporters
Are transporters eligible for the Section 262.34 accumulation time provision
when they mix wastes?
No. The accumulation time provision only applies to generators. Mixing
two or more wastes does not generate a new waste or make the transporter a
generator. Therefore, transporters are not eligible for the accumulation time.
The transporter may hold the waste pursuant to Section 263.12 for ten days or
less at a transfer facility. Storage periods of greater than ten days will require
the facility to apply for a permit or interim status.
Source: Emily Roth (202)382-4777
Research: Joe Nixon (202)488-1487
-------
9453.1989(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 89
2. Generator Satellite Accumulation /Counting Requirement?
A generator accumulates hazardous waste in a satellite accumulation area
pursuant to 40 CFR Section 262.34(c) standards. The generator also generates
other RCRA hazardous waste elsewhere on-site. When determining
generator status, must a generator count the waste collecting in the satellite
accumulation area or count it once it enters the generator storage area?
To determine their generator status, generators must count all hazardous
waste generated at their facility in a calendar month. Wastes not included
in the monthly determination are identified in Section 261.5(c). These are
wastes either not subject to regulation or subject to only the notification
and reporting requirements in Sections 262.11, 262.12, 262.4CXc) and 262.41.
Wastes stored in the satellite accumulation area are subject to certain
container standards (e.g., Sections 265.171, 265.172, and 265.173(a)). These
regulations are not among those listed in 261.5(c). Therefore, wastes in the
satellite accumulation must be included in the generator's monthly waste
quantity determination.
Source: Emily Roth (202) 382-4777
Research: Gwen Herron
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEP 9453-1989(04)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
18 1989
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY atSs
Mr. Eric E. Boyd
Sidley 6 Austin
One First National Plaza
Chicago, XL 60603
Dear Mr. Boyd:
This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1989 in
which you requested clarification of the regulations that apply
to still bottoms generated and removed from a recycling unit.
Specifically, you inquired as to when the waste accumulation
time begins in an on-site solvent recycling operation. The
accumulation time for still bottoms resulting from the recycling
of spent solvent begins when the still bottoms are removed from
the distillation unit. The recycling unit is exempt from
regulation, therefore, the still bottoms are considered to be a
newly generated waste eligible for accumulation under the
provisions of 40 CFR Section 262.34. They are also a "derived
from" waste and carry the same EPA waste code as the spent
solvent from which they were derived (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).
The spent solvent which is recycled by your client is a
hazardous waste subject to regulation. The generator must
determine his generator status, i.e. conditionally exempt
generator (40 CFR Section 261.5), small quantity generator (40
CFR Section 262.34(d-f)), or large quantity generator (40 CFR
Section 262.34(a-b)), based on the total amount of hazardous
waste he generates in a calendar month, which includes the total
amount of spent solvent before recycling. The accumulation time
for the spent solvent under the provisions of 40 CFR Section
262.34 is 90 days, or 180 days if your client is a small
quantity generator of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of
hazardous waste in a month.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact
Emily Roth at (202) 382-4777.
J~ lyia K. Lovraftce
vector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453.1989(05)
/ , g \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
ADD 9 I IOAQ of net
m\ £ I I^W
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY «ES*O
Mr. Stephen J. Axtell
Smith & Schnacke
2000 Courthouse Plaza NE
Post Offie* Box 1817
Dayton, Ohio 45401-1817
Dear Mr. Axtell:
This letter is in response to your letter of February 23, 1989,
requesting clarification of the generator accumulation time
requirements of 40 CFR 262.34. You ask whan the accumulation time
begins for an unknown vaste that, upon analysis, is found to meet
the definition of hazardous vaste. Initially, the container was
improperly labelled or not labelled at all. A sample of the
contents was sent off site for analysis, and was found to be
hazardous.
In your letter you relate that Chris Bryant of the RCRA Hotline
indicated that the accumulation time for an unknown waste begins
when the analytical results indicating that the waste is hazardous
are received. Unfortunately, this information was incorrect. The
correct reading of Section 262.34 in this instance follows.
Section 262.34(a) provides a limited exemption from the
requirement that those who store hazardous waste must obtain
permits. To obtain the exemption, a generator must comply with
all the requirements of Section 262.34. If the date on which the
accumulation began was not marked on the drum (Section 262.34(a)
(2)) or the drum vas not marked "Hazardous Waste" (Section 262.34
(a) (3)), then the generator has not met the pre-conditions for the
exemption from permitting requirements and is an operator of a
storage facility subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265 and the permit requirements of 40 CFR Part 270.
Where a generator does meet the conditions of section 262.34,
the accumulation time begins when a waste is generated or when
it is first taken from a "satellite" accumulation area operated
pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(c). Waste is generated either when it
is produced or when it is first caused to be subject to regulation
(40 CFR 260.10), not when a generator first analyzes the vaste.
If the waste in the drum was a listed or characteristic hazardous
waste when it vas produced, then the one-time 90-day accumulation
time could begin only at the time the vast* vas produced or removed
from the satellite accumulation area.
-------
- 2 -
If the waste was not subject to regulation when it was first
stored, ioju» the material had not yet been listsd as a
regulated hazardous vasts, than the 90-day period would havs
begun when the waste became subject to regulation—upon the
effective date of the new listing. A generator's failure to
properly analyze, label, and accumulate waste does not exempt
the waste froa regulation.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact
Emily Roth at (202) 382-4777.
Director
of Solid Waste
-------
PROTECTION ACEMCY 9453.1989(07)
.11 I3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: "Satellite" Accumulation
FROM: Sylvia K. Lovrance, Director
Office of Solid Haste
TO: David A. Ullrich, Associate Division Director
Office of RCRA
Waste Management Division (5HR-13)
In response to your memorandum of June 13, 1989, we have
addressed the questions posed by Ohio EPA regarding our
requirements of 40 CFR Section 262.34(c) concerning satellite
accumulation.
Specifically, in the attachment to your memorandum, Ohio EPA
asks if roll-off boxes meet the definition of containers and may
be used at satellite accumulation areas. It is our view that if
the roll-off boxes meet the definition of container found in
Section 260.10 and are managed in accordance with the applicable
container requirements of Sections 265.171, 265.172, and
265.173(a), they may be utilized in satellite accumulation.
Section 260.10 defines "container" as "any portable device
in which a material is stored, transported, treated, disposed of
or otherwise handled." A roll-off box is a portable device.The
container requirements include: (1) that the container be in
good condition (i.e., not leaking), (2) that the container be of
a material, or lined with a material, which is compatible with
the waste, and, (3) that the container be closed during storage,
except to i*M or remove waste.
The eHpr- other requirement under Section 262.34(c) (1) states
that the dBBcainer be marked with the words "Hazardous Waste" or
other words that identify the contents. This is the extent of
the physical requirements for satellite accumulation containers.
Therefore, as long as the quantity limits and time limits for
excess quantities are met, the roll-off box may be classified as
a satellite accumulation container.
-------
However, for containers used in off-site shipment of
hazardou»~iMte, the Department of Transportation (DOT) packaging
specificaflApM for the hazard class must be met. DOT regulations
governing*l£p transportation of hazardous materials are found in
49 CFR Part* 171 through 177.
Ohio EPA has also raised a concern about the ability of a
generator to determine when the 55 gallon quantity limit for
satellite accumulation of hazardous waste (or one quart of acute
hazardous waste), is exceeded if roll-off boxes are used. The
dimensions, or capacity, of the roll-off boxes are not mentioned
in the Ohio EPA attachment. Under our regulations any type of
container may be used as a satellite accumulation device provided
it meets the Section 260.10 definition for container, and is used
in accordance with the above-mentioned container provisions of
Part 265. We ask that Ohio EPA inform us if they find that the
use of roll-off boxes of various volumes and capacities
contributes to a generator's inability to quantify his waste.
In addition to answering these questions, we offer the
following observation. It appears that the Ohio EPA has a
thorough understanding of the Section 262.34 requirements and
provides an accurate interpretation of the regulations. However,
you should note that, upon removal from an accumulation storage
area, hazardous waste may also be managed in an on-site permitted
unit (45 ZB 76624, November 19, 1980).
If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please
do not hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact Emily
Roth at (202) 382-4777.
-------
9453.1989(08)
w
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
AUG 2198S OFFICE °F
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
T.R. Kirk, Environmental Scientist
Fehr-Graham & Associates
660 W. stephenson St.
Preeport, Illinois 61032
Dear Mr. Kirk:
This is in response to your letter of July 6, 1989,
requesting a clarification of 40 CFR Section 262.34(c), the
"satellite accumulation1* provision. Section 262.34(c)(l) states
that, provided certain requirements are met, "a generator may
accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart
of acutely hazardous waste listed in Section 261.33(e) in
containers at or near any point of generation where wastes
initially accumulate, which is under the control of the operator
of the process generating the waste ..." Your question concerns
whether the 55 gallon limit on hazardous waste applies to the
total quantity of hazardous waste accumulated at the satellite
location, or if it applies to each waste stream accumulated at
the satellite location.
The 55 gallon limit applies to the total of all the non-
acutely hazardous waste accumulated at a satellite accumulation
area. In the enclosed Federal Register notice of December 20,
1984 (49 £B 49568) EPA explicitly states that the 55 gallon limit
on non-acutely hazardous waste applies to each satellite
accumulation area.
Although the total amount of hazardous waste that may be
accumulated at any one satellite area is limited to 55 gallons,
EPA intentionally did not limit the total number of satellite
areas at a generator's facility nor specify the size of the
containers to be used for accumulation. A case-by-case analysis
is necessary to determine whether a generator is accumulating
more than 55 gallons of waste at one satellite area, or whether a
generator has more than one satellite area. An example of a
situation that would not be in compliance with the regulations is
-------
given in the enclosed Federal Register notice on page 49569
column 3. The appropriate State or EPA Regional office would
make these case-by-case determinations.
If you have any further questions regarding this letter, you
nay contact Emily Roth of my staff at (202) 382-4777.
Enclosure
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY 9453.1990(01)
APRIL 1990
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—APRIL 1990
A. RCRA
1. Satellite Accumulation Standards for Small Quantity Generators
Can small quantity generators establish satellite accumulation areas
according to 40 CFR 262.34(c) for their hazardous waste?
Yes, according to the March 24, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 10146)
"100-1000 kg/mo generators may accumulate up to 55 gallons of non-
a cutely hazardous waste in satellite areas without meeting the storage
requirements being promulgated today, so long as the requirements
of Section 262.34 (c) are met." (51 FR 10162) All generators subject to
40 CFR 262.34 may develop satellite accumulation areas for hazardous
waste according to 40 CFR 262.34(c) provisions.
Source: Emily Roth, OSW (202) 382-4777
Research: Cynthia Hess
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9453.1990(02
JULY 1990
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—TULY 1990
RCRA
1. Adding Absorbent to Waste Containers
40 CFR Sections 264.1(g)(10) and 265.1(c)(13) exempt the following activity
from permitting requirements: "(t)he addition of absorbent material to
waste in a container...or the addition of waste to absorbent material in a
container, provided that these actions occur at the time waste is first placed
in the container; and sections 264.17(b), 264.171, and 264.172 are complied
with." To qualify for this exemption, must a generator add absorbent to his
waste the first time the waste is containerized, or may he treat or store the
waste in other units before performing absorption in a specified container?
This exemption applies solely to the activity of adding absorbent to
waste in a specific container. Treating or storing the waste in other
tanks or containers before absorbent is added would not cause a
generator to lose this exemption. Such treatment or storage,
however, is not included in the exemption, and therefore must either
be permitted activity or conform with the generator accumulation
requirements of 40 CFR Section 262.34. According to 51 FR 10168:
"(n)othing in Section 262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste
when it is in an accumulation tank or container covered by that
provision." Therefore, a generator following all applicable
requirements of Section 262.34 could treat his waste in one container
before adding absorbent in another.
Sources: Alessi Otte, OSW (202) 382-4654
Bill Kline, OSW (202) 475-9614
Research: Ken Sandier
-------
9453.1990(03)
RCRA/SUPERFOND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1990
1. Clarification of Section 262.34(a) Accumulation Time for Excess of
SS-Gallon Limit in Satellite Accumulation Areas
The owner/operator of a manufacturing company maintains a
generator satellite accumulation area pursuant to Section 262.34(c). The
operator has exceeded the 55-gallon accumulation limit and according
to Section 26234(c)(2), has three days to remove this waste from the
satellite area and manage it either in a 90-day storage area as a large
quantity generator in compliance with Section 262.34U), manage the
waste at an on-site permitted unit, or ship the waste off-site. Does the
90-day accumulation time for large quantity generators in Section
262.34(a) begin at the time the 55-gallon limit is exceeded or after the
three-day transition period in Section 262.34(0?
1. Clarification of Section 262.34(a) Accumulation Time for Excess of
55-GalIon Limit in Satellite Accumulation Areas (Cont'd)
The owner/operator has up to a 93-day accumulation time for the
excess waste generated at the satellite accumulation area (90-day
dock in Section 26234(a), plus up to three days for waste transfer).
The March 24,1986 Federal Register, which clarifies small quantity
generator provisions, states "...as soon as the 55-gallon limit has
been exceeded in any satellite area, any excess waste is subject to all
applicable RCRA requirements within three days. This means that
the 180/270 day on site accumulation provision for 100-1000 kg/mo.
generators applies to any excess waste three days after the 55-gallon
limit has been exceeded." (51 FR 10162). If the generator chose to
remove the waste from the satellite area before the three-day
transfer provision expired, he would subject the waste to the 90-day
dock provisions. For example, if the above operator chose to move
his excess waste from the satellite area after just one day, the 90-day
accumulation time in Section 262.34 would begin as the waste
entered the 90-day accumulation area, not after three days. The
generator has chosen not to utilize the other two days that were
available for transfer.
Source: Emily Roth, OSW (202)382-4627
Research: Mic LeBel, GRC
-------
9453.1991(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 1991
2. Withdrawal of an Interim Status Part A Permit Application
A generator is treating hazardous waste that exhibits a toxicity characteristic on-site
in its 90-day accumulation tanks. Prior to the effective date of the Toxicity
Characteristic rule, he/she filed a Part A application for 40 CFR Part 265 Interim
Status. The generator subsequently discovered that a permit is not required for
treatment in accumulation tanks provided that the tanks are operated strictly in
compliance with all applicable standards referenced in 40 CFR 26134. (51FR10168)
What procedures should be followed for the Part A permit application to be
withdrawn? Would the generator be subject to interim status standards until the
application is withdrawn?
In an internal 1983 memorandum, EPA clarified the protective filer
procedures for withdrawal of a Part A application. The memorandum stated
that filings for facilities which have not been regulated under interim status
standards should be returned to the owner or operator, preferably after EPA
has (1) obtained written confirmation that the facility was not subject to the
permitting requirements, and (2) possibly conducted an investigation to
verify the data.
Such a facility is not subject to the Part 265 standards until the application is
withdrawn. Section 3005(e) of RCRA states that the interim status standards
apply to any person who owns or operates a facility required to have a permit
under that section. If the facility, in fact, has not managed hazardous waste in
a manner that would subject.it to regulations, then the Part 265 standards
would not be applicable, even if a Part A permit application had been
mistakenly submitted (as in the case of protective filers). Thus, the generator
would not have to operate or close in accordance with interim status
standards.
Source: Wayne Roepe/OSW (202) 475-7245
Research: Amy Morgren
-------
9453.1991(02)
UNITED STATES EHVIROMMEMTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEP 2 0 1991
Mr. Thomas McCarley
Hazardous Technical Information Services
Directorate of Technical Operations
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense General Supply Center
Richmond, Virginia 23297-5000
Dear Mr. McCarley:
This letter is in response to a July 24, 1991 inquiry from
Mr. Allen J. Osborne of your office about the treatment of
hazardous wastes by large quantity generators under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Mr. Osborne cited a March 24, 1986 Federal Register notice
(51 PR 10168) which promulgated final regulations for generators
of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month
(small quantity generators). In that notice, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) stated that generators could treat
hazardous wastes on-site in accumulation tanks or containers
without a RCRA permit if the treatment were in conformance with
the requirements of 4O CFR Part 262.34 (accumulation time), and
with Subparts I and J of 40 CFR Part 265 (standards for
containers and tank systems). Mr. Osborne apparently desired
clarification that large quantity generators were included in
this statement. He also asked which kinds of hazardous wastes
could be treated by different categories of generators.
The Agency has not restricted treatment of any hazardous
waste to large or small quantity generators. However, all
generators who choose to treat their wastes in accumulation tanks
or containers must comply strictly with the requirements of 40
CFR Part 262.34 and with Subparts I and J of 40 CFR Part 265.
For example, the tank or container in which the treatment occurs
must be marked with the date the accumulation period began. The
tank or container must be completely emptied every 90 days (or
every 180 or 270 days for small quantity generators). If these
requirements are met, no RCRA permit is required for large or
small quantity generators. Treatment other than that conducted
in tanks or containers (e.g., incineration, land treatment, or
treatment in surface impoundments) would continue to require a
permit.
-------
In addition, 40 CFR Part 268.7(a)(4) states that generators
who treat wastes in accumulation tanks or containers to meet
applicable land disposal restrictions (LDRs) must prepare a waste
analysis plan. Treatment of hazardous waste must also not
violate the dilution prohibition standards of 40 CFR 268.3.
The interpretation in this letter reflects the Federal
regulations governing hazardous waste. States with authorized
RCRA programs may impose more stringent requirements.
I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have
any further questions, please contact Mitch Kidwell of my staff
at (202) 260-4373-.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453.1992(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL 2! 1992
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. John D'Aloia Jr.
311 West Alma St.
St. Marys, KS 66536
Dear Mr. D'Aloia:
Thank you for your letter to Rajni D. Joglekar dated June 12, 1992. In your
letter you ask whether our 1986 policy allowing generators to treat wastes in
accumulation containers or tanks without interim status or a permits continues to be in
effect.
In your letter you quote from the preambles of two Federal Register notices, the
first from the May 20, 1992 notice regarding the listing determination of used oil and
the second from the March 24,1986 notice modifying standards for small quantity
generators. Your first citation pertains to the definition of treatment:
"It should be noted that mixing characteristic hazardous waste with another
material to render the waste nonhazardous constitutes treatment of hazardous
waste subject to applicable standards [emphasis added] under 40 CFR parts
264-265 and 270, and the notification requirements of section 3010 of RCRA"
(Footnote 5, 57 Federal Register 28528-9 (May 20,1992)).
Your second citation pertains to the Part 264 and 265 facility standard issues under
the small quantity generators rule:
Therefore, generators of 100-1000 kg/mo are not required to obtain interim
status and a RCRA permit if the only on-site management which they perform is
treatment in an accumulation tank or container that is exempt from permitting
during periods of accumulation (180 or 270 days)..." (51 Federal Register
10168, (March 24, 1986)).
Our position on whether hazardous waste generators may treat hazardous
wastes on-site in accumulation tanks or containers without having to have either a
permit or interim status has not changed. These generators'may conduct such
treatment provided that accumulation tanks or containers conform to standards in
Subparts I or J of Part 265.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
The footnote to the used oil rule that you cited states that when a characteristic
waste is mixed with another material to render it nonhazardous, that activity constitutes
treatment of that waste. This footnote also states that such activity is subject to
"applicable requirements" under 40 CFR Parts 264, 265 and 270 which may or may
not require interim status or permitting. To reiterate, when a generator is treating
hazardous waste on-site in accumulation tanks or containers conforming in Subparts I
or J of Part 265, permitting and interim status are inapplicable.
However, please be aware that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section
6926) that 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 EPA Region that the state is located in
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) fiat states retain authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than federal regulatory requirements.
If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Paul
Borst of my staff at (202) 260-8551.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosure
-------
10168 Federal Register / Vol. 81. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
|l the Agency bat decided to
manifest requirements on these
Aerators, except in the case of certain
•reclamation agreements. The existence
of a State-approved collection center
does not, on its own, provide assurance
that the waste would be transported or
handled properly prior to or during
transportation to such a facility, or
indeed, that the shipment would ever
reach such a facility. Consequently.
development of some recordkeeping and
transportation requirement* would be
needed which would offset any potential
savings of such an exemption.
£ Part 2S1/285 Facility Standard Issues
The requirements for facilities that
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste are contained in Parts 264 and 265
of the hazardous waste regulations. The
Part 265 standards are applicable to
facilities under interim status, a
condition which allows a facility to
continue operating until it receives a full
RCRA permit. (See HSWA section
3005(e)J. The Part 284 standards
establish the minimum standards to be
incorporated into a full RCRA permit by
EPA or a State with an EPA authorized
hazardous waste program.
Kion 261.5(b) previously exempted
tors of 100-1000 kg/mo of
ous waste from the facility
requirements of Parts 264 and 265 that
cover the oil-site treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste, provided
the facility is at least approved by a
State to manage municipal or industrial
(non-hazardous) solid waste and no
more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste
were accumulated at any time. Under
the rules promulgated today, this
exemption will continue to apply only to
generators of less than 100 kg/mo of
hazardous waste. Generator* of 100-
1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste will be
subject to full regulation under Parts 264
and 265 if they accumulate hazardous
waste on-site for greater than ISO (or
270) days, exceed die 6000 kg
accumulation limit, engage in waste
treatment in other than tanks, or manage
their waste in surface impoundments,
waste piles, landfills, or land treatment
facilities. la addition, those State-
approved municipal or industrial waste
facilities that manage wastes only from
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo will also
no longer be exempted from the Part 264
and 265 permit requirements. In the
proposed rule, the Agency requested
comments concerning the application of
uniform Part 264 and 265
uirements to generators of 100-1000
kg/mo and to the treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities that accept waste
from the generators.
1. Activities Requiring Permits
Under today's final rules, 100-1000 kg/
mo generators will be required to obtain
a permit if they treat or dispose of
hazardous waste on-site (except for
treatment in tanks or containers daring
the 180/270 day accumulation period in
conformance with Subparts J or I of Part
265, respectively) or accumulate
hazardous waste on-site in tanks or
containers for more than 160 (or 270)
days.
A number of commenters agreed will.
the need to manage wastes from
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo it fully
permitted facilities. They argued (hat no
special exemptions or requirements
should be applied to the management of*"
waste from these 30 aerators because the
characteristics of the waste, not the
source of the waste, poses the threat to
human health and the environment.
Two commenters opposed the
requirement for generators of 100-1000
kg/mo who accumulate waste on-site for
longer than 160 (or 270) days to obtain
RCRA'permit, and argued that the
accumulation time limit before
permitting is required should be
extended. One of the commenters also
maintained that determining the
maximum quantity of hazardous waste
that may be accumulated at a non-
permitted facility should be based on
the degree of hazard posed by the waste
and the generator's capacity to transport
the waste off-site. The EPA disagrees
with both of these positions. As noted in
Unit llI.C.4.a. of today's preamble, the
HSWA of 1984 dearly limit Agency
discretion in this matter. The Agency
carries a heavy burden in extending the
time limits established under section
3001(d](6], and except for emergency
circumstances, the Agency does not
believe there to be sufficient
Justification for extending the limits
Congress has established.
Another commenter opposed any
permitting requirement due to the
economic burden that would be placed
on a small number of generators. While
some generators of 100-1000 kg/mo may
be burdened financially J>y the
requirements promulgated today.
Congress has already judged that
outside of the accumulation limits
allowed for in Section 3001(d)(6),
disposal of wastes from these generators
at permitted facilities is necessary to
protect human health and the
environment. In addition, since the rules
allow generators to manage their
hazardous wastes off-site, they are able
to avoid the cost of acquiring a RCRA
permit, if they so choose.
Several commenters suggested
exemptions from the RCRA permitting
requirements or reduced permit
requirements for on-site waste
treatment. Some commenters stated that
there is a need to encourage on-site
treatment to reduce the amount of
wastes sent off-site and that the
permitting requirements may hamper the
ability of generators to treat wastes at
their facilities.
The Agency disagrees that on-site
treatment should be encouraged by
exempting those generator* of 100-1000
ke/ii.o frout the RCRA permitting
requirements. To the extent that these
generators are conducting the same
treatment/storage or treatment/disposal
as other permitted facilities, their on-site
treatment activities pose a potential risk
to human health and the environment.
Therefore, reduced or eliminated
permitting requirements would be
inappropriate.
Of course, no permitting would be
required if a generator chooses to treat
their hazardous waste in the generator's
accumulation tanks or containers in
conformance with the requirements of
i 282.34 and Subparts I or 1 of Part 265.
Nothing in i 202.34 precludes a
generator from treating waste when It is
in an accumulation tank or container
covered by that provision. Under the
existing Subtitle C system. EPA has
established standards for tanks and
containers which apply to both the
storage and treatment of hazardous
waste. These requirements are designed
to ensure that the integrity of the tank or
container is not breached. Thus, the
same standards apply to a tank or a
container, regardless of whether
treatment or storage is occurring. Since
the same standards apply to treatment
in tanks as applies to storage in tanks.
and since EPA allows for limited on-site
storage without the need for a permit or
interim status (90 days for over 1000 kg/
mo generators and 160/270 days for 100-
1000 kg/mo generators), the Agency
believes that treatment in accumulation
tanks or containers is permissible undtv
the existing rules, provided the tanks or
containers are operated strictly in
compliance with all applicable
standards^Therefore. generators of intw
1000 kg/mo are not required to obi.nn
interim stafui and a RCRA permit if t!»-
only on-site management which th<->
perform is treatment in an accumul/n,,.,,
tank or container that is exempt fr.m
permitting during periods of
accumulation (180 or 270 days)"]
Two commenters suggested Thai •
mechanism should be created 10
-------
21528 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 98 / Wednesday. May 20. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
accordingly, unless the filter will be
reclaimed.
IV. Final Lifting Determination
A, General
EPA regulations, based on RCRA
sections 1004(5) and 3001, at 40 CFR
261.11 set forth the technical criteria to
determine whether a solid waste should
be listed u a hazardous waste. EPA
used the technical criteria'in 40 CFR
261.11 (a)(l) and (a)(3) in making today's
used oil listing determinations.
Subsection (a)(l) of 40 CFR 261.11
allows the Administrator to list a waste
as hazardous if the waste exhibits any
of the characteristics of hazardous
waste. According to 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3).
a waste shall be listed as hazardous if it
"contains any of the toxic constituents
listed in appendix VIII and, after
considering the following factors, the
Administrator concludes that the waste
is capable of posing a substantial
present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when
improperly freated. stored, transported
or disposed of. or otherwise managed.
* * *" The factors to be considered in
making this determination include
toxicity. fate and transport, mobility and
persistence, and bioaccumulation
potential of the constituents in the.
waste, as well as plausible
mismanagement scenarios (40 CFR
261.11(a)(3)(vii)) and other federal and
state regulatory actions with respect to
the waste (40 CFR 261.11(a)(3)(x)).
In making a listing determination for
used oil destined for disposal. EPA gave
considerable attention to the current
federal regulations governing used oils.
EPA evaluated the technical criteria for
listing in light of the current regulatory
structure controlling the management of
used oils and concluded that any
plausible mismanagement of used oil
that is destined for disposal is
addressed by current requirements.
As implied in Option Three of 1991
Supplemental Notice, EPA preserved its
ability to maintain the status quo if the
Agency's analysis pf existing regulations
showed that actions have been taken to
control the mismanagement of used oil.
EPA finds that the current regulatory
structure controlling the management of
used oil destined for disposal provides
adequate controls so that used oil will
not pose a substantial threat to human
health or the environment.
Current regulations governing the
management of used oils destined for
disposal include: Those of EPA and the
U.S. Coast Guard for oil discharges into
navigable waters; U.S. Department of
Transportation requirements; EPA
regulations for polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act, hazardous
waste characteristics applying to used
oil that is disposed under RCRA,
underground storage tank requirements
(UST) under RCRA; Underground
Injection Control (UIC) permits under
the Safe Drinking Water Act; Spill
Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) plans and
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) storm
water regulations under the Clean
Water Act; and the phase down of lead
in gasoline under the Clean Air Act. In
combination, application of these
controls imposed by EPA and other
federal agencies prevent the
mismanagement of used oil to such an
extent that used oil destined for disposal
is unlikely to pose a substantial present
or potential hazard to human health and
uie environment.
EPA also recognizes that several
states regulate used oil as a hazardous
waste, and some states regulate it as a
special waste. Several states ban the
disposal of used oil in municipal solid
waste landfills (MSWLFs). A used oil
handler must comply with all state
requirements applicable to used oil in
his/her state, in addition to any Federal
requirements that apply.
B. No List Determination for Used OH
Destined for Disposal
In making the no list determination for
used oil that is destined for disposal,
EPA used the technical criteria
discussed in Section IV.A.
1. Toxicity of Used Oil
In the 1991 Supplemental Notice, EPA
proposed to expand the basis for listing
gasoline-powered engine crankcase
used oil to reflect the presence of three
toxic polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs): Benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, and
benzo(k)fluoranthene. EPA based this
expansion on the analysis of two
samples of automotive crankcase used
oil analyzed for benzo(k]fluoranthene
and four samples of automotive
crankcase used oil analyzed for
benzo(a)pyrene and
benzo(b)fluoranthene. With respect to
the presence of PAHs in used oil, EPA
believes that the current regulatory
structure can control the
mismanagement of recycled used oil
containing toxic PAHs.
Based on the 1989/90 sampling and
analysis effort the Agency tentatively
determined that a high proportion of
used oils from gasoline-powered engine
exhibited the TC for lead and benzene.
Other categories of used oil did not
exhibit the TC in such a high proportion
and, in fact, did not meet the criteria for
listing since they did not contain
constituents of concern (constituents of
the TC] at levels that could pose a risk
to human health and the environment.
The phase down of lead in gasoline
under the Clean Air Act has resulted in
subsequent reduction in lead
concentrations in used oil. In addition,
in accordance with the Clean Air
Amendments, additional phase downs
are scheduled to occur, thus further
reducing the lead concentration. The
lowered lead concentrations in used oil
reduce the potential for harm to human
health and the environment from
mismanagement.
2. Regulations Governing the Plausible
Mismanagement of Used Oil Destined
for Disposal
Regulatory programs currently in
place control used oil generators,
transporters, collectors and recyclers.
Since 1985. EPA has promulgated
several regulatory programs that
directly affect the management of used
oil destined for disposal (e.g.. the TC,
the UST program, the MSWLF rule, the
NPDES Storm Water program, and the
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). Also,
several other regulatory programs that
were in place even prior to 1985
continue to control some used oil
management practices (e.g.. U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
shipping and handling requirements].
After assessing the extent and potential
success of current regulatory programs
and their effect on the disposal of used
oil. the Agency believes that the existing
network of regulations provides
protection from plausible disposal
mismanagement sceneries, as discussed
below.
a. Overview of RCRA subtitle C
regulations applicable to used oil
destined for disposal. Used oils
exhibiting one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste and
which are destined for disposal continue
to be regulated as hazardous wastes in
accordance with all applicable subtitle
C regulations, except when stored in
RCRA subtitle I underground storage
tanks as discussed in subsection b. of
this section. Mixtures of used oils and
listed hazardous wastes are listed
hazardous wastes, and used oil mixed
with a characteristic hazardous waste
must be managed as a hazardous waste
if it still exhibits a characteristic.* Such
• It ihould be noted thit mixing chirictentnc
hazardoui tviite with another material to render
the wa«te nonJiiurdoui contfitutei treatment Ol
hizirdoui wane tubject to Mplicable iiind«fdi
under 40 CFR parti 2M-26S and 270, and (he
Com in MM
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 9B / Wednesday. May JO. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 21529
mixtures must be managed in
accordance with all applicable subtitle
C regulations. Those generators
identified in 40 CFR 262.34* and storers
of hazardous used oil destined for
disposal are subject to the tank system
requirements at subpart J of parts 254
and 265. Used oils are also subject to the
corrective action requirements of RCRA
subtitle C, including sections 3004(u) and
300S(h). which apply to solid waste
management units at RCRA treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities.
Further, if used oil exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste and is
destined for disposal, facilities that store
such used oil are subject to the tank
system requirements at 40 CFR parts 264
or 265, subparts J These requirements
are designed to prevent ground water
contamination and other releases to the
environment and include requirements
for daily inspection, tank integrity, and
secondary containment. If used oil
destined for disposal exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste is
stored for greater than 90 days, the
facility must be permitted under RCRA
as a hazardous waste storage facility.
It is important to note that used oils
exhibiting the characteristic of HP
toxicity (prior to its revision) currently
are prohibited from land disposal unless
they meet the applicable treatment •
standards. Treatment standards for
these wastes were promulgated with the
Third Third rulemaking on June 1,1990
(55 FR 22520). Used oils exhibiting the
new TC. but not the characteristic of EP
toxicity are not currently prohibited
from land disposal, even if the
constituent causing the waste to exhibit
the TC is also controlled by the EP. LDR
treatment standards for the newly
identified TC wastes (including the 26
newly listed organic constituents) are
scheduled to be promulgated by April
1993. Used oil which is mixed with a
listed hazardous waste must meet the
LDR standard for the listed waste.
b. Applicability of RCRA subtitle I
regulations to used oil destined for
disposal. For USTs located at permitted
hazardous waste facilities subject to
section 3004(u) of RCRA. the subtitle C
corrective action statutory authorities
supersede subtitle I corrective action
requirements to avoid overlap in
regulatory authority (see 40 CFR 280.60).
For facilities without a final HSWA
permit, subtitle I corrective action
notification requirement! of lection 3010 of RCRA.
For example, mixing ipent mineral ipiriti uaed »i
lolvent (exhibiting the chiricteriitic of ignittbility
or toxicity) with uted oil to render the mineral
ipirili nonhaxardou* eonitifutei treatment.
• Thit regulation identifies regulated generator!
by quantity of waite generated duration of tune
accumulated.
standards will apply to releases from all
petroleum and hazardous substance
USTs. UST corrective actions underway
at a facility having interim status under
RCRA subtitle C may be subject to
review by permit writers during the
development of the final HSWA permit.
These ongoing corrective action
activities may be incorporated into the
facility's final RCRA permit (53 FR
37176).
As discussed in the September 1991
supplemental proposal, EPA presumes
that used oil stored in underground
storage tanks is destined for recycling
and currently exempt from subtitle C (40
CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iii)); thus such tanks are
subject to subtitle I. The Agency
continues to believe that the subtitle I
standards are sufficient to protect
human health and the environment from
the potential releases of used oil from
USTs. In conclusic ;. the Agency
continues to view subtitle I as
applicable to used oil, with the
exceptions noted in the preceding
paragraph where RCRA subtitle C
authority is in place.
c. Applicability of RCRA subtitle D
regulations to used oil destined for
disposal. Nonhazardous used oil may be
disposed of in an industrial solid waste
landfill or a MSWLF. EPA recently
promulgated final disposal criteria for
MSWLFs (October 9,1991, 56 FR 50976).
The revised criteria were promulgated at
40 CFR part 258 and included location
restrictions, faciltiy design and
operating criteria, ground-water
monitoring requirements, corrective
action requirements, financial assurance
requirements, and closure and post-
closure care requirements. In addition,
many states have design and operating
requirements governing industrial non-
hazardous waste landfills.
d. CERCLA reportable quantitites
(RQs) and used oil destined from
disposal. Any waste identified as a
hazardous waste (either by listing or by
characteristic) under RCRA generally
becomes a hazardous substance under
CERCLA. Such designation subjects the
hazardous waste to the section 103
reporting requirements for releases
equal to or exceeding the assigned
reportable quantity (RQ) of that
hazardous substance. In addition.
constituents in the used oil that are not
defined as hazardous waste under
RCRA may be designated hazardous
substances under CERCLA (see 40 CFR
part 302). Therefore, in accordance with
i 302.6(b) concerning mixtures or
solutions, immediate notification is
required when an RQ or more of any of
the hazardous substances are released.
e. Toxic Substances Control Act
regulations and used oil destined for
disposal. Section 6(e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA)
mandates that EPA control the
manufacture (including import), use.
processing, distribution in commerce,
and disposal of PCBs. Because of the
potential hazards posed by the
uncontrolled use and disposal of PCBs.
EPA has established a comprehensive
program to control PCBs from
manufacture to disposal. A primary use
of PCBs, a viscous oil, was as an
insulating material for electrical
equipment (dielectric). PCBs were
almost always mixed with mineral oil.
silicone, or other oily materials when
used as insulating material. TSCA
regulations prohibit the use of waste oils
(including used oils) containing PCBs for
dust suppression. Prohibited uses
include, but are not limited to, use in
road oiling, use in general dust control.
use as a pesticide or herbicide carrier.
and use as a rust preventative on pipes
(40 CFR 761.20(d)). Used oil applied for
dust suppression must meet the
requirements of both RCRA and TSCA.'
Further, a release of 1 pound of PCBs
into the environment must be reported
immediately to the National Response
Center in accordance with section I03(c)
of CERCLA. Further, under the TSCA
PCB Spiil Cleanup Policy, any spill of
material containing 50 ppm or greater
PCBs into sewers, drinking water,
surface water, grazing lands, or
vegetable gardens must be reported
immediately (40 CFR part 761. subpart
G). If a used oil contains PCBs, the most
stringent, applicable reporting
requirement must be followed.
/. Clean Water Act regualtions and
used oil destined for disposal. In
addition to the UST requirements
discussed above, the storage of used oil
at many petroleum-related storage
facilities is subject to SPCC regulations.*
Under section 311(j)(i)(c) of the Clean
Water Act. EPA established the SPCC
program (36 FR 34165, December 11,
1973) to protect surface waters and
adjoining shorelines from petroleum and
* Confreii banned the uie of my haxardoui
waite ai a dual •upprenam tinder RCRA I 3004(1).
Therefore, ai noted above, any uud oil that
exhibit* one or more of the characteiiitlca (other
than the characteristic of instability) of hazardous
waite ii banned from uae ai a duit luppreuant.
• The SPCC regulation! (40 CFR 112) currently
apply to on-shore and off-abort non-transportation
related faciUtiti that have the potential to discharge
oil into navigable waterway! end have underground
itorage tank capacities greater than 42.000 gallon!
or aboveground itorage tank capadtiei of more
than 980 gallon! in a tingle tank or an aggregate of
greater than 1.320 gallons.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9453.1993(01)
""
FEB 23 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. D. B. Redington
Director, Regulatory Management
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63167
Dear Mr. Redington,
Thank you for your letter dated December 15, 1992, concerning the hazardous
waste storage regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
In your letter, you requested a clarification of the satellite accumulation provisions for
hazardous waste generators (40 CFR 262.34(c)(l)), particularly for the types of wastes
you described as being "generated from diverse sources throughout a facility."
We have a policy of allowing EPA Regions, and states authorized to implement
the RCRA hazardous waste program, to answer site-specific inquiries about the
hazardous waste regulations. However, the types of wastes you described in your letter
(e.g., post-consumer items such as used nickel-cadmium batteries that exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste), are the same types of wastes that are under
consideration in an ongoing rulemaking effort within the Office of Solid Waste (OSW).
Therefore, we feel it would be appropriate for us to provide you with some clarification
regarding these "universal wastes" and the satellite accumulation provision under the
existing generator requirements.
Based on your description of how and where these waste types are generated, it is
evident that the phrase "at or near the point of generation where wastes initially
accumulate"1 requires clarification. We agree that there may be circumstances where
certain hazardous wastes, which by their mode of use are generated in small amounts
throughout a facility or pan of a facility, could be accumulated under the reduced
requirements described at §262.34(c)(l), provided that the conditions of this regulation
are met. For like wastes generated from many individual locations (e.g., nickel-cadmium
batteries), we would interpret the "at or near the point of generation..." language to
include a specific satellite area designated by the generator that facilitates the
'Defines the satellite accumulation "area".
^M Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
accumulation of this material prior to moving it to a designated hazardous waste storage
area. A generator should be able to define the locations of waste generation being
served by a satellite accumulation area (within a generator facility or part of a facility).
This is to ensure that a determination can be made as to when the 55-gallon limit has
been reached for a particular satellite area.
The condition that wastes accumulated under the satellite provision "be under the
control of the operator of the process generating the waste" is still applicable. However,
we would view this condition as being satisfied for certain "universal wastes" provided the
generator demonstrates that the personnel responsible for generating and/or
accumulating the waste have adequate control over the temporary storage of these
wastes. The EPA recognizes that for many of these "universal wastes," the person who
first takes an item out of service (e.g., an employee who replaces a dead battery used in
a calculator) may not be the same person responsible for the accumulation of all of these
wastes; rather, another worker may have the responsibility of overseeing the temporary
storage of maintenance-related wastes. Alternatively, a maintenance worker who
replaces mercury thermostats throughout a factory might also be assigned responsibility
for the location at which the accumulated used thermostats are temporarily stored.
I would like to emphasize that the satellite accumulation provision was intended
to accommodate situations where relatively small amounts of hazardous waste are
unavoidably accumulated throughout a facility prior to placing them in designated
hazardous waste storage areas; the goal is that this temporary accumulation is performed
responsibly and safely, with adequate oversight and control. I would also note that we
have not defined the term "universal waste" in this letter2, but have instead used some
examples of these wastes to clarify the satellite accumulation provision. The applicability
of the satellite accumulation provision will always depend upon a generator's particular
set of circumstances, which are site-specific; therefore, any questions regarding specific
wastes at specific facilities are best answered by the agency implementing the RCRA
program for that particular facility.
Lastly, as was mentioned above, EPA is developing standards to streamline the
regulatory requirements for some of these types of "universal wastes," to facilitate the
separation of these materials from the municipal waste stream, and to encourage proper
treatment and/or recycling. This rule was recently published, and we have enclosed a
2The term is at this point, as you described, an "emerging term.*
-------
copy of it for your convenience. We would encourage you to read it and submit to us
any comments you may have. If you have any questions on this rulemaking effort, or on
any other issue discussed in this letter, please call Charlotte Mooney or Ross Elliott of
my staff at (202) 260-8551. Thank you for your interest in the responsible management
of hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
ector
fice of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: EPA Regional Waste Management
Division Directors, I-X
-------
9453.1993(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
KAK 2 3 1933
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Ron Jones
Environmental Consulting
15 Hollow Road
Watertown, CT 06795
Dear Mr. Jones:
Your January 25th, 1993 letter to Wendy Grieder inquiring
whether a characteristically hazardous sludge defined using the
TCLP is subject to Federal RCRA export regulations under 262.53
when exported for the purpose of being reclaimed was referred to my
office.
Your letter makes specific reference to a recoverable metal-
bearing baghouse dust or filter cake which qualifies for an
exemption from the definition of solid waste under 261.2 and
inquires as to whether such secondary materials are subject to RCRA
hazardous waste export regulations. A characteristic sludge being
reclaimed does not meet the definition of a solid waste under
261.2 (c) (3), and therefore may not be considered a hazardous waste.
Since 262.53 applies only to wastes that meet the RCRA definition
of hazardous waste, it does not apply to characteristic sludges
being reclaimed.
Finally, you asked that we take note of the reference to
recycling under 262.53(a)(vi). This reference applies to wastes
that are defined as hazardous wastes under RCRA and are therefore
subject to regulation under 262.53 and that are being exported for
recycling operations. It does not refer to characteristic sludges
being reclaimed or other secondary materials exempt from the
definition of solid waste.
Thank you for your interest in hazardous waste export and
recycling regulations under RCRA. If you have any further
questions, please contact Denise Wright of my staff at 260-3519.
Si
;, Director
Off-ice of Solid Waste
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
September 1994
9453.1994(01)
2. Containment Buildings as
Generator Accumulation Units
On August 18,1992 (57 ££ 37194), EPA
promulgated regulations for treatment and
storage of hazardous waste in containment
buildings. Section 262J4(a) allows large
quantity generators to use containment
buildings as hazardous waste accumulation
units without obtaining a permit or interim
status. May small quantity generators
(generators of 100-1,000 kg. per month of
hazardous waste) accumulate hazardous
waste in containment buildings and still be
eligible for the reduced requirements of 40
CFR §26234(d)?
A small quantity generator may not
accumulate hazardous waste in containment
buildings and remain eligible for the reduced
requirements of §262.34
-------
9454 - RECORD
KEEPING AND
REPORTING
Part 262 Subpart D
ATKl/l 104/25 kp
-------
9454.1984(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 84
4. Do generators in interim authorized States send biennial
reports to the State and/or the Region?
In interim authorized States, the State program is
operating in lieu of the Federal program (271.121(b)).
The Phase I program under 271.128 covers generator and
interim status facility reporting requirements. Hence,
the State report (which may be a biennial, annual, or
even quarterly report) is sent to the authorized State
and not to the Region. However, since North Dakota's
Phase I authorization does not include reporting,
generators in North Dakota must send a biennial report
to Region 8.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9454.1986(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 86
2. Hazardous Waste Fuel Brokers
A waste broker makes purchase arrangements between generators and burners of
hazardous wastes fuel. Although the broker never physically possesses the waste
nor stores it on his property, he does own it temporarily and handles all billing
and invoices. Die generator ships the waste directly to the burner. Is the
broker a marketer of hazardous waste fuel, even though he never possesses it?
Sections 3010(a)(3) and 3004(q)(l)(C) of HCRA, as amended, require marketers
or distributors of hazardous waste fuel to notify the EPA of hazardous waste
fuel activities (see $266.34(b) and 50 PR 49204). Because the broker dees
own the waste at one point, he is responsible for the waste fuel during the
tine he owns it. Ownership, rather than physical possession, is the criterior
used in determining if one is a marketer because it is possible to possess
or handle the waste without owning it. For example, sane transporters
possess a waste during transportation but do not actually own it at any time.
Therefore, the broker in this situation is a marketer or distributor of the
waste fuel and must comply with all applicable marketer requirements set
forth in $266.34 (50 FR 49204).
-------
9454.1986(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 86
3. Specification Used Oil Fuel
The final rule for the burning and marketing of used oil fuel was published
in the Novemoer 29, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 49164). The preamble
(example 3.A. on page 49199) explains tnat a marketer who blends off-speci-
fication used oil fuel to meet specifications must only keep records of the
facility to which the specification fuel is first sent. Vfcat happens if
the first facility to receive the specification fuel does not burn it,
but markets it to someone else? Is that subsequent marketer regulated?
The marketer who first claims that the used oil fuel meets specification
must keep records of the analysis (or other information) and records of
each shipment including the name and address of the receiving facility,
the shipment date, and the quantity shipped, according to 40 CFR 266.43
(b)(6). The marketer (as burner) who receives the specification used
oil fuel shipment is not regulated by Part 266 Subpart E, per $266.43(a)
(2). He is not required to notify EPA of his waste as-fuel activities,
analyze the oil, or keep records. If, however, the subsequent marketer
mixes the specification used oil with off-specification used oil or
with hazardous waste, he becomes subject to regulation as a marketer of
used oil or hazardous waste fuel.
Source: Bob Holloway (202) 382-7936
-------
9454.1986(05)
SUBJECT» State/Regional Biennial Reports
TF.CMt Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Colicl baste
TOt David Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
This is in response to your July 29 nemoranduia recommencing
that, the additional it erne required for inclusion in 1S£5 State
Biennial Program Reports be delayed until 1907. hhile I air.
sympathetic to your concerns about already strained State and
Regional worX loads, it is jry desire to maintain the requirement*
tuat were added to the State Program reporting forms for 1966.
I would like to note initially that we carefully considered
State and Regional workloads in assessing the netd for chaises
in the State Biennial Program Reports for 1935. As you are well
aware, the information provided to us in the 1903 reports proveJ
to be insufficient to enable UB to prepare a. national suim.ary
report. Considerable attention hac already been directea at
EPA's failure to produce a 1963 report, particularly tror. key
•texnbers of Congress* The General Accounting Office is currently
completing an extensive investigation into the causes of this
system breakdown and our actions to improve the system for 19cb
and beyond. I ajn personally conciitted, as are member* of ny
staff, to ensuring the production of a national report suireaariiing
the information developed through the biennial reporting procees
in 1*65. As noted in my July 3 Rccoranduia, the requirements added
to the 1935 State reporting forms are designed to help produce
this national sunwary report.
Note also that tne number of itema actually added to the
State reporting forms for 1985 has been reduced fron. the number
of items specified in my July 3 memorandum. Two itec.s that were
listed as additional reporting requirements in ir-y nemor&ndur. (the
quantity of hazardous waste shipped off-site by each generator
and the quantity received fron» off^-site by each facility) were
deleted fron the 19t»5 State reporting forms that accoK.par.ieu i-ty
-------
and will cot be required for tte 1985 reporting cycle.
The decision not to require these it»M for 19^5 was due, in
larce measure, to our own deeire to iainiBi*e the Additional work-
load imposed by oar change* to the State reporting forms*
We do not eee the additional items required for the 1985
State program reports to be unduly burciensorie, nor do we see
then, imposing significant additional work loads on State or
Kegional personnel responsible for ccapl«ting the reports*
Specifically* the quantity Generated by each generator and the
auantity eaneged by each facility ere item that wouli have; to
t>e calculated anyway in order to report the total quantity of
h&iarauuE waste generated in each State in 19fab.
All that we are asking is that these already calculated
quantities be provided to us as part of the lict& of generators
and facilities. For States employing automated data ft.anagev.ent
systems, this requirement po»«s virtually no additional turaen on
reporting personnel. For states that cocplete the reports manually,
the only additional burden irarosed ifc that associated with air.ple
transcription of a single previously calculated figure for each
generator and facility*
Finally* Regional staff preparing reports for unauthorised
States will be usinc the FOCUS Biennial Report Data Entry and
Retrieval Syst«m. This software system was developed usin$
headquarters contractor support and is currently being expanded
to automatically cuiuplete this section (individual quantity
generated and managed) and other sections of the State biennial
prourer- reports. Completing thette first two addition*! iteir*
usinc the Focus syeten will, therefore, pose no additional workload
on tht regions*
Moreover, the value of these first two additional reporting
requirements is substantial. Frevision of figures for the
quantities generated and iaanag«a by individual generators and
facilities vill enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the State-
tot 6 1 -quantity -generated figures already reported uuuer a separate
item. Our understanding, based upon telephone conversations with
Rauior.etl Project Ofticers (including Region V's FPO), is that
the Regions will not be able to provide assistance in reviewing
and evaluating the accuracy and quality oi the State Prograc
rerorts. These additional reporting itects will enable headquarters
personnel to ensure the accuracy of the State-by-state quantities.
Without this minimal quality control check, our ability tc jtoduce
a reliable national sureuary report would be severely harapereu,
as evidenced by the 1903 problems.
In addition to their role in CA/uC efforts, these two itei&s
will help in carrying out our planned survey of hazardous waste
generators in 19t>7. By Obtaining quantities for each gen«rat&r
-------
the biennial report., we will eliairtate the need for e
»urvey to define the generator universe* saving considerable tiae
and resource* for EPA •• well as eliminating reporting burden*
on the regulated concunity.
The second two new it»*s, lists of nc.n-rec,ulate£ enc nors-
r«t>crting generators and facilities* are essential in order to
abtefr* ccnpliar.c* with th* l»o;> biennial reporting rcquir*i-*nt».
without these additional lists, we are unable to determine whether
the cuButitics repotted through the process represent all of tne
quantities that we regulate or whether they rcpreawnt a i«ere
"convenience sacple* (a Sfcjcple of t^iose who tound it convenient
to report). The inability to fcafce such an assesstaeat was un« of
the pejor reasons we were unable to produce a credible 19&J
national report.
Liscussidns witn Judy Stone, of yocr otiice* have led as to
conclude that the second fart of each of these list*, the lists cf
iton-reportin9 facilities and ceuerators, can b* deuuced frot the
first two lists, the lists of reporting generators and facilities
(already required) ana the li«ts of generators and facilities
reporting non-regulated status (newly required). Thus, tLe
third list need not be suL-eittec, if Btat*s aaci Ke^i&os are
ccr.f or table with officially desienatincj entities as Qon-reporters
(a potential coopliacc* violation) if they ar« (1) listed on
HWDMS ae of^!2-31-S5 and (2) not included on either of th* first
two lists. K* I.; ion a anci Lti>t«» will soon b« advised of this
option in a Lieonial Report u^xiate uecorarduc.
Iu adciticn, we ere now preparing for *«3i&nal Cictriuuticn
cotputer lists cf all HUU£ 9enerators ar.cl facilities (a* cf
12-31-o5), by state* The** lists will allcv convenient desig-
nation of reporting* non-reporting* ana non-re
-------
UNITE TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO. GENCY
9454.1987(01)
JUL 2 I I98T
Ms. Irene Ginsberg
Apartment 1-C
235 Fort Washington Avenue
tfew York, ^ew York 10032
Dear Ms. Ginsberg:
This is in response to your letter dated June 29, 1987,
regarding the promoting of source reduction. In 1976, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a policy
statement outlining its preferred hazardous waste management
strategy (41 FR 35050, August 18, 1976). That strategy,
which favors source reduction and recycling over treatment
and land disposal, has remained intact over the past decade
despite comprehensive statutory amendments and substantial
expansion of the hazardous waste program.
Source reduction is generally preferable to treatment
because of the following:
* Few treatment technologies are 100 percent efficient.
0 Compliance with regulations under «£ the various
environmental programs will never be perfect, even
with the most stringent enforcement programs.
* In many instances, there is currently insufficient
capacity to treat all of the hazardous waste
streams generated in the United States.
9 Source reduction encourages a more wholistic approach
to designing manufacturing processes that do not
generate hazardous wastes.
However, it is impractical to assume that all waste can be
eliminated by source reduction. For example, certain products
simply cannot be manufactured without producing hazardous
wastes. Excessive waste minimization requirements could
remove products from the market. Further, wastes produced
by a given process may be comparatively easy to treat or
destroy, yet quite difficult to minimize through source
reduction er recyelinqi Theggiagfi^.fiCA Qiao «u»fc encourage
-------
The reduction of waste has long been a goal of the EPA.
Our report to Congress issued last October on the minimization
of hazardous waste fully considered many options do promote
waste minimization. In the report, EPA has a specific definition
for waste minimization, which supports the use of both source
reduction and recycling (in descending order of preference).
jtlnclosed please find a copy of this report's Ehecutive Summary.
We are now in the process of acting on many of the recommenda-
tions presented in the report, including programs aimed at
data collection and technology transfer.
If you have any questions on the enclosed materials, you
should contact James Berlow, Chief of the Office of Solid Waste's
Treatment Technology Section, on (202)382-7917.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
i^nclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9454.1994(01)
MAY - 9 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Recordkeeping Requirements for Small Quantity
Generators Subject to Land Disposal Restrictions
FROM: Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Karen V. Brown
Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Thank you for your memorandum of March 23 on the Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program. Your memorandum makes two
points: (l) Small quantity generators should not be subject to
the LDR notification requirements; and (2) EPA should provide
outreach material on notification requirements directed to small
quantity generators.
On the first point, you suggest that the threshold for
exempting small quantity generators (SQGs) from LDR requirements
that are set out in the regulations at 40 CFR 268.l(e)(l) should
be the generation of 1000 kg/month of hazardous wastes, "thereby
exempting all SQGs from the subject Notification Requirements."
Due to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), however, no legal means exist for the Agency to
exempt such SQGs from the LDRs. The only relief available for
small entities is the existing small quantity generator and
conditionally exempt small quantity generator exemptions found in
40 CFR.262.11-12, and 261.5, respectively. These exemptions
basically prescribe the generation of 100 kilograms per calendar
month of hazardous waste as the limit below which one is exempted
from complying with most of the RCRA hazardous waste require-
ments. The 100 kilogram per month limit is specified in RCRA.
section 3001(d). This limit has been the threshold for LDR
compliance since November 1986, when the LDR program was first
implemented.
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
June 1994 9454.1994(02)
2. Biennial Reporting for Wastes
Treated in Exempt Units
In February 1993, a site generated 2,000
kg of hazardous waste, of which 7,500 kg was
a spent solvent classified as F001 and 500 kg
was characteristically ignitable (DOOI). The
F001 was accumulated on-site in accordance
with the §26234 generator standards and
then shipped off-site for disposal. The DOOI
was piped directly to a wastewater treatment
unit for subsequent discharge under a Clean
Water Act permit (§270.1(c)(2)(v)).
In order to determine RCRA hazardous
waste generator status, and applicable
regulations, the site's owner/operator must
count hazardous waste generated in every
calendar month. For example, a site which
generates greater than 1,000 kg of hazardous
waste in a calendar month is deemed large
quantity and is subject to full generator
standards, whereas a site which generates less
than 100 kg is subject to the reduced
regulatory requirements of §2615. In
determining generator status, the site must
count all wastes that are subject to the
substantive standards related to storage,
transportation, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous wastes (51 FR10153; March 24,
1986).
In this sinuuion, the FOOI was subject to
substantive regulation under §26234,
therefore, the site counted the 7,500 kg in
determining their generator status. The
generator or owner I operator did not,
however, count the 500 kg of DOOI wastes,
because this waste was not subject to
substantive regulation (51 FR 10152; March
24,1986). Therefore, in February, the site
was classified as a large quantity generator
for the month and subject to all of the
standards of Pan 262, including the biennial
reporting requirements of §262.41. The
Biennial Report requires a description of [he
characteristics and quantity ofliazardous
waste generated during the reporting year.
Must the site's Biennial Report address only
wastes which are counted toward the
generation rate, or must other wastes
generated at the site, such as the DOOI, also
be included?
-------
9455 - SPECIAL
CONDITIONS
Part 262 Subpart E
ATKl/l 104/26 kp
-------
9455.1982(01)
JUL 7 1382
SUBJECT: Interpretation o* Far'-T-r " r i-.^* •':-" •? ' - "!""
FROM: Bruce Weddl-
Deputy Director
State Prooranrs and fescnrc^ ppcov»r« Division (
TO: David A. Wagoner
Director, A1r and Hazardous Management Division
Region VII
I am writing 1n response to John France's May 25
to R1ta Lavelle concerning the applicability of «C CF1 262.51
to the University of Nebraska's (Lincoln) research farn1r»«
activity. The farms which the University of Nebraska use to
conduct research gual1*y the University for the farmer exemption,
because a farmer Is a person who raises crops or livestock.
Section M.of the 3002 Background Document Includes a detailed
discussion of the fanner exemption and the Agency's rationale
for exempting farwers frow the RCRA regulations (copy attached).
Farmers have a vested Interest In their crop, land and
have sufficient amounts of land onto which rlnsate or wash-dovn
water may be applied. For these reasons we believe that the
quantity and H»are* of risk associated with a single farmer's
operation 1s minimal and deserves conditional exemption. Finally,
farmers general!^ Generate swall owantlties of >"i«Jty containers
and unused solutions relative to the size of their operation.
In evaluating the University of Nebraska's *arw or f»r*s,
1t 1s clear that their operation meets the 1ntr-nt of the farnor
exemotlon activity. Although the word "rerearnh" 1s use'* to d*s-
crlbe the University farns, this 1s an Institutional word Indicating
tfc«»1r primary farming fntere-'t 1s the Investigation of orowth and
yield Information rather than production per se. Thus, the words
"research farm" do not preclude ther» from farFTnn but d«»11nat« an
Interest or activity. However, to be eligible for the farmer
-------
(.2)
exemption, a fanner must also dispose of His hazardous *este
nestlddes from his own use on his own oroperty In accordance
with th« disposal Instructions on the 1ab*1 (40 CFR 262.51).
I hope this answers your questions on thfs matter. If
you have any other questions, please contact we or Rolt H111
on FTS-382-4753.
WH-563/RH111-JThomspon/23 JUME 82/Rolf s D1sk#II Doc.#22/
#516 Controlled Correspondence
Revised: Bruce tfeddle/06 JULY 82
-------
9455.1985(01)
June 25, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: Harry Seraydarian
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
EPA Region IX
FROM: John H, Skinner
Director, Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
SUBJECT: Determining Who Assumes Generator Responsibilities for
Importations of Hazardous Waste
With respect to the importation of hazardous waste, you have
asked who should assume generator responsibilities: the
transporter or the United States facility arranging for the
importation of the hazardous waste.
Under current regulations "any person" who "imports"
hazardous waste must comply with the generator requirements of 40
CFR Part 262. 40 CFR §§262.50(c), 262.50(d); see also
§§262.10(c), 263.10(c). This broad language suggests that more
than one party may be an "importer" in a given situation. In the
situation you describe, both the transporter and the Untied
States facility arranging for the importation would be persons
who "import" hazardous waste. Where more than one person falls
within the scope of this language, all of the parties, as
contributors to the importation of hazardous waste, should be
held jointly and severally liable for compliance with the
generator requirements of Part 262.
Through mutual agreement, however, one of the parties may
assume and perform the generator duties on behalf of all the
parties. In fact, EPA encourages such agreements. Where such an
agreement exists the Agency will look to the designated party to
perform the generator responsibilities. EPA, however, reserves
the right to enforce against any of the parties if the
requirements of Part 262 are not adequately met providing such
enforcement is equitable and in the public interest.
In EPA's view, the party in the best position to assume the
generator responsibilities should normally take on these
responsibilities on behalf of other parties. In fact, EPA will
initially look to such a party where no party has been designated
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
or EPA is unaware of such designation. Under the specific
factual situation you describe, it appears that the Untied States
facility arranging for the importation of hazardous waste may be
in the best position to assume the generator responsibilities.
For a discussion of some relevant factors to consider in
determining which party is in the best position to assume the
generator responsibilities, see 45 F.R. 72024, 72025
(October 30, 1980) where an analogous situation is addressed.
You have also expressed some concern about the possibility
of unmanifested or improperly manifested shipments occurring
where the facility arranging for the importation is also the
treatment, storage and disposal facility. Under such
circumstances, the same facility must comply with both 40 CFR
Parts 262 and 264 or 265 (for the receipt of waste from off-site
sources). The fact that the facility receiving the waste must
also assume generator responsibilities, thereby eliminating the
presence of an independent treatment, storage and disposal
facility to help assure compliance with the manifest
requirements, should be of no greater concern than for shipments
between sites owned by the same company.
cc: Hazardous Waste Division 'Directors, Regions j_vju an(j
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9455.1986(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMKARY
SEPTEMBER 86
2. Export of Hazardous Waste
A generator plans to send an unlisted, characteristic by-product to
a reclamation facility in Mexico. How do the new hazardous waste export
regulations, effective November 8, 1986, apply to the export of this
recyclable material?
The hazardous waste export regulations are in 40 CFR Part 262,
Subpart E. Revised export regulations, effective November 8, 1986,
require notification of the Administrator, consent fron the
receiving country, special manifesting procedures, recordkeeping, .
exception reporting and submittal to EPA of an annual report for
the export of most hazardous wastes. (See sections 262.52-262.57,
promulgated in the August 8, 1986 Federal Register, 51 FR 28664.)
According to $261.2(c)(3), Table 1, characteristic by-products
are not defined as solid wastes, and thus not hazardous wastes,
when destined for reclamation. Therefore, the characteristic
by-product is not subject to Part 262, Subpart E, because it
is not a hazardous waste. The burden of proof, however, is on
the exporter to demonstrate and document that the material to be
recycled is not a solid waste (S261.2(f)). The exporter should
be able to demonstrate that there is a known market or disposition
for the material. A copy of a recycling contract, records
describing the Mexican reclamation facility, and/or evidence that
the facility has a license or approval from the Mexican government
would also support the exporter's claim that the recyclable material
is not a solid waste (see 51 FR 28670).
Source: Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
„,, . .^ 9455.1987(01}
»».*u i g —•£ i
Honorable Wes Watkins
House of Representatives
Washington-, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Watkins:
Thank you for your May 5, 1987 letter on behalf of your
constituent Mr. Joe Bonar regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) hazardous waste export rule.
Section 3017 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA) prohibits the export of hazardous waste unless
persons exporting such waste provide notification to the EPA.
The government of the country receiving the waste has to
consent to accept the waste. The final rule implementing
these statutory provisions was published on August 8, 1986
(copy enclosed) and became effective on November 8, 1986.
In developing the export rule, the Agency decided that
wastes which were regulated domestically should also be
regulated internationally. The rationale and purpose underlying
the domestic manifest requirements are similar to international
notification and consent requirements. The domestic manifest
notifies persons receiving or handling the waste of the nature
of the materials being dealt with and affords those persons
the opportunity to reject the waste or, if accepted, provides
sufficient information to ensure proper handling of the
waste.
Under EPA's domestic regulatory scheme, hazardous wastes
are generally subject to the manifest, but certain wastes
sent for recycling are exempt from the manifest requirement.
Such an exemption applies to persons who send batteries for
recycling. Thus, spent batteries sent to a foreign country
for recycling would be exempt from the requirements to file a
notification and receive written consent from the receiving
country. However, the exemption only applies if the batteries
are uncracked.
-------
-2-
Notification, however, is required for exporting lead
battery plates and groups (as well as other hazardous wastes
requiring a manitest for domestic shipment). Notification
and consent can cover a period of up to 12 months. Thus, a
60 day waiting period for approval to export applies only
for the first shipment rather than each shipment of waste.
While EPA anticipates a maximum of 60 days to obtain written
consent from the receiving country, we believe that this time
frame can be substantially shortened as we gain experience in
obtaining written consents from receiving countries. Further,
Section 3017 provides that an international agreement with a
receiving country can take priority over the written consent
provision of EPA's export rule. While bilateral agreements
have been negotiated for only two countries (Canada and
Mexico), other countries may also want to develop bilateral
agreements with the U.S., particularly if a country wants to
expedite movements of hazardous waste between the two
countries.
I hope this explanation of EPA's export rule is helpful.
If you have any questions about the export requirements,
please contact Ms. Carolyn Barley at 202-382-2217.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG«#CY
945 5. 19 8 7 (:0 2)
JUN I 5 I9ST
Emanuel Bodner
Bodner Metal 4 Iron Corp.
3660 Schalker Drive
Houston, Texas 77026
Dear Mr. Bodneri
This letter is in response to your letter of May 26, 1987,
to clarify the responsibilities of Bodner Metal t Iron Corp.
when transporting electric arc furnace (EAF) dust (EPA Hazardous
Waste Mo. K061) to Mexico.
Please note carefully the two enclosed documents. The
Federal Register notice (51 FR 28664, August 8, 19B6) is the
Agency's final rule on export of hazardous wastes. Essentially*
the export of hazardous waste is prohibited unless the require-
ments outlined in the rule are met. The second document is an
Agreement of Cooperation (also called a bilateral agreement)
between the U.S. and Mexico which defines terms and specifies
conditions for transport of pesticides and hazardous waste
between the countries.
Please be reminded that legal liability for a hazardous
waste does not end when a hazardous waste exits the United
States, and that hazardous wastes exported to foreign countries
must be manifested and handled in accordance with the terms of
consent from the receiving country.
If you have any other questions, please contact me at
(202) 382-4783.
Sincerely*
's,
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Permits Division
-------
9455.1989(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN 27 1989
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCV RESPONSE
Mr. Peter Bronner
Inversora Murten S.A.
237 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10017
Dear Mr. Bronner:
This letter is in response to your facsimile of November 13,
1988, your telephone conversations with Wendy Grieder of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of International
Activities, and your telephone conversation with Emily Roth of my
staff. In regard to the petroleum waste that you wish to export
to South America, the export requirements of RCRA as found in 40
CFR Part 262, Subpart E, apply to all petroleum wastes that meet
the definition of hazardous waste. Generators of solid waste
must determine if their waste is hazardous waste according to 40
CFR Part 261. If the petroleum waste is not hazardous according
to 40 CFR Part 261, there are no requirements under U.S. law.
However, there may be other restrictions that apply, such as
regulations in both the receiving country and any transit
countries regarding the transboundary movement of such waste, or
as you mention, the ban on the export of PCS containing oils as
found in 40 CFR 761.20(c). Therefore, you should contact any
country that the petroleum wastes will be exported to or through,
to determine what requirements, if any, may be imposed.
If you have any further questions regarding this letter, you
may contact Emily Roth at (202) 382-4777, or for questions
regarding the reglatory status of the petroleum waste you may
contact Ben Smith of my staff at (202) 382-4791.
Sincerely
7
Matt Straus, Deputy Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
December 1994
9455.1994(01)
RCRA
1. Notification Requirements for
Exported Wastes
In addition to other requirement, a
primary exporter of hazardous waste must
comply with the special requirements of 40
CFR Pan 262, Subpart E, including providing
notification of intent to export to EPA's Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 60
days prior to the initial shipment (§26253(a)),
and originating the hazardous waste manifest
(§26254). If a waste is -not regulated as a
hazardous waste in the United States but is
subject to Canadian regulations, must the
exporter notify EPA of the intent to export? If
the waste is a hazardous waste but exempt
from regulation in the United States, must the
exporter still notify EPA?
Part 262, Subpart E applies only to wastes
which are subject to Part 262, Subpart B
manifest requirements (see also 51 EE 28664;
August 8,1986). For example, if the waste
intended for export is a solid waste according
to §261.3 but is not regulated as a hazardous
waste subject to manifest requirements, the
exporter would not be required to notify EPA
of the intent to export Wastes which are
hazardous but exempt from manifest
requirements would also be exempt from Part
262, Subpart E. For example, scrap metal
(§261.6Xa)(3)(iii)) and lead-acid batteries
(§26l.6(a)(2)(iv)) sent for reclamation arc
exempt from Subtitle C hazardous waste
regulations (including the manifest
requirements), and would therefore not be
subject to Subpart E export requirements.
Although exporters may be exempt from the
requirement to notify EPA, they are advised to
check with their Canadian counterparts for
any applicable regulations (for example,
Canadian manifest requirements) before the
waste crosses the border.
-------
9456 - IMPORTS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Part 262 Subpart F
.A.T. Kearney 1/3590/2 cr
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 86
9. Export of"Recyclable Materials
Are generators and transporters of recyclable materials used for precious
metals recovery subject to the export regulations that were published on
August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664)?
Yes, exporters of recyclable materials used for precious metals
recovery are subject to the export regulations in 40 CFR 262.50.
Subpart E of Part 262(§262.50) requires "primary exporters" to comply
with the export requirements. A primary exporter, as defined in
40 CFR 262.50, is any person who is required to originate a manifest for
a shipnent of hazardous waste in accordance with 40 CFR Part 262,
Subpart B, or equivalent State provision which specifies a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility in a receiving country as the .facility
to which the hazardous waste will be sent. A primary exporter also
includes any intermediary arranging for the export.
Generators of recyclable materials used for precious metals recovery
must prepare a manifest in accordance with Part 262 Subpart B per
§266.70(b)(2). If a generator exports his wastes for precious metals
recovery, he meets the definition of a "primary exporter" and is subject
to the export requirements in Subpart E-Exports of Hazardous Waste.
These exports requirements include:
(a) written notification to EPA of intent to export 60 days prior
to the initial shipment in a 12 month period;
(b) exporting only after receipt of an Acknowledgement of Consent;
(c) attaching the Acknowledgement of Consent to the manifest which
is prepared in accordance with special manifest requirements
of §262.54;
(d) filing exception reports, if needed;
(e) filing an annual reprt on his export activities
and waste minimization efforts
(f) keeping records for three years
Transporters involved with exports of recyclable precious metal
wastes must also meet certain export requirements. According to
§266.70(b){2), transporters of recyclable precious metal wastes
must comply with the manifest provisions of SS263.20 and 263.21.
The export regulations of August 8, 1986 modified the §262.20
manifest requirements for exports. Transporters must ensure that
the Aknowledgement of Consent accompanies the waste shipnent and
cannot accept the waste without it. The transporter may not accept
the waste for export if he knows the shipment does not conform to
the Acknowledgement of Consent (51 FR 28685). The transporter must
give a copy of the manifest to a U.S. customs agent at the point the
waste leaves the U.S.
Source: Carolyn Barley (201) 382-2217
Research: Betty Wilson
-------
9456.1987(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
5 . Ex porting H a z a r d o u s W as t_e
Are lead-acid batteries sent to Canada for
recycling subject to RCRA Section 3017 requirements?
V o . r-ead-acid batteries sent to Canada for
recycling are not subject to the export
requirements of 40 CFR 262.53, which codifies
Section 3017. The regulations parallel the
statute, which requires that any person exporting
hazardous waste shall: provide notification to the
Administrator; obtain consent from the receiving
country; attach a copy of that consent to the
manifest; and ensure that the shipment and terms of
the written consent are in agreement. The
Cooperative Agreement between the governments of
Canada and the United States parallels the same
points outlined above. As explained at 51 FR_
23669, the definition of "exporter" excludes wastes
not subject t regulation through the manifest
system. Because 40 CFR 26l.6(a)(2) and (3) exclude
lead-acid batteries that are being reclaimed or
regenerated from all substantive regulation until
the batteries are "cracked" or broken open, a
person exporting uncracked lead-acid batteries for
reclamation or regeneration is not an exporter
subject to Section 3017.
Source: Paul Mushovic (202) 475-7736
Research: Laurie Huber
-------
9455/1991(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
5 1991
OFPlCE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Thomas E. Linson
Hazardous Waste Management Branch Chief
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
105 South Meridian Street
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
Dear Mr. Linson:
This letter responds to your January 4, 1991 request for a
regulatory interpretation regarding the export of hazardous
wastes utilized for precious metals reclamation. Specifically,
you question whether Federal regulations require compliance with
40 CFR Part 262 Subpart E (which regulates hazardous waste
exports) when a precious metal-bearing sludge is exported for
reclamation. You request this interpretation because the export
requirements of Part 262 Subpart E are not specifically
referenced in either section 261.6(a)(2) or 266.70. However, as
Mr. Glenn Sternard of U.S. EPA's Region V office has indicated,
the preamble to the August 8, 1986 rulemaking (51 FR 28664),
which promulgated the export requirements for hazardous wastes,
implies that the export requirements do, in fact, apply to any
generator required to prepare a manifest under Subpart B of Part
262.
Mr. Sternard is correct. The export requirements of Part
262 Subpart E are applicable for precious metal-bearing sludges
that are exported for reclamation. EPA agrees that a specific
reference to Part 262 Subpart E in section 266.70 would clarify
this requirement and we will keep this in mind during any future
rule changes. As the preamble to the August 8, 1986 rulemaking
discusses in depth (while not specifically referring to hazardous
wastes used for precious metals recovery), the determining factor
in applying the export requirements is whether or not the
transportation of a particular hazardous waste requires a
hazardous waste manifest. (Indeed, the preamble actually
explains the Agency's position that the export requirements
applies only to hazardous wastes which require a manifest, rather
than to any hazardous waste, which is how some of the commenters
on the proposal to this rulemaking interpreted Section 3017 of
RCRA.)
Therefore, in the absence of any specific exemption from the
export requirements for a hazardous waste that requires a
manifest, the export requirements apply. Hazardous wastes which
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
are subject to Part 266 Subpart F are not specifically exempt
from the export requirements.
I hope this clarifies the applicability of the export
requirements for the situation you must resolve. If you have any
further questions, you may contact Mike Petruska, Chief of the
Regulatory Development Branch, at (202) 475-8551.
SincepeT
Sylvi/ K.
Diredtor
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9455'1991 (02)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY I 6 1991
OFFICE OF
Mark J SchlllZ SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
President
Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Industries
757 N. Eldridge
Houston, Texas 77079
Dear Mr. Schulz:
This responds to your February 22, 1991 letter to David Bussard requesting a
determination regarding the regulatory status of pharmaceutical products that are
returned by the dispensers of these products to die manufacturers, wholesalers, or to a
third-party service company that will facilitate the processing, crediting, and, if needed,
appropriate disposal of the returned products. Currently, such products are returned
directly to the manufacturer or wholesaler, who credits the dispenser for the products
and determines whether the products are to be reused, reclaimed, or appropriately
disposed. BFI Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (BFI-Phann) intends to provide this reverse
distribution service to the pharmaceutical industry.
As I understand your letter, pharmaceutical products may be returned for many
reasons, including, among others: 1) an oversupply at the dispenser, 2) expiration of the
recommended shelf life, 3) a recall has been initiated by the manufacturer, 4) the
product was received as a result of a shipping error, and 5) the product has been
damaged. You state that, in general, the dispensers of the pharmaceutical products do
not know whether the returned products will be reused, reclaimed, sold overseas, or
disposed (i.e., they are not able to determine whether these materials are solid wastes).
Because the dispensers receive credit for the returned products (either because the
products actually have real value to manufacturer or because such credits are part of a
competitive marketing approach), the products have a monetary value to the dispensers
and they would not normally assume such materials to be wastes.
Under our current regulations, such returned products are not considered solid
wastes until a determination is made to discard these materials. The returned products
themselves (being "commercial chemical products" under our classification system) are
considered more product-like than waste-like (until a determination is made to dispose
of them) because recycling by use/reuse is generally a viable option. If the underlying
assumption is that the returned products will be recycled, until the manufacturer or
wholesaler determines otherwise (assuming that this determination is beyond the ability
of the dispenser), then those products managed within the reverse distribution system
are not solid wastes until the manufacturer or wholesaler makes the determination to
dispose of them. This view is based on our understanding that the system is established
as a means to facilitate the recycling of reusable pharmaceutical products, rather than a
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
waste management system. We will be interested to learn if your data, which will be
computerized, will support this assumption. At the current time there does not appear
to be any reason for EPA to change its policy regarding this type of reverse distribution
system simply because a third-party service company is involved rather than the
manufacturers themselves.
I would like briefly to bring to your attention two issues that bear generally upon
reverse distribution systems, although neither appear to be of concern in the BFI-Pharm
situation. First, EPA does not intend for hazardous waste brokers to use a reverse
distribution system to relieve generators of the responsibility for making determinations
about the discarding of materials as wastes. It remains the generator's responsibility to
properly identify secondary materials. Second, a reverse distribution system cannot be
used as a waste management service to customers/generators without the applicable
regulatory controls on waste management being in place. Of course, as I discussed
above with respect to the BFI-Pharm situation, to the extent that the materials involved
are unused commercial products with a reasonable expectation of being recycled in some
way when returned, the materials are not considered as wastes until a determination has
been made to discard them.
This interpretation is based on the current set of Federal RCRA regulations.
However, as you know, authorized States may regulate or interpret the regulations
differently, and State requirements are the applicable standards in authorized States.
You should contact the appropriate State regulatory agencies for a more definitive
regulatory determination for their respective jurisdictions.
I hope this has sufficiently answered your questions. Should you have any further
questions regarding EPA's policies, you may contact David Bussard at (202) 382-4637.
Sincerely,
* / i
A
Sxftia KTLowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9455.1991(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC I 0 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Jack Whalen
Hamanna Alloys Corporation
441 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Whalen:
Thank you for your letter of October 31, 1991 to Mike
Petruska in which you inquired about the regulation of recovered
lead and lead alloys from used batteries and other suitable
sources, and the export of these components to other countries.
There are potentially numerous regulations applicable to recovery
of lead and lead alloys from batteries, depending on the
particular situation. Based on your letter I will list the major
ones here; however, please note that this list may not be
exhaustive: 40 CFR Parts 124, 260.10, 260.30(c), 261.1(c)(6),
261.2(0), 261.3(a)(2)(i), 261.6(a)(3)(iv), 261.22, 262.34, 263,
264.1(g)(6), 265.l(c)(10), 266 Subpart 6, 266.80(a),
266.80(b)(l)-(4), 268.7(a)(4), and 270. Because analysis of the
appropriate regulatory scheme is material-specific, I cannot
address lead and lead alloy recovery from "other suitable
sources."
Hazardous waste export regulations are found at 40 CFR Part
262 Subpart E. The governmental notification process is
generally as follows. The exporter notifies EPA's Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement in writing of his/her intent to
export. This notification must contain certain information (see
the regulations cited above). EPA then sends the written
notification to the U.S. State Department, which then cables it
to the government of the receiving country. The receiving
country then cables the State Department with its consent or
rejection, and includes conditions for acceptance, if any. The
State Department forwards the cable to EPA, and EPA forwards it
to the exporter. Upon the exporter's receipt, this document is
called the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent (AOC). The exporter
must attach a copy of the AOC to the manifest accompanying the
shipment, and must forward a copy to the U.S. Customs Service (a
manifest may be obtained from your state if it has its own, or
from any source if it does not). Transit countries, if any, are
also notified within this process; however, if a transit country
refuses the shipment it is the exporter's responsibility to make
other arrangements.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Under the terms of separate bilateral agreements with Canada
and Mexico, this process is slightly different. For exports to
Canada, EPA deals directly with its counterpart, Environment
Canada, and the U.S. State Department and other diplomatic
entities do not become involved. The consent process is "tacit"
instead of written; that is, Canada has 30 days to accept or
refuse a shipment after which, if no acknowledgement is made, the
shipment may commence. For exports to Mexico, EPA deals directly
with its counterpart, SEDUE, but copies of all relevant documents
are forwarded to the State Department and normal diplomatic
entities.
As you may be aware, President Bush signed the Basel
Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes on
March 22, 1990. This may have additional implications for
hazardous waste exports depending on whether the U.S. formally
ratifies Basel, and on what form the implementing legislation
takes.
Sincerely,
vid Bussard, Director
aracterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosure
-------
FILE COPY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9455.1995(01)
OFFICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. James A. Lassner
Investment Recovery Manager
40 Rector Street
New York, NY 10006
Dear Mr. Lassner/
In your January 26, 1995 letter to Mike 'Shapiro, you asked
whether a vessel transporting a RCRA regulated hazardous waste
requires an EPA identification number for transport between the U.S.
and Belgium.
The answer to your question is no. An EPA identification number
is not required once a waste shipment is outside of U.S. jurisdiction.
For a complete description of RCRA waste export requirements, please
refer to the code of federal regulations, specifically 40 CFR Part
262, Subpart E-Exports of Hazardous Waste.
If you have any additional questions, please contact Denise
Wright of my staff at (202) 260-3519.
Sincerely/
/** Michael Petruska/ Chief
/ Regulatory Development Branch
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
March 1995 9455.1995(02)
RCRA
2. Export Requirements for
Transportation Through Transit
Countries
A facility generates hazardous waste in
Alaska. The generator arranges to send the
hazardous waste to a disposal facility in
California. In the process of transportation,
the hazardous waste will pass through
Canadian territory. Will the facility be
required to compfy with any of the export
regulations found under Part 262, Subpart E?
In this scenario, RCRA export regulations do
not apply. The regulations for exports of
hazardous waste in Pan 262, Subpart E apply
to any person who meets the definition of a
primary exporter. Primary exporter is defined
under §262.51 as generally, any person
required to initiate a hazardous waste manifest
which designates a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility in a receiving country.
Receiving country is subsequently defined
under §262.51 as "a foreign country to which
a hazardous waste is sent for the purpose of
treatment, storage or disposal (except short-
term storage incidental to transportation)". In
the above scenario, there are no treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities in a receiving
country that are designated on the manifest,
rather, the waste simply passes through a
foreign country. RCRA does not require that
transit countries be notified.
-------
9456.1992(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
AUGUST 1992
2. Accumulation Time for Hazardous
Waste Importers
A US. hazardous waste broker wishes to transportation to the designated facility at a
import hazardous waste by truck from Mexico transfer facility for 10 days or less, provided
into the United States. Assuming the shipment that the hazardous waste is packaged in
passes US. Customs, the broker wishes to accordance with DOT packaging regulations.
accumulate the hazardous waste at a
warehouse near the border for 45 days in
order to consolidate several shipments before
transporting the hazardous waste to a
designated TSDF. According to 40 CFR
§262.60, an importer of hazardous waste must
comply with the generator requirements of 40
CFR Part 262. Section 26220 also requires
the importer to comply with certain
manifesting requirements specific to imports
(§262.60(b)). Once the waste is imported into
the United States, can the importer accumulate
hazardous waste (per §26234) at or near the
point of entry to the United States (e.g., in a
warehouse) for 90 days or less without a
permit or interim status prior to shipping it to
the designated TSDF?
Although it is correct that importers must
comply with Part 262, Standards Applicable to
Generators, including the special requirements
of Pan 262, Subpart F, importers cannot
accumulate hazardous waste under §262.34.
Ninety-day accumulation under §262.34
applies only to generator accumulation on-site,
and is not applicable to this situation. Sections
262.20 and 262.60 require the importer to
prepare a hazardous waste manifest for the
waste shipment, using the importer's name and
the name of the foreign generator in the
generator box. At the time the manifest is
initiated (at the point of entry into the United
States) the waste shipment is already in
transportation, and the manifested hazardous
waste must proceed to the facility designated
on the manifest to accept the hazardous waste.
Under §263.12, the hazardous waste may be
stored during the normal course of
-------
.
o
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9456.1994(01)
DEC I 6 i99d
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Satoru Morishita
Deputy Director
Office of Marine Pollution Control
& Waste Management
Environmental Agency
Kasumigaseki 1-2-2
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Dear Mr. Morishita:
I am writing in response to your to letter to Paul Borst of November 11, 1994 regarding the
export from Japan to the United States of bubblers containing phosphorus oxychloride used in the
production of semiconductors. In that letter you requested clarification on the EPA position that
bubbler canisters containing phosphorous oxychloride are not waste when returned to the United
States from Japan for regeneration. In our previous correspondence to of September 14, 1994, EPA
stated that we do not believe that phosphorous oxychloride remaining in the bubbler canisters is used
based on a comparison of data on the purity of that substance and new phosphorous oxychloride
added to the canister. This comparison showed that the phosphorous oxychloride remaining in the
returned canister is almost as pure as it was when inserted into the canister. As stated in our prior
correspondence to you, under U.S. hazardous waste laws and regulations, unused commercial
chemical products that are to be reclaimed are not solid wastes. Therefore, in our view, bubbler
canisters containing phosphorous oxychloride when sent for regeneration are not subject to the terms
of the OECD decision C(92)39/Final as far as implementation of that agreement by the United States
government. Of course, other countries involved in a transboundary movement of waste might have a
different national procedure for determing what is a hazardous waste. If another OECD country
considered it a hazardous waste subject to the OECD council decision we would expect them to
enforce the requirements of the OECD council decision.
In your letter to Mr. Borst, you request clarification on U.S. hazardous waste laws and
regulations and the OECD system with respect to three different factual situations on the management
of bubbler canisters containing phosphorous oxychloride. You also request technical assistance on
how the remaining phosphorous oxychloride should be managed.
In the three factual situations you present, there are identical elements: 1) bubbler canisters
are exported from country X to Japan for semiconductor production, 2) after the canisters are
depleted they are returned to country X for regeneration. The only differences in each factual
situation is the management of the remaining phosphorous oxychloride upon its return to country X.
The U.S. detailed regulations on what is a hazardous waste-are only legally relevant to U.S.
regulations applying if one of the countries involved is United States. We cannot interpret other
countries national procedures.
Recycled/Recyclable
Prtntad with Soy/Canola Ink on p»p«r that
eonulna at Itaat 50% rtcycMd «t*r
-------
In the first situation, you state that the remaining phosphorous oxychJoride is removed from
the bubbler canister and distilled before being reintroduced with new phosphorous oxycbloride to
regenerate the canisters. This is essentially what happens when the bubbler canisters are exported to
the United States. For the reasons stated above, EPA would not consider the phosphorous
oxyjchioride to be a waste and therefore the bubbler would not be subject to U.S. regulations to
implement the OECD decision C(92)39/Final.
In the second situation, the remaining phosphorous oxychloride is not distilled or removed
from the bubbler canister. The bubbler canister is regenerated by simply adding new phosphorous
oxychloride. EPA would not consider the bubbler to be waste in this situation because the remaining
phosphorous oxychloride would simply be continuing to be used as a product. Therefore it too would
not be subject, in our view, to U.S. regulations implementing the OECD decision C(92)39/Final.
In the third situation, the remaining phosphorous oxychloride is removed from the bubbler
canister and disposed of. The bubbler is regenerated by adding new phosphorous oxychloride.
Because EPA has viewed remaining phosphorous oxychloride as an unused commercial chemical
product and therefore not a waste, we would view the transport of the bubbler canisters from Japan to
Country X in this situation as intended for reclamation rather than disposal. If the importer/reclaimer
in Country X makes a decision to discard remaining phosphorous oxychloride rather than reclaim or
reuse it as in the first two situations, EPA would view that material as being generated as a waste at
the importing country's reclamation facility rather than the exporting country's facility. Since EPA
would not view the remaining phosphorous oxychloride as a waste until it had arrived and the
importer/reclaimer had made a decision to dispose of it, the Agency would not consider the bubbler
canister to be a waste and therefore not subject to U.S. regulation to implement the OECD decision
C(92)39/Final.
Finally, you ask how the remaining phosphorous oxychloride should be treated. When a
decision is made by a waste handler to discard phosphorous oxychloride, EPA believes that this
material is hazardous because it is reactive and possibly corrosive. It is our understanding that the
phosphorous oxychloride reacts violently with water during its use and has the potential to cause an
explosion. It is also our understanding that the compound is highly corrosive and can cause skin
burns. Phosphorous oxychloride can be destroyed through the addition of sodium hydroxide solution.
The mixture should then be cooled, neutralized and disposed. It is inappropriate for untreated
phosphorous oxychloride to be land disposed or discharged to a wastewater treatment system. If you
have any further questions, please contact either Paul Borst at (202) 260-6713 or Denise Wright at
(202) 260-3519 of my staff if you would like to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
Government of Japan
1-2-2 KASUMIGASEKI. CHIYODA KU
TOKYO 100. JAPAN
Date: November 11, 1994
Mr. Paul Borst
Characterization and Assessment Division
Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Dear Sir:
First of all, let me introduce myself briefly. I am responsible for implementing the OECD system
and the Basel Convention in the Japan Environment Agency, competent authority of Japan. Mr.
David Bussard suggested to me that I should contact you in his kind letter dated September 14, 1994
in response to my letter dated May 31, 1994 for clarifying the status under the OECD system with
respect to the export from to Japan to the United States of bubblers containing phosphorous
oxychloride used in the production of semiconductors.
Based on the information on the letter of Mr. Bussard, I would like to ask you to inform me of the
status of your country concerning the following cases in line with both the U.S. hazardous waste laws
and regulations and OECD system in order to avoid the misunderstanding.
Case 1
Waste Description Bubblers containing a small quantity of phosphorous
oxychloride
Recovery Operation Recycling/Reclamation of other inorganic materials
Exporting Country Japan
Importing Country X Country (OECD member country)
These bubblers were exported from X country to a private company in Japan for producing
semiconductors. After phosphorous oxychloride is depleted, they are to be returned from
Japan to X country and are regenerated by distilling any phosphorous oxychloride remaining
in the canister and adding new phosphorous oxychloride to the bubbler canister.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
Case 2
Waste Description, Recovery Operation, Exporting & Importing Country
Same in Case 1
After phosphorous oxychloride is depleted, they are to be returned from Japan to X country
and are regenerated by adding new phosphorous oxychloride to the bubbler canister.
Case 3
Waste Description, Recovery Operation, Exporting & Importing Country
Same in Case 1
After phosphorous oxychloride is depleted, they are to be returned from Japan to X country
and are regenerated by removing the phosphorous oxychloride remaining in the bubbler
canister and adding new phosphorous oxychloride to the canister. The removed phosphorous
oxychloride is to be disposed of.
According to the letter of Mr. Bussard, the data of Schumacher of Carlsbad indicate that the
phosphorous oxychloride in the returned canister is not used. I would like to know how the
remaining phosphorous oxychloride should be treated? Should it be disposed of or destroyed by the
pre-treatment?
So, could I ask you to give me some advice regarding the above-mentioned cases and question? I am
looking forward to receiving your kind respond on this issue. Thank you very much in advance.
Sincerely yours,
Satoru Morishita
Deputy Director
Office of Marine Pollution Control & Waste Management,
Planning Division, Water Quality Bureau
Environment Agency, Government of Japan
Address: 1-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan
Tel:+81-3-3581-4498, Fax:+81-3-3593-1438
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB I 5 ..
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Randall F. Andrews, President 9456.1996(01)
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
Route 2, Box 521-C
Red Springs, NC 28377
Dear Mr. Andrews:
Thank you for your letter of January 18 to Michael Shapiro
in which you requested EPA's non-objection to imports of cobalt
oxide-molybdic oxide spent catalysts into the U.S. for recovery
at your facility.
These spent catalysts are usually non-hazardous, but can be
characteristically hazardous (e.g. they have been shown to
exhibit the toxicity characteristic for benzene and arsenic). In
your letter, you state that the particular spent catalysts you
intend to import are not RCRA hazardous waste. EPA does not have
the authority to consent or object to imports of non-hazardous
wastes, and generally does not object to imports of hazardous
wastes except under certain circumstances. As you know, cobalt
oxide-molybdic oxide spent catalysts have been proposed for
listing as hazardous waste, the final rule for which is expected
this fall.
As we have stated in previous letters, you should be aware
that a number of. countries have ratified the Basel Convention on
the Control of Transboundarv Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
Their Disposal (an updated list of Parties is attached). Our
understanding is that you plan to import these wastes from
Venezuela and Trinidad. While Venezuela is not currently a Party
to Basel, Trinidad is, and should not allow the export if they
consider the wastes to be subject to Basel. In order for Basel
Parties to export Basel-covered wastes to non-Parties (the U.S.
is still not a Party to Basel), there must be a bilateral
agreement in place which is consistent with the requirements of
the Convention. We do not currently have a bilateral agreement
with Trinidad.
You should also check with the appropriate regulatory-
agencies in the state or states in which you operate to determine
whether there are additional requirements with which you must
comply.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed wttti Soy/Cartola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
In the future, please direct similar correspondence to Mr.
Robert Heiss, Director of the RCRA Import/Export Program, Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance,
Enforcement Planning, Targeting, and Data Division (2222A) , at
the EPA address above. Mr. Heiss can be reached at (202) 564-
4108. If you have further questions about this letter, please
call Julia Gourley of my staff at (202) 260-7944.
Sincerely yours,
David Bussard, Director
Hazardous Waste Identification
Division
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc Robert Heiss
-------
STATUS OF RATIFICATIONS? THE BASEL CONVENTION
AS PER GEOGRAPHIC GROUPS
OP THE UNITED NATIONS
I. STATES (As of 10 January 1996)
Africa
Comores
C6te d; Ivolre
Egypt
Guinea
Malawi
Mauritius
Morocco
Namibia
Nigeria
Senegal
Seychelles
South Africa
Tanzania
Tunisia
Zaire
Zambia
16
Asia
and Pacific
Bahrain
Bangladesh
China
Fed. States o£
Micronesia
India
Indonesia
Iran
Japan
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia
Maldives
Oman
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Saudi Arabia.
Singapore
Sri-Lanka
Syria
United Arab
Emirates
Vietnam
25
7. Europe and
Others
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
26
Central and
Eastern Europe
Croatia
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Poland
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
10
Latin
America
and Caribbean
Antigua and
DoL'bmln
Argent ina
Bahamas
Barbados
Birazi 1
Chile
Costa Rica
Cuba
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Kitts and
Nevis
Saint Lucia
Trinidad and
Tobago
Uruguay
20
TOTAL t 97
-------
II. POLITICAL AND/ ECONOMIC INTEGRATION
ORGANIZATIONS
Africa
Asia
W . Europe and
others
European Economic
Community
1
E, Europe
Latin
America
TOTAL i 1
GtOCR.GK
-------
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
ROUTE 2 • BOX 521-C - RED SPRINGS. NC 28377
(910) 843-2121 FAX (910) 843-5789
January 18, 1996
Mr. Michael Shapiro,(5301)
Director
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Our company wishes to import Cobalt Oxide-Molybdic Oxide
spent catalyst into the United States. We believe that this
material is nonhazardous under RCRA and it will be processed
and used here at our facility. We would like to receive a
letter of "no objection" from you to import this type of
product. I am enclosing a copy of a previous "no objection"
letter we received. We need a letter very similar to this
one for the Cobalt Oxide-Molybdic Oxide spent catalyst.
We would appreciate receiving this as soon-as possible.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding,this
matter.
Best regards,
INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS, INC.
Randall F. Andrews,
President
sj
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY i 6 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Randall F. Andrews, President
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
Route 2, Box 521-C
Red Springs, NC 28377
Dear Mr. Andrews -.
Thank you for your letter of April 15 to Julie Lyddon of my
staff in which you requested confirmation of the acceptability of
importing into the U.S. spent nickel-containing catalysts for
nickel recovery and stainless steel scrap for use in the
manufacture of stainless steel.
Assuming they do not exhibit a -characteristic of hazardous
waste at 40 C?R Part 261 Subpart C, the nickel-containing
catalysts and stainless scrap would not be considered haza^eryjs
and ccv.ii therefore be imported. I would note that under -••'• 17?.
262.11, ic is chfe generator's {and/or the importer's;
responsibilitv tc make this determination.
As we stated in our previous letter, you should be aware.
chat a number of countries have ratified the Basel Convention, on
the Control of Transboundarv Movements of Hazardous Wastes and.
Their Disposal (we attached a list to our previous letter). In
order for Basel Parties to export to non-Parties (the U.S. is nor
a Party to Basel) , there must be a bilateral agreement in place
which is consistent with the requirements of the Convexjtion. The
U.S. is currently Party to three such agreements: a bilateral
with Canada for recycling and disposal, a multilateral with the
member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OSCD), and a bilateral with Mexico, both of which
govern transfrentier movements for recycling only. If you plan
to import from a Basel Party with which we do not have an
agreement, and that country considers the catalysts or the scrap
to be subject to Basel, then the country should not allow the
wastes to be exported to the U.S.
Finally, you should check with the appropriate regulatory
agencies in the state or states in which you operate to determine
whether there are additional requirements with which you must
comely.
Printed or. Recycled Paper
-------
Thank you. for your letter and for your interest in the safe
and. effective management of wastes. If you have further
questions, please call Julie Lyddon at (202) 260-7944.
Michael Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
Office of Solid Waste
-------
.
^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
52. ?• WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9456.1996(02)
JUN I?
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Adam Feldman
Norman Feldman Associates
15 W. 8'lst St., Ste. 6C
New York, NY 10024
Dear Mr. Feldman:
Thank you for your letter of May 3Q to Mr. Michael Shapiro in which you requested a
letter explaining the RCRA hazardous waste import requirements. You indicated that you intend
to import waste, which may or may not be hazardous, from Singapore. You should be aware that
Singapore is a party to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, while the U.S. is not a party. Under the terms of the
agreement, parties cannot trade in hazardous wastes with non-parties absent an agreement
pursuant to Article 11 of Basel which does not derogate'from the environmentally sound
management provisions of Basel. The U.S. and Singapore are not currently parties to such an
agreement.
The hazardous waste import regulations at 40 CFR 262 Subpart F have not changed since
the July 8, 1991 letter you received from Wendy Grieder of EPA's Office of International
Activities. However, as you have requested, I will reiterate those requirements as they pertain to
non-0ECD imports of hazardous waste.
EPA regulations do not prohibit the importation of foreign-generated hazardous waste.
However, the regulations do require that the owner or operator of a facility that has arranged to
receive hazardous waste from a foreign source must notify the EPA Regional Administrator in
writing at least four weeks in advance of the date the waste is expected to arrive at the facility.
Notice of subsequent shipments of the same waste from the same facility is not required (40 CFR
264.12 and 265.12).
Hazardous waste imported into the U.S. from a foreign source is regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in the same manner as hazardous waste
generated in the U.S. This includes compliance with manifesting, transport, treatment, storage,
and disposal requirements.
ftocycted/ftecyciable
Ptimt»»wWiSoy/C»noUih* oo paper th«t
GontMfis K MttK 50*6 rscycwo fiber
-------
If you have further questions, please call me at (703) 308-8751.
Sincerely,
ulia L. Goutley
Internatiohal and Special Projects Branch
Hazardous Waste Identification Division (5304W)
Office of Sold Waste
-------
9457 - GENERATOR
STANDARDS
Part 262
ATKl/l 104/28 kp
-------
. ,N „.«<•«../-i ,/»_ J'AwiCCI tun AwCNl
9457.1987(01}
25 MAR 87
Mr. Randy Bodley
Transbas Incorporation
1525 Lockwood Road
P.O. Box 957
Billing*, Montana 59103
Dear Mr. Bodleys
Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1987, regarding
the reuse of pesticide containers* Under the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations issued pursuant to subtitle
C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a
generator of a solid waste Bust determine if he generates a
hazardous waste, and if so, must comply with the regulations
at 40 CFR Parts 260-268, 270, and the notification requirements
of RCRA .Section 3010. The drum rinsate you describe would
probably be a hazardous waste because it contains 2, 4-D. (See
40 CPR §261.24, Table 1, "D016.') EPA has, however, made
special provisions in its regulations both for farmers
disposing of waste pesticides on their own property and for
management of properly emptied (i.e., rinsed) containers.
First, under §262.51, a farmer disposing of waste
pesticides from his own use at his farm (i.e., 2, 4-D rinsate)
is not required to comply with the hazardous regulations
provided that he triple rinses each emptied pesticide container
and disposes of the rinsate on his own farm (in a manner
consistent with the disposal instructions on the pesticide
label). This appears to be the procedure that Transbas is
proposing for Landmaster, and as long as farmers allow these
procedures, they would be excluded from further hazardous
waste regulations.
Second. EPA has provided, in $261.7(a)(1), that when a
container that otherwise holds hazardous waste is properly
emptied, the container is no longer subject to the hazardous
waste regulation*. For hazardous wasted that are not designated
as "acute hazardous wastes,* a container is empty if all
wastes have been removed using practices commonly employed to
-------
remove materials from that type of container (i.e., pouring),
and no sore than one inch of residue remains in the container.
(See §26.1.7(b) (1). )* The procedure TransDas is proposing for
bandmaster, (i.e., triple rinsing), appears to ensure that
the containers would in fact be properly emptied, and as
such, they can be returned to Transbas without complying with
the hazardous waste manifest or any other hazardous waste
regulations. You should note, however, that if Transbas (or
any other party) subsequently cleans the containers, the
rinsate may be hazardous waste. The party cleaning the drums
must make that determination, and if the rinsate is hazardous,
must comply with 4Q CFR Parts 260-268, 27Q, and the notification
requirements of RCRA Section 3010, as applicable.
Sincerely
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
* In the case of acute hazardous waste, the container is
considered empty under more stringent criteria. See $261.7
------- |