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,  how