STRAWMAN PROTOCOL FOR CONDUCTING
PRE-ROD TREATABILITY STUDIES
by
PEI Associates, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
EPA Contract No. 68-03-3413
Work Assignment No. 1-53
PN 3741-53-1
Technical Project Monitor
Richard P. Lauch
Hazardous Waste Treatment Branch
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-03-3413, Work Assignment No. 1-53, to PEI Associates, Inc. It has been
subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
-------
FOREWORD
To be provided by RREL.
i i i
-------
PREFACE
To be provided by OERR.
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
To be provided by PEI.
v
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword
i i i
Preface
i v
Abstract
V
Figures
vi i i
Tables
ix
Abbreviations and Symbols
X
Acknowledgments
xi
1. Introduction
1-1
Document purpose
Applicability to existing regulations and guidance
Document users
Key concepts
Document scope and limitations
2. Data Requirements
2-1
3. Sample Collection and Waste Characterization
3-1
4. Experimental Design and Procedures
4-1
Test objectives
4-1
Experimental design: tiered approach
4-1
Statistical design
4-3
Test parameters
4-5
Volumes
4-8
Equipment, material, reagents
4-8
Standard operating procedures
4-9
Other considerations
4-9
5. Sampling and Analysis
5-1
6. Quality Assurance
6-1
Data quality objectives
6-1
Quality assurance project plans
6-2
Cost implications
6-4
vi
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
7. Data Analysis and Interpretation 7-1
Graphical presentation 7-1
Data quality 7-2
Closed-loop mass balance 7-2
Assessing the effects of variables and waste matrix 7-3
Concentration of contaminants 7-6
8. Reporting 8-1
Standard report format 8-1
Discussion of influent vs. effluent data 8-3
Removal efficiency 8-3
Treatability database considerations 8-3
9. Permits/Residuals Management 9-1
On site vs. offsite testing 9-1
Management of treatability study residuals 9-2
EPA1s offsite disposal policy 9-6
10. Schedule and Cost Considerations 10-1
References Ref-1
Appendices
A Decision Tree Approach to Conducting Treatability Studies A-l
B Examples of Treatability Studies Using the Decision Tree
Approach B-l
Glossary Glos-1
Index Ind-1
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number
vi i i
-------
TABLES
Number
Page
ix
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study
ROD Record of Decision
SYMBOLS
X mean or average
S standard deviation
x
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
be provided by PEI (your name will appear here!)
xi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE
This document presents a generic protocol for performing screening
treatability studies as part of the remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS) process. It is intended to provide guidance to Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs) and contractors who are screening and selecting remedial
action alternatives. The generic protocol is intended to: (a) encourage
involved parties to consider and plan for treatability studies during the
early stages of an RI/FS, (b) identify the minimum data to be generated by
the treatability study, and (c) provide a basis for developing a specific
treatability study for the technology!ies) being considered. The generic
protocol will eventually be supplemented by technology-specific treatability
study protocols.
The purpose of treatability studies in the early phases, of the RI/FS
process [i.e., pre-Record of Decision (ROD)] is to generate data that will
provide a sound basis for deciding whether or not a remediation technology is
applicable for treatment of contaminated materials at a Superfund site. It
is not intended to yield process optimization data or process scale-up in-
formation. Although pre-ROD treatability studies will be emphasized, im-
portant differences and considerations relative to post-ROD treatability
studies will be identified and discussed.
1-1
-------
The generic protocol addresses all types of wastes (soils, sludges,
liquids, ground water, debris) and all types of technologies (physical,
chemical, thermal, biological) for both on-the-surface and in situ tech-
nologies. Emphasis, however, will be placed on the more difficult-to-treat
waste streams (e.g., soils or sludges) and more innovative technologies,
which are not as well understood nor as well developed as conventional treat-
ment technologies (e.g., low-temperature thermal desorption, chemical
destruction, solvent recovery, in situ vacuum extraction).
The generic protocol contains both general guidance for the proper
planning and implementation of treatability studies, as well as standardized
procedures for performing these studies and reporting the results. The
guidance is included in the generic protocol rather than in a separate docu-
ment.
1.2 APPLICABILITY TO EXISTING REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE
Over the past several years, RI/FSs have been performed under the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
The purpose of the RI/FS is to identify and select alternative remedial
actions for cleaning up hazardous waste sites. During the RI/FS process and
the development of the Record of Decision (ROD), many technical, regulatory,
policy, and socioeconomic issues are considered when evaluating and ulti-
mately selecting the best available technology for remediating a site.
Treatability studies can provide very useful data when evaluating the
feasibility of remedial action alternatives. Data from treatability studies
can also provide useful information for developing final design and operating
1-2
-------
parameters for the technology(ies) selected. Many RI/FSs to date, however,
have not involved the performance of treatability studies primarily because
of schedule or budget constraints. Furthermore, when treatability studies
have been performed, the data generated are often insufficient or potentially
misleading because of the absence of consistent, standardized testing proto-
cols and proper guidance for using these protocols. As such, a need exists
for developing standardized formats, procedures, and guidance for performing
treatability studies. This need is particularly critical considering the
important and useful data that these studies generate and the increasing
number of ongoing and newly started RI/FSs. Furthermore, a new emphasis by
EPA1s Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) on the use of alterna-
tive treatment technologies (in accordance with SARA) as opposed to tradi-
tional and disposal methods reinforces the need for properly performed treat-
ability studies.
1.3 DOCUMENT USERS
This document is intended for use by those conducting RI/FS or like
studies in an effort select and implement effective and efficient remediation
technologies. Specifically, this document is for use by RPMs, Superfund
contractors, State Superfund personnel and contractors, and responsible
parties who may be conducting RI/FSs.
1.4 KEY CONCEPTS
Definition of a Protocol
A protocol is defined as a plan of a scientific experiment or treatment.
It should be a consistent, dependable, and scientifically sound tool than can
1-3
-------
be used to aid in evaluating and eventually selecting the most appropriate
remedial action alternative.
This generic protocol will address the following aspects of treatability
testing:
° Data requirements
0 Sample collection and characterization
0 Experimental design and procedures
0 Sampling and analysis
0 Quality assurance
° Data analysis and interpretation
0 Reporting
0 Permits and residuals management
0 Cost and schedule
The RI/FS Process
The EPA document entitled "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investiga-
tions and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final" (EPA/540/G-89-004)
provides detailed guidance on the phased RFS process. Treatability investi-
gations are addressed specifically in Chapter 5. The following excerpt from
the document provides an overview of the purpose of and timing involved in
performing treatability studies:
A decision to conduct treatability testing may be made during
project scoping if information indicates such testing is desirable.
However, the decision to conduct these activities must be made by
weighing the cost and time required to complete the investigation
against the potential value of the information in resolving un-
certainties associated with selection of a remedial action. In
some situations a specific technology that appears to offer a sub-
stantial saving in costs or significantly greater performance
capabilities may not be identified until the later phases of the
RI/FS until treatability studies can be completed. Project
managers will need to make such decision on a case by case basis.
In other situations, treatability investigations may be post-
poned until the remedial design phase.
Figure 1-1 presents the decision process for treatability studies.
1-4
-------
Figure 1-1. Decision process for treatability studies in the phased RI/FS.
* Source: U.S. EPA 1988
1-5
-------
Pre-ROD and Post-ROD Studies
The generic protocol will focus on pre-ROD treatability studies. The
objective of these studies is to determine whether or not a technology iden-
tified during the screening process can achieve the cleanup goals for the
site (i.e., is the technology technically feasible?). Post-ROD treatability
studies, on the other hand, are designed to optimize performance. It is
important, therefore, that performance standards (i.e., cleanup goals) be
defined early in the RI/FS process. Pre-ROD studies typically involve
bench-scale testing, but may entail pilot-scale testing for certain cate-
gories of technologies (biological treatment, in situ treatment). Pre-ROD
studies may also involve of testing multiple technologies in a treatment
train.
Remedial Selection
The point of performing treatability studies during a RI/FS is to ulti-
mately enable the selection of an effective remedial action for the clean up
of a hazardous waste site. The data obtained from the treatability study
should provide decision makers with enough technically sound information to
fully evaluate the potential applicability of a technology (or a train of
technologies) to a site problem, and thus reduce as much as possible the
uncertainties about the long-term effectiveness of the remediation.
Treatment Trains
In many cases, clean up of Superfund sites involves handling several
environmental media contaminated with a variety of organic and inorganic
constituents. It is unlikely that a single treatment technology can be
applied to all media and all contaminants. Therefore, it may be useful to
1-6
-------
investigate several technologies to be implemented in series to treat the
full range of environmental contaminants in a particular waste. This is
referred to as a treatment train and may involve two or more discrete tech-
nologies.
1.5 DOCUMENT SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
This document is intended to serve an immediate need for guidance on
conducting pre-ROD treatability studies. It is generic in nature, in that is
does not provide technology-specific guidelines. It does, however, present
an approach to developing treatability studies than can be applied to spe-
cific problems. This protocol is an interim tool and will be supplemented by
technology-specific protocols (e.g., solidification/stabilization, soil
washing, bioremediation).
1-7
-------
SECTION 2
DATA REQUIREMENTS
During the site characterization phase of the RI/FS, potential treatment
technologies begin to become apparent. These potential technologies must
then be screened, based on the waste matrices and constituents, exposure
pathways, cost, technical implementabi1ity, and remediation goals. This
screening process, along with the existing body of site information, will
define for the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) those treatment technologies
which are clearly applicable, those which are clearly not applicable, and
those which may potentially be applicable pending further investigation.
Typically, these potentially applicable technologies come from the growing
number of "innovative technologies" that are well developed but lack suffi-
cient cost and/or performance data for routine use as remediation tools.
Potentially applicable technologies are those that may require the perform-
ance of treatability studies to determine their level of effectiveness on the
particular waste to be treated.
Each such technology possesses its own set of data requirements that
must be investigated to further assess its applicability. These requirements
may be satisfied by:
1) Fully characterizing the waste to determine whether or not it falls
within the critical parameters of the technology, or
2) Performing a treatability test to determine whether or not the
technology will perform satisfactorily at the site, or
3) Both.
2-1
-------
Table 2-1 outlines the kinds of data that would be required for a further
investigation of thermal treatment technologies as possible tools for the
treatment of contaminated soils.
TABLE 2-1. DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATABILITY TESTING
Treatment Technology
Waste Matrix
Required
Technology-Specific
Data
Thermal Treatment
Soils
Moisture content
Heat value
Quantitative analysis for
organic CI, Br, and F
Analysis for priority
pollutants -- PCBs,
dioxins, etc.
Analysis for volatile metals
Analysis for phosphorus
Feed materials size and
shape
Ultimately this table would be expanded to include five general technol-
ogies:
1) Thermal Treatment
2) Chemical/Physical Treatment
3) Stabilization/Solidification
4) Biodegradation
5) In-situ Treatment
Each technology group would be further subdivided into six waste matrices:
1) Soils
2) Sludges
3) Groundwater
4) Surface water
5) Vapors/gases
6) Debris
2-2
-------
Data requirements for the following waste constituents will be included:
1) Volatile and semivolatile organics
2) Volatile and nonvolatile metals
3) Sulfides and cyanides
4) PCBs/pesticides
5) Asbestos
6) Corrosives
7) Reactives
8) Ignitables
This table will provide the RPM with a general guide to the kinds of
data that will be required in order to perform a treatability study on the
chosen potentially applicable technologies.
The RPM can find detailed information about particular technologies by
referring to the technology-specific treatability study protocols and the
following sources.
Sources of Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology Screening Guide for
Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004, September
1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology Briefs: Data Require-
ments for Selecting Remedial Action Technology. EPA/600/2-87/001,
January 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Superfund Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles. EPA/540-5-88/003,
November 1988.
Technology-specific SITE Applications Analysis Report[s]
2-3
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Information acquired from sample collection and waste characterization
serves as the foundation for the pre-ROD or screening treatability studies.
It is essential that treatability studies be based on accurate and represen-
tative physical and chemical analytical data. Prior to sample collection and
analysis, a number of key questions should be answered to ensure the genera-
tion of useful data of high quality:
1. What are the objectives of sampling?
2. How will the sampling locations be determined?
3. Where will the samples be collected?
4. What procedures will be used to collect the samples?
5. How many samples will be collected?
6. What equipment is needed to collect the samples?
7. Is the equipment compatible with the sample media?
8. What quantity of samples should be collected?
9. What will the samples be analyzed for?
10. What methods will be used for sample preparation and analysis?
11. What method detection limits are needed?
12. What are the QA/QC requirements?
A few of these key questions are briefly discussed below.
The objective of sample collection and waste characterization must be
clearly understood as this will affect the sampling strategy. If the
3-1
-------
purpose is to collect soil, for example, from a "hot spot" to define a worst-
case scenario for the site, then sampling may be limited to a specific area;
however, if a representative sample of the site is needed, then a more ex-
tensive and statistically based sampling strategy should be developed. Data
obtained during the remedial investigation will assist in establishing a
sampling objective as well as indicate potential sampling locations.
Waste characterization samples should be collected directly from the
material that will be used for screening treatability studies. There have
been instances when a crew will collect samples of the waste media, make
arrangements for chemical analysis, and when the results are reported, the
crew returns to the site to collect waste feed for the screening treatability
studies. Due to environmental factors (e.g., weathering) and the possibility
that the waste collected for sample analysis and treatability studies are not
the same, characterization samples should be collected from the material that
will be used for screening treatability studies.
Collected samples must be thoroughly mixed to ensure the homogeneity of
the waste feed. In the case of soils, this may be performed with a mortar
mixer, Hobart mixer, or manually by the cone and quarter method. Often,
multiple runs on a number of technologies are performed during the treat-
ability studies, and if the feed material is not completely homogeneous,
treatment results can vary significantly, which complicates data interpre-
tation.
In the interest of analyzing samples within the recommended analytical
holding times, it is important to dedicate time early in the study to the
development of an analytical target list. The target list should identify
all the analytical parameters that may be needed to select potential
3-2
-------
treatment technologies. If the investigator develops a target list and
realizes a month after the samples were collected that they should have been
analyzed for purgeable aromatic hydrocarbons, the waste must be resampled to
obtain valid data because the recommended holding time of 14 days has been
exceeded.
In addition to the chemical contaminants of concern, physical characteris-
tics of the waste should also be evaluated. Physical characteristics of the
soil, debris, sludge, etc., may limit the applicability of treatment technol-
ogies to a specific waste. For example, the clay content, grain size distri-
bution, or handling properties of the waste may preclude the use of certain
technologies.
In summary, the key issues involved in the collection and characteri-
zation of waste to be used in treatability studies is understanding the
sampling objectives and analyzing the material for the parameters of concern.
Other factors must also be addressed, such as the number of samples, the
quantity of waste, compatibility of sampling equipment, etc., to ensure that
the data generated during this phase will be useful when the treatability
studies are begun.
3-3
-------
SECTION 4
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES
4.1 TEST OBJECTIVES
The objective of experimental design is to develop a protocol to acquire
data for use in determining if a particular technology is a feasible alterna-
tive for the remediation of a Superfund site. More specifically, the experi-
ment v/ill determine if and how the results vary according to waste matrix,
contaminant concentrations, and any process conditions tested.
The quality and usefulness of the data collected depends almost entirely
on the soundness of the experimental design. Proper experimental design is
often more important than sophisticated statistical analysis. Although the
results of a well-designed experiment can often be amply demonstrated on a
simple graph, even the most sophisticated statistical analysis cannot rescue
data from a poorly planned experiment.
4.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: TIERED APPROACH
The experimental design for the pre-ROD treatability studies can be
divided into two tiers: screening and more detailed bench-scale studies.
The screening studies would entail the evaluation of many variables at a low
level of QA/QC and replication (Category IV or less) and would be associated
with technologies that exhibit very limited performance data. Variables to
be tested could include numerous operational and performance parameters,
4-1
-------
various percentages of additives in the case of materials addition, and var-
ious types of solids materials when feed streams to unit operations or treat-
ment trains from any one site will be variable. Tier one treatability studies
would provide a gross screening of the efficacy of various technologies being
considered as techniques to remedy problems at Superfund sites and would tend
to more specifically focus the subsequent work to be performed under tier
two.
If tier one treatability studies indicated potentially successful per-
formance, a tier two study would be conducted. Tier one may be deleted
entirely if the technology under investigation has an intermediate level of
past performance data and history. Tier two studies would be far more fo-
cused than tier one treatability studies with a limited test plan matrix
aimed at addressing critical operational or performance parameters that were
identified in tier one. Some potential critical parameters are temperature,
residence time, additive amount, and throughput rate. In addition to data on
target removal concentrations for a particular unit operation or treatment
train, data would be collected to allow conceptualization of pre- and post-
treatment waste management, management of side streams, and intermediate or
linking units between unit operations in a treatment train (e.g., holding
tanks, piping, gauging, sizing units). This would be done in order to ensure
that the main operation or treatment train can be practically scaled up to a
meaningful pilot unit. In the case where a pilot-scale unit already exists,
it would confirm that the unit was properly designed and configured, and that
the pilot-scale testing would encounter a minimum amount of problems once
such testing began. The level of QA/QC associated with this type of testing
would be somewhere between Category III and Category II.
4-2
-------
A possible third tier would consist of evaluating physical handling
parameters and assessing the treatment of waste streams. With some fore-
thought, the waste streams from tier two could be saved for potential testing
in tier three, thus eliminating the need to conduct the experiments again for
the sole purpose of generating residual waste streams for this latter tier.
In any case, all tiers must be at least conceptually planned from the begin-
ning, since consideration of the requirements for later testing may initiate
some modifications to the earlier phases of testing.
4.3 STATISTICAL DESIGN
According to the Kirk-Othmer entry "Design of Experiments," "statis-
tically planned experiments are characterized by 1) the proper consideration
of extraneous variables; 2) the fact that primary variables are changed
together, rather than one at a time, in order to obtain information about the
magnitude and nature of the interactions of interest and to gain improved
precision in the final estimates; and 3) built-in procedures for measuring
the various sources of random variation and for obtaining a valid measure of
experimental error."
The goal in conducting an experiment is to evaluate the effect of some
variables on other variables. To do this, a limited number of variables are
changed per experiment and the result on the system measured. Independent
variables are changed by design in the experiment or are properties of the
waste matrix, while dependent variables fluctuate as a result of varying the
independent variables. Examples of the independent variables that may change
or be changed in an experiment are reaction time, reagent addition, waste
concentration, pH, temperature, and liquid-to-solid ratio. Examples of
4-3
-------
dependent variables are the concentration in the treated stream (i.e, process
residuals), concentration in an extract (of the TCLP, EP, MWEP, or MEP) if an
extraction procedures is used for technology performance assessment, or
concentration in a secondary media (i.e., the media that is used to contact
the waste stream; this media will usually be the waste stream resulting from
the process).
Background variables are those that are not of primary interest in the
experiment but cannot be be held constant. Examples include deviations
resulting from conducting an experiment over several days or from using
different laboratory technicians. Uncontrolled variables are those variables
that affect the experiment but cannot be controlled, such as ambient condi-
tions. Both background and uncontrolled variables should be accounted for as
much as possible if the importance of the data so warrants.
Numerous formal statistical methods exist for designing experiments:
several references are listed in the Kirk-Othmer entry on "Design of Experi-
ments." One of the more common designs in treatability studies is the fac-
torial design, which involves changing factors simultaneously rather than
independently to assess the interactions among variables and to obtain the
maximum degree of precision in the results. In complete factorial plans, all
combinations of.conditions of the independent variables are run. For
example, 3 variables evaluated at 4 conditions each would results in 3 x 4 =
12 conditions to be tested. (With triplicate runs, this could result in 12 x
3 = 36 test runs.) A fractional factorial design may be used to reduce the
4-4
-------
total number of test conditions by selecting only a portion of the 12 condi-
tions to test.
Replication is usually done in some form in a treatability study and
involves collecting repeat information to assess precision. The following
list presents methods of collecting three types of repeat information:
0 Taking replicate measurements of the same experimental unit.
0 Dividing a sample in half or in thirds at the end of the experiment
and obtaining a reading (e.g., analytical result) on each fraction.
0 Taking readings on two (or three) samples prepared independently of
one another at the same target conditions.
In deciding the amount and type of replication, the importance of the
data to be collected and the cost associated with replication must be consid-
ered and, if necessary, weighed against one another. The amount of replica-
tion may depend on which phase of the treatability study is being conducted.
The tier-one screening study consists of relatively low QA objectives, and
may be conducted using duplicates or, in some case, no replication. The
tier-two focused study will generally be characterized by the use of tripli-
cates. It is important to note, however, that many legitimate compromises
with cost can be made. Triplicate analyses or experiments could be conducted
at some conditions only to assess the precision of the method, and single or
duplicate analyses or experiments could be conducted at other conditions to
fill in these points on a graph. It is suggested that end points (e.g., the
lowest and highest temperatures tested) receive the most replication, with
mid points receiving less.
4.4 TEST PARAMETERS
Pre-ROD bench-scale studies are focused on feasibility rather than on
optimization of process conditions. Rather than optimizing all parameters,
4-5
-------
the bench-scale study focuses on identifying the key parameters that affect
the performance of the system and determining the broad range of these param-
eters that potentially could provide the best system performance. These
parameters can then be optimized in pilot-scale testing.
All treatability studies do not necessarily contain a statistical design
because of cost constraints, or because the use of the data does not justify
a high QA category. Different situations (cost, time, number of potentially
feasible alternatives) will call for the use of different levels of statis-
tical design. In general, three options exist for experimental methodology:
1) Testing can be conducted at standard operating conditions if these
conditions are well defined. This option may be desirable when the
use of more conservative conditions would make the process uneco-
nomical compared with other alternatives. This option may also be
possible for a very well-defined process that has a demonstrated
performance record on a site with similar characteristics as the
current site of interest.
2) Testing can be conducted at conservative conditions, such as long
residence times for chemical reactions, relatively high tempera-
tures for incineration and thermal desorption, and high pH for
chemical precipitation. One disadvantage of this option is that
conservative conditions on a large scale are often very costly, and
thus, scale-up from a bench-scale study using conservative condi-
tions would indicate an expensive alternative. If other, less
conservative conditions are not tested, the resulting data could
not be extrapolated to lower costs.
The disadvantage with these two options is that testing only one
value of a variable provides no indication of the effect of that
variable on the overall performance of the system. The resulting
data would not indicate if the system was at equilibrium, or if
different variables would give better results. For example, sup-
pose a chemical treatment process destroyed 90 percent of a contam-
inant at a particular reagent ratio and reaction time, but the
cleanup goals for the site are 95 percent destruction. Without
tests at other reagent ratios and reaction times, the data give no
clues about the possibilities that more reagent or longer reaction
times would give better results of if, on the other hand, 90
percent destruction is the best achievable result. Thus, any
conclusions drawn from such experiments are hypothetical and
tentative at best.
4-6
-------
3) Testing can also be conducted at different values for select vari-
ables over a wide range of conditions to determine if that variable
has an effect on treatment effectiveness. The goal is not to
optimize the process conditions, but to identify the critical
parameters and to determine how they affect the system. One method
that may be useful for technologies for which some information is
available is to "bracket" a value determined from the literature.
For example, the literature may indicate a reaction time of 30
minutes is generally sufficient for the destruction of a particular
compound by a particular process. Testing could be conducted at
15, 30, and 60 minutes to obtain sufficient data to indicate how
reaction time affects the performance of the system. A graph of
contaminant concentration versus time would indicate if and when
the system reached equilibrium. If the performance standard was
not met for any of the reaction times, an extrapolation of the
graph would give a rough idea if the performance standard could be
met for any residence time. The advantage of such an approach is
that the data will indicate both whether the system can meet the
performance standard under the existing conditions (or extrapolated
to more stringent conditions) and whether less stringent conditions
could be used to reduce the cost of the process. Treatability
tests should be conducted at different times under the same identi-
cal conditions; if results are widely variable, then the critical
parameters have not been identified.
A real-world experimental design will usually contain compromises
between rigorous statistical design and costs. Standard operating conditions
obtained from the literature and experience can be used as a starting point,
with a statistical experiment planned around these conditions.
The necessity of conducting all experimentation at one time rather than
in stages needs to be addressed in the experimental design. For some
technologies and treatability studies, it may be appropriate and possible to
conduct experiments in stages so that only one variable is assessed per
stage. The results of this stage could be used to modify the design for
future stages. Disadvantages of this approach include the time required to
wait for results before continuing with the experiment, and the inability to
assess the interaction between two variables.
4-7
-------
4.5 VOLUMES
One of the purposes of a bench-scale test is the ability to use smaller
volumes of waste and reagents, thus reducing handling and equipment costs.
In general, the smaller the volume, the lower the total cost of the project.
However, the larger the quantity of waste used for any given test run, the
greater the chance of obtaining a sample representative of the total amount
of waste collected from the site. These two factors must be balanced against
one another. An additional consideration is that sufficient residual mate-
rial must be generated to allow for all analyses and subsequent treatment
processes.
The volume needed will be dependent on the experiment planned. It is
suggested that for solids and sludges, a minimum of 100 grams dry weight of
waste per unit process be used as a starting point. The total amount needed
per test run can easily reach several pounds.
4.6 EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, AND REAGENTS
The equipment, materials, and reagents used in the bench-scale treata-
bility studies should meet the following criteria:
0 Commercially available
° Low capital costs
0 Easy to handle, install, and dispose
For many treatability tests, inexpensive equipment such as jars,
beakers, bottles and flasks will suffice. This will enable the assessment of
a large number of independent variables.
4-8
-------
4.7 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
Iri the performance of treatability studies, standard operating proce-
dures (SOPs) must be developed. SOPs are written by the vendor or principal
investigator for personnel to follow in the use of equipment and experimental
procedures. The SOP should contain information in sufficient detail that the
experiment can be reproduced at another time by different personnel. The SOP
should contain sections on the necessary equipment and a step-by-step list
containing the detailed procedures to be followed.
4.8 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The discussion so far has been primarily limited to evaluating the
technology with respect to its ability to meet the performance criteria for
the site, although testing at a range of variables may also allow some eco-
nomic estimates to be made. Experiments may also need to be designed to
determine other aspects of the overall feasibility of the system, including
physical handling and management of side streams or byproducts. This can be
done in conjunction with other bench-scale tests or as separate tests.
Results may be needed from at least the screening phase to be able to design
an experimental program. Physical handling includes factors such as screen-
ing the incoming waste, ability to filter any solutions, type of mixing, and
pumpability.
4-9
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of sampling and analysis is to determine the effectiveness
of a particular screening technology in treating the waste feed under the
conditions specified in Section 4. To determine the effectiveness of the
treatment technology, samples of the raw feed, effluent (if applicable), and
process residuals (e.g., offgas, scrubber water, ash, sludge, slag, scale,
etc.) should be collected. Data collected at each of these locations will
provide the investigator with the information necessary to determine the
destruction or removal efficiency of the treatment technology.
The frequency of sample collection is dependent upon a number of fac-
tors. Some of these factors include the specific technology, duration of the
run, number of runs, cost, equipment limitations, volume of waste feed, and
program directives. Other factors that should be considered in establishing
a sampling frequency include the mode of operation (continuous or batch)
collection of temporally related samples, physical limitations, and time
constraints.
Available sampling methods will be limited as a result of the small
scale of operation (usually bench-scale) and limited access to sampling
ports. In many cases, sampling may simply involve placing a sample container
under a sampling port and filling the bottle; in the case of in situ vitrifi-
cation, however, pilot-scale sampling may require the services of a drill rig
to obtain a core sample of the vitrified waste. Attachment 5-1 lists sources
of information on various sampling procedures.
5-1
-------
Proper application of containers and preservatives is critical to main-
taining the intergrity of environmental samples. Containers used in the
collection of environmental samples are constructed of plastic polyethylene
(or equivalent) or glass, depending on the arialytes of interest. Methods of
preservation ere intended to retard biological action, retard hydrolysis of
chemical compounds and complexes, reduce volatility of constituents, and
reduce absorption effects. Preservation methods are generally limited to pH
control, chemical addition, refrigeration and freezing. Attachments 5-2, 5-3
and 5-4 are sample preservation tables from SW-846, Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, and Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. These tables indicate for each analyte the specified
container, the preservation technique, and the maximum holding time. Minimum
sample volumes are also indicated in the latter two references.
Chain-of-custody procedures related to samples collected for laboratory
analysis are initiated by the field crew. The purpose of these procedures is
to document the identity of each sample and its handling, from collection
until completion of all laboratory analyses. Attachment 5-5 provides an
example of a chain-of-custody form. In addition to the form, chain-of-cus-
tody seals are required on individual sample bottles and/or sample coolers.
Special attention must be paid to the proper labeling and shipping of
samples from the standpoint of safety to all handlers, as well as to maintain
the integrity of the samples. Labels should be completed with all pertinent
information (site, location, date, time, media, sample type, sample location,
5-2
-------
preservative, name of sampler, and sample identification number) and securely
fixed to the sample bottles (use gummed labels and apply cellophane tape
completely around bottle). After properly labeling bottles and securing the
lids to the bottles with standard electrical tape, the bottles should be
placed in the cooler lid-side up and the cooler packed with vermiculite (for
liquid or semisolid samples) and ice (or blue ice). After placing the chain-
of-custody papers on the underside of the cooler lid, the cooler should be
sealed with filament tape. The hazard associated with the samples should be
determined and the proper labels affixed to the cooler. Attachment 5-6
contains several DOT bulletins and guides on hazardous materials shipments.
Samples should be shipped by overnight courier (e.g., Federal Express Pri-
ority 1) so that samples can be logged into the laboratory and placed in
refrigerated storage. Also, in the interest of meeting analytical holding
times (e.g. 24 hours) the samples should be shipped to the laboratory as soon
as possible.
The EPA requires that all sample preparation and analyses be conducted
in accordance with the methods available in SW-846. If SW-846 (3rd edition)
methods are not available for a particular compound or compositional para-
meter, the method to be used must be cited. Furthermore, any deviations from
SW-846 methods should be fully documented in the treatability report. Attach-
ment 5-7 lists sources of information on analytical methods.
5-3
-------
ATTACHMENT 5-1
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
1. U.S. EPA, Samplers and Sampling Procedures For Hazardous Waste Streams,
EPA-600/2-80-018, January 1980.
2. U.S. EPA, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846, Third
Edition, September 1986.
3. U.S. EPA, Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation of Water and
Wastewater, EPA-600/4-82-029, September 1982.
4. U.S. EPA, Sampling and Analysis Methods for Hazardous Waste Combustion,
EPA-600/8-84-002, February 1984.
5. National Water Well Association, Manual of Ground-Water Sampling
Procedures, EPA-600/2-81-160, September 1981.
6. U.S. EPA, Handbook - Groundwater, EPA-625/6-87-016, March 1987.
7. Katz, M., Methods of Air Sampling and Analysis, Second Edition, 1977.
8. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods.
9. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Methods.
-------
ATTACHMENT 5-2. SAMPLE PRESERVATION
TABLE 2-16. REQUIRED QONTAINERS, PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES, AND HOLDEC TIMES
Nax
Container
Preservation
Maxinui holding time
Bacterial Tests:
ODlifono, fecal and total F, G
Fecal streptococci P, C
Inorganic Tests:
Acidity P, G
Alkalinity P, G
Amcnia P, G
Biochemical oxygen demand P, G
Bromide P, G
Biochemical oxygen denand, P, G
carbonaceous
Qcmical oxygen demand P, G
Chloride P, G
Oilorine, total residual P, G
Color P, G
Cyanide, total and amenable P, G
to chlorination
Fluoride P
Hardness P, G
tydrogen ion (pH) P, G
KJeldahl and organic P, G
nitrogen
Metals:
Oiromiun VI P, G
Mercury P, G
fetals, except chromiun VI P, G
and mercury
Nitrate P, G
Nitrate-nitrite P, G
Nitrite P, G
Oil and grease G
Organic carbon P, G
Cool, 4*C, 0.00® Na-SjOL
Cool, 4*C, 0JX)82 Na^G^
Orthoptosphate
Ocyger, Dissolved Probe
Wrider
Rsnols
Phosphorus (elfnmtal)
Piosphorus, total
Residue, total
Residue, Filterable
Residue, Nonfllterable (TSS) P,
tesldue, Settleable P,
Residue, volatile P,
Silica P
Specific conductance P,
P, G
G Bottle and top
do
G only
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
P,
P,
P,
Cool, 4"C
Cool, 4*C
Cool, 4"C, ILSO, to pH<2
Cool, 4*C "
None required
Cool, 4#C
Cool, 48C, tLS04 to ptK2
None required "*
None required
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C, SaOH to pr€>12,
0.6g ascorbic acid
None required
tt'JQj to pH<2, H^SO^ to pH<2
None required
Cool, 4#C, l^SO, to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
mo to pHC
to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C, JLSO. to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C, ILSO to pH<2
Cool, 4°C, 1C or H2SOa to
piK2
Filter immediately, cool, 4*C
None required
Fix on site and store in dark
Cool, 4°C, ILSO to j*K2
Cool, 4"C L
Cool, 4°C, ILSO, to pHQ
Cool, 4°C "
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4'C
Cool, 4*C
Cool, 4#C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4#C
6 hours
6 hours
14 days
14 days
28 days
48 hours
28 days
48 hours
28 days
28 days
Analyze immediately
48 hours
14 days
28 days
6 months
Analyze immediately
28 days
24 hours
28 days
6 months
48 hours
26 days
48 hours
28 days
28 days
48 hours
Analyze imnediately
8 hours
28 days
48 hours
28 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
48 hours
7 days
28 days
28 davs
TWO - 31
Source: U.S. EPA, SW-846, 3rd ed.
Revision 0
Date September l98o
-------
TABLE 2-16. REQUIRED CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES, AND HOLDLC TI!€S (OXTINIZD)
Naae
Container
Preservation
ftaxi-ajn holding tine
Sulfate
P,
G
Sulfide
P.
G
Sulfice
P.
G
Surf ac Can cs
P,
G
Taupe ra Cure
P,
G
Hirbidity
P.
C
Organic Tests:
Purgeable Halocarbons
G,
Teflon-lined
septus
P-irgaable arcmatic
C,
Teflon-lined
hydrocarbons
septus
ytrolein and acrylonitrile
G,
Teflon-lined
septus
Phenols
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
Benzidines
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
Phthalate esters
c,
Teflon-lined
cap
Nitrosarnines
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
PCBs, acrylonitrile
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
Nitroaroraatics and
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
isophorone
Iblynuclear aromatic
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
hydrocarbons
teloethers
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
TCDD
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
Total organic halogens
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
Pesticides Tests:
Pesticides
G,
Teflon-lined
cap
Radiological Tests:
Alpha, beta and radius
P.
G
Cool, 4°C 28 days
Cool, 4°C, add zinc acetate 7 days
plus sod ion hydroxide Co pH>9
None required
Cool, 4®C
None required
Cool, 4*C
Cool, 4#C, 0.0082
Cool, 4eC, 0.00K NtS-Qj,
HQ to pffi
Cool, 4°C, 0.00®. Sa,S <1,
fcijust pH to 4-5
Cool, 4#C, store in dark.,
0.0082 Na,S,a
Cool, 4#C 1 1
Cool, 4°C, 0jX8T; Na^Q,
store In dark
Cool, 4#C, 0.00£ Na^Oj
store in dark
Cool, 4°C, 0.00K Na,S,CL
Cool, 4#C 1 1 J
Cool, 4°C, 0.008% Na»S,0,
Cool, 4°C, H,S0 to pH"<2
Cool, 4°C, pH 5-9
HNQj to pHQ
Analyze iaraedlately
48 hours
Analyze
48 i ours
14 days
14 days
14 days
7 days until extraction,
40 days after extraction
7 days until extraction
7 days in til extraction
40 days after extract!or
40 days after extraction
40 days after extraction
40 days after extraction
40 days after extraction
40 days after extraction
40 days after extraction
40 days after extraction
40 days after extraction
6 months
1
Polyethylene (P) or Glass (G)
TWO - 32
Revision 0
Dace September 198t>
-------
ATTACHMENT 5-3. SAMPLE PRESERVATION
SAMPLE PRESERVATION
Complete and unequivocal preservation of samples, either domestic sewage, industrial wastes, or
natural waters, is a practical impossibility. Regardless of the nature of the sample, complete stability
for every constituent can never be achieved. At best, preservation techniques can only retard the
chemical and biological changes that inevitably continue after the sample is removed from the parent
source. The changes that take place in a sample are either chemical or biological. In the former case,
certain changes occur in the chemical structure of the constituents that are a function of physical
conditions. Metal cations may precipitate as hydroxides or form complexes with other constituents;
cations or anions may change valence states under certain reducing or oxidizing conditions; other
constituents may dissolve or volatilize with the passage of time. Metal cations may also adsorb onto
surfaces (glass, plastic, quartz, etc.), such as, iron and lead. Biological changes taking place in a
sample may change the valence of an element or a radical to a different valence. Soluble constituents
may be converted to organically bound materials in cell structures, or cell lysis may result in release
of cellular material into solution. The well known nitrogen and phosphorus cycles are examples of
biological influence on sample composition. Therefore, as a general rule, it is best to analyze the
samples as soon as possible after collection. This is especially true when the analyte concentration is
expected to be in the low ug/1 range.
Methods of preservation are relatively limited and are intended generally to (1) retard biological
action, (2) retard hydrolysis of chemical compounds and complexes, (3) reduce volatility of
constituents, and (4) reduce absorption effects. Preservation methods are generally limited to pH
control, chemical addition, refrigeration, and freezing.
The recommended preservative for various constituents is given in Table 1. These choices are based
on the accompanying references and on information supplied by various Quality Assurance
Coordinators. As more data become available, these recommended holding times will be adjusted to
reflect new information. Other information provided in the table is an estimation of the volume of
sample required for the analysis, the suggested type of container, and the maximum recommended
holding times for samples properly preserved.
Source: U.S. EPA. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Waster and Wastes,
EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1983.
XV
-------
TABLE 1
RECOMMENDATION FOR SAMPLING AND PRESERVATION
OF SAMPLES ACCORDING TO MEASUREMENT*"
Vol.
Req. Holding
Measurement (ml) Container2 Preservative3,4 Time5
100 Physical Properties
Color 50 P,G
Conductance 100 P,G
Hardness 100 P,G
Odor
pH
Residue
Filterable
Non-
Filterable
Total
Volatile
Settleable Matter
Temperature
Turbidity
200 Metals
Dissolved
Suspended
Total
200
25
100
100
100
100
1000
1000
100
G only
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P.G
P.G
P,G
200 P,G
200
100 P,G
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4"C
HN03 to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
None Req.
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
None Req.
Cool, 4"C
Filter on site
HNOj to pH<2
Filter on site
HN03 to pH<2
48 Hrs.
28 Da> s
6 Mos.
24 Hrs.
Analyze
ImmediaieU
7 Days
7 Days
7 Days
7 Days
48 Hrs.
Analyze
Immediately
48 Hrs.
6 Mos.
6 Mos
6 Mos.
(8)
XVI
-------
TABLE 1 (CONT)
Measurement
Chromium
Mercury
Dissolved
Total
~6
Vol.
Req.
(ml)
200
300 Inorganics, Non-Metallics
Acidity
Alkalinity
Bromide
Chloride
Chlorine
Cyanides
Fluoride
Iodide
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Kjeldahl, Total
Nitrate8
Nitrite
100
100
100
100
50
200
500
Container Preservative
P.G
100 P,G
P,G
P,G
P.G
P.G
P.G
P.G
P.G
300 P,G
100 P,G
400 P,G
500 P,G
Nitrate plus Nitrite 100 P,G
3.4
100
50
P.G
P.G
Cool, 4°C
Filler
HNOj to pH < 2
HN03 to pH<2
Cool.4°C
Cool, 4°C
None Req
None Req.
None Req.
Cool, 4°C
NaOH to pH >12
0.6s ascorbic acid6
None Req.
Cool, 4°C
Coo!,4°C
HjSO< to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool, 4"C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool. 4'C
Cool, 4"C
Holding
Time5
24 Hrs.
28 Days
28 Days
14 Days
14 Day s
28 Days
28 Days
Analyze
Immediaiely
14 Days7
28 Days
24 Hrs.
28 Days
28 Days
28 Days
48 Hrs.
48 Hrs.
Xvii
-------
Measurement
Dissolved Oxygen
Probe
Winkler
Phosphorus
Ortho-
phosphate,
Dissolved
Hydrolyzable
Total
Total,
Dissolved
Silica
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sulfite
400 Organics
BOD
COD
Oil & Grease
Organic carbon
Phenolics
TABLE 1 (CONT)
Vol.
Req. Holding
(ml) Container2 Preservative3,4 Time5
300
300
50
50
50
50
50
50
500
50
(» botile .mil lop None Req.
C, bottle and top Fix on sin
and stoic
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P only
P,G
P,G
P,G
in daik
Filter on site
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
H2SO„ to pH < 2
Cool, 4°C
H2S04 to pH < 2
Filter on site
Cool, 4°C
H2S04 to pH < 2
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool. 4°C
;idd 2 ml /m<
areiale plus XaOH
to pH >9
None Req.
Analy/e
Immediately
8 Hours
48 Hrs
28 Da\s
28 Days
24 Hrs.
28 Days
28 Days
7 Davs
Analyze
Immediately
1000
50
1000
25
500
P,G
P,G
G only
P.G
G only
Cool, 4°C 48 Hrs.
Cool, 4°C 28 Days
H2S04 to pH < 2
Cool, 4°C 28 Days
H;S04 to pH < 2
Cool, 4°C 28 Days
H2S04 or HC1 to pH<2
Cool, 4°C 28 Days
HjSO^ to pH <2
xviii
-------
TABLE 1 (CONT)
Vol.
Req.
Measurement (ml) Container2 Preservative3,4
Holding
Time5
MBAS
250 P,G
Cool, 4°C
48 His.
NT A
50 P,G
Cool, 4°C
24 Hrs.
1. More specific instructions for preservation and sampling are found with each procedure as
detailed in this manual. A general discussion on sampling water and industrial wastewater may
be found in ASTM, Part 31, p. 72-82 (1976) Method D-3370.
2. Plastic (P) or Glass (G). For metals, polyethylene with a polypropylene cap (no liner) is
preferred.
3. Sample preservation should be performed immediately upon sample collection. Foi
composite samples each aliquot should be preserved at the time of collection. When use of
an automated sampler makes it impossible to preserve each aliquot, then samples may be
preserved by mainvaining at 4°C until compositing and sample splitting is completed.
4. When am sample is to be shipped by common carrier or sent through the United States
Mails, it must comply with the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials
Regulations (49 CFR Part 172). The person offering such material for transportation is
responsible for ensuring such compliance. For the preservation requirements of Table 1,
the Office of Hazardous Materials, Materials Transportation Bureau, Department of
Transportation has determined that the Hazardous Materials Regulations do not apply to
the following materials: Hydrochloric acid (HC1) in water solutions at concentrations of
0.04% by weight or less(pH about 1.96 or greater); Nitrie acid (HNO3) in water solutions at
concentrations of 0.15% by weight or less (pH about 1.62 or greater); Sulfuric acid (H2SO4)
in watei solutions at concentrations of 0.35% by weight or less (pH about 1.15 or greater);
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in water solutions at concentrations of 0.080% by weight or
less (pH about 12.30 or less).
5. Samples should be analyzed as soon as possible after collection. The times listed are the
maximum times that samples may be held before analysis and still considered valid.
Samples ma\ be held for longer periods only if the permittee, or monitoring laboratory,
has data on file to show that the specific types of sample under study are stable for the
longer time, and has received a variance from the Regional Administrator. Some samples
may not be stable for the maximum rime period given in the table. A permittee, or
monitoring laboratory, is obligated to hold the sample for a shorter time if knowledge
exists to show this is necessary to maintain sample stability.
6. Should only be used in the presence of residual chlorine.
xix
-------
7. Maximum holding time is 2-4 hours when sulfide is present. Optionally, nil samples may
be tested with le;id ac elate paper before the pH adjustment 111 order to determine if sulfide
is piesent. 11 sullide is pieseni, it ran 1m- removed by the addition ol cadmium nitrate
powdei until a negative spot test is obtained The sample is filtered and then NaOH is
added to pH 12.
8. Samples should be filtered immediately on-site before adding preservative for dissolved
metals.
9. Koi samples fiom non-t hloi inaied drinking watei supplies rone. H2SO4 should be added
to louei sample pH to less than 2. The sample should be analyzed before 14 days.
xx
-------
ATTACHMENT 5-4. SAMPLE
Table 105 1 Summary of Special Sampling or Handling
PRESERVATION
REQUIREMENTS*
Determination
Container
n i idltV
P. G(B)
Alkalinity
P. G
D
P. G
on
P
mide
P. G
Carbon, organic, total
G
bon dioxide
P. G
D
P, G
Chlonne, residual
P. G
onne dioxide
P, G
lorophyll
P, G
or
P. G
Conductivity
P. G
^anide
Total
P. G
Amenable to chlonnation
P, G
Fluonde
P
case and oil
G, wide-mouth
calibrated
rdness
P, G
Iodine
P, G
Metals, general
P(A), G(A)
Chromium VI
P(A). G 12. refrigerate in
dark
Add 100 mg Na,S;0,/L
None required
Add H,SO, to pH <2. refrigerate
Add HNO, to pH < 2
Analyze immediately
For dissolved metals filter immediately,
add HNO, to pH < 2
Refrigerate
Add HNO, to pH <2, 4*C
Analyze as soon as possible or add
H,SO, to pH <2, refrigerate
Maximum
Storage
Recommended /
Regulatory t
24 h/14 d
24 h/14 d
6 h/48 h
28 d/28 d
28 d/28 d
7 d/28 d
7 d/28 d
0.5 h/2 h
0.5 h/2 h
30 d/—
48 h/48 h
28 d/28 d
24 h/14 d
28 d/28 d
28 d/28 d
6 months/6 months
0 5 h/—
6 months/6 months
24 h/48 h
28 d/28 d
7 d/28 d
Nitrale
titrate + nitnte
Nitrite
)rganic, Kjeldahl
or
;anic compounds
Pesticides
Phenols
"urgeables by purge
and trap
Oxygen, dissolved
Electrode
Winkler
Ozone
ftp ha le
Salinity
ca
dge digester gas
ids
Sulfate
te
. -nperature
Turbidity
P. G
P. G
P, G
P, G
G
G(S), TFE-lined
cap
P. G
G, TFE-lined
cap
G, BOD bottle
G
P, G
CHA)
G, wax ml
P
G, gas bottle
P. G
P. G
P. G
G
P. G
P. G
'00 Analyze as soon as possible or
refrigerate, or freeze at — 20"C
200 Add H,SO, to pH <2, refrigerate
100 Analyze as soon as possible or
refrigerate, or freeze at — 20"C
500 Refrigerate, add HjSO. to pH < 2
500 Analyze as soon as possible, refrigerate
— Refrigerate, add 100 mg Na,S20,/L if
residual chlorine present
'00 Refngerate, add H,SO. to pH < 2
50 Refngerate, add 100 mg Na^Oj/L if
residual chlorine present
300
Analyze immediately
Titration may be delayed after
acidification
1000 Analyze immediately
— Analyze immediately
'00 For dissolved phosphate filter
immediately, refngerate; freeze at
-10*C
240 Analyze immediately or use wax seal
— Refngerate, do not freeze
— Refngerate
— Refngerate
'00 Refngerate, add 4 drops 2A' zinc
acetate/100 mL
S00 Analyze as soon as possible, refrigerate
— Analyze immediately
— Analyze same day; store in dark up to
24 h
48 h/48 h
none/28 d
none/48 h
7 d/28 d
6 h/—
7 d/7 d
•/28 d
7 d/14 d
0.5 h/1 h
8 h/8 h
0.5 h/—
2 h/2 h
48 h/48 h
6 months/—
28 d/28 d
7 d/7-14 d
28 d/28 d
28 d/28 d
24 h/—
24 h/48 h
- ***? T fti " ft"0 COnUunm' Prefer»bl> ^ngerate during storage and analyze a* soon as possible Refngerate
with^mc £keU!s (P°ty^ylaK: " equ,vmknt)' ° ° « P(A) = rinsed with 1 + 1 HNO,; G(B) = glass, borosil.cate, G(S) = glass, nnsed
Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Rules, Federal Register 44, No. 244, Dec. 18, 1979.
>urce: Standard Methods, 16th ed.
-------
SP^HgSf*1 ATTACHMENT 5-5. CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY FORM R,A Control No.
?rS§oD>S,r>TOM CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
CORPORATION v,n#wn-vr-^«o . w r nc^unu
C/C Control No. J I U14
PROJECT NAME/NUMBER LAB DESTINATION
SAMPLE TEAM MEMBERS CARRIER/WAYBILL NO.
Sample
Number
Sample
Location and Description
Date and Time
Collected
Sample
Type
Container
Type
Condition on Receipt
(Name and Date)
Disposal
Record No
Special Instructions:
Possible Sample Hazards:
SIGNATURES: (Name, Company, Date and Time)
1. Relinquished By: 3 Relinquished By:
Received By: Received by:
2. Relinquished By: 4. Relinquished By:
Received By: Received By:
WHITE ¦ To accompany samples
YELLOW - Field copy
-------
ATTACHMENT 5-6. SAMPLE SHIPPING INFORMATION haz-59
215.2001
DOT INFORMATION BULLETINS ON HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGULATIONS
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DEFINITIONS
The following definitions have been abstracted from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49-Transportation,
Parts 100 to 177. Refer to the referenced sections for complete details. NOTE: Rulemaking proposals are
outstanding or are contemplated concerning some of these definitions.
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL — Means a substance or material which has been determined by the Secretary
of Transportation to be capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported
in commerce, and which has been so designated. (Sec. 171.8)
MULTIPLE HAZARDS — A material meeting the definition of more than one hazard class is classed according
to the sequence given in Sec. 173.2.
HAZARD CLASS
DEFINITIONS
An Explosive — Any chemical compound, mixture, or device, the primary or common
purpose of which is to function by explosion, i.e., with substantially instantaneous
release of gas and heat, unless such compound, mixture, or device is otherwise
specifically classified in Parts 170-177. (Sec. 173.50)
CLASS A
Detonating or otherwise of maximum hazard. The nine types of Class A explosives
EXPLOSIVE
are defined in Sec. 173.53.
CLASS B
In general, function by rapid combustion rather than detonation and include some
EXPLOSIVE
explosive devices such as special fireworks, flash powders, etc., Flammable hazard.
(Sec. 173.88)
CLASS C
Certain types of manufactured articles containing Class A or Class B explosives, or
EXPLOSIVE
both, as components but in restricted quantities, and certain types of fireworks.
Minimum hazard. (Sec. 173.100)
BLASTING
A material designed for blasting which has been tested in accordance with Sec.
AGENTS
173.114a(b) and found to be so insensitive that there is very little probability of
accidental initiation to explosion or of transition from deflagration to detonation (Sec.
173.114a(a))
COMBUSTIBLE
Any liquid having a flash point above 100°F. and below 200°F. as determined by tests
LIQUID
listed in Sec. 173.115(d). Exceptions are found in Sec. 173.115(b).
CORROSIVE
Any liquid or solid that causes visible destruction of human skin tissue or a liquid that
MATERIAL
has a severe corrosion rate on steel. (See Sec. 173.240(a) and (b) for details)
FLAMMABLE
Any liquid having a flash point below 100°F. as determined by tests listed in Sec.
LIQUID
173.115(d). For exceptions, see Sec. 173.115(a).
8-27-82
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
5
-------
215:2002
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
HAZARD CLASS
DEFINITIONS
Pyroforic Liquid — Any liquid that ignites spontaneously in dry or moist air at or
below 130° F. (Sec. J73 115(c))
Compressed Gas — Any material or mixture having in the container a pressure
exceeding 40 psia at 70° F., or a pressure exceeding 104 psia at 130°F.; or any liquid
flammable material having a vapor pressure exceeding 40 psia at 100°F. (Sec.
173.300(a)
FLAMMABLE
Any compressed gas meeting the requirements for lower flammability limit, fiamma-
GAS
bility limit range, flame projection, or flame propagation criteria as specified in Sec.
173.300(b).
NONFLAMMABLE
Any compressed gas other than a flammable compressed gas.
GAS
FLAMMABLE
Any solid material, other than an explosive, which is liable to cause fires through
SOLID
friction, retained heat from manufacturing or processing, or which can be ignited
readily and when ignited bums so vigorously and persistently as to create a serious
transportation hazard. (Sec. 173.ISO)
ORGANIC
An organic compound containing the bivalent -O-O structure and which may be
PEROXIDE
considered a derivative of hydrogen peroxide where one or more of the hydrogen
atoms have been replaced by organic radicals must be classed as an organic peroxide
unless — (See Sec. 173.151(a) for details)
OXIDIZER
A substance such as chlorate, permanganate, inorganic peroxide, or a nitrate, that
yields oxygen readily to stimulate the combustion of organic matter. (See Sec. 173.151)
POISON A
Extremely Dangerous Poisons — Poisonous gases or liquids of such nature that a very
small amount of the gas, or vapor of the liquid, mixed with air is dangerous to life.
(Sec. 173.326)
POISON B
Less Dangerous Poisons — Substances, liquids, or solids (includinR pastes and semi-
solids), other than Class A or Irritating materials, which are known to be so toxic to
man as to afford a hazard to health during transportation; or which, in the absence of
adequate data on human toxicity, are presumed to be toxic to man. (Sec. 173.343)
IRRITATING
A liquid or solid substance which upon contact with fire or when exposed to air gives
MATERIAL
off dangerous or intensely irritating fumes, but not including any poisonous material,
Class A. (Sec. 173.38H
ETIOLOGIC
An "etiologjc agent" means a viable micro-organism, or its toxin which causes or may
AGENT
cause human disease. (Sec. 173.386)
RADIOACTIVE
Any material, or combination of materials, that spontaneously emits ionizing radia-
MATERIAL
tion, and having a specific activity greater than 0.002 microcuries per gram. (Sec.
173.389) NOTE: See Sec. 173.389(a) through (1) for details.
Chemical Regulation Reporter
-------
DOT INFORMATION BULLETINS
HAZ-59
2152003
HAZARD CLASS DEFINITIONS
ORM-OTHER (I) Any material that may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property
REGULATED when transported in commerce; and (2) Does not meet any of the definitions of the
MATERLALS other hazard classes specified; or (3) Has been reclassed an ORM (specifically or
permissively) according to this subchapter (Sec. 173.500(a)]
NOTE: A material with a flashpoint of 100°F. to 200°F. may not be classed as an
ORM if it is a hazardous waste or is offered in a packaging having a rated capacity of
more than 110 gallons.
ORM-A A material which has an anesthetic, irritating, noxious, toxic, or other similar property
and which can cause extreme annoyance or discomfort to passengers and crew in the
event of leakage during transportation. (Sec. 173.500(b)(1))
ORM-B A material (including a solid when wet with water) capable of causing significant
damage to a transport vehicle or vessel from leakage during transportation. Materials
meeting one or both of the following criteria are ORM-B materials: (i) A liquid sub-
stance that has a corrosion rate exceeding 0.250 inch per year (IPY) on aluminum
(nonclad 7075-T6) at a test temperature of 130°F. An acceptable test is described in
NACE Standard TM—01-69, and (ii) Specifically designated by name in Sec. 172.101.
(Sec. 173.500(b)(2))
ORM-C A material which has other inherent characteristics not described as an ORM-A or
ORM-B but which make it unsuitable for shipment, unless properly identified and
prepared for transportation. Each ORM-C material is specifically named in Sec.
172.101. (Sec. 173.500(b)(3))
ORM-D A material such as a consumer commodity which, though otherwise subject to the
regulations of this subchapter, presents a limited hazard during transportation due to
its form, quantity and packaging. They must be materials for which exceptions are
provided in Sec. 172.101. A shipping description applicable to each ORM-D material
or category of ORM-D materials is found in Sec. 172.101. (Sec. 173.500(b)(4))
ORM-E
A material that is not included in any other hazard class, but is subject to the require-
ments of this subchapter. Materials in this class include (i) Hazardous wastes and
(ii) Hazardous substances as defined in Sec. 171.8 (Sec. 173.500(b)(5)]
THE FOLLOWING ARE OFFERED TO EXPLAIN ADDITIONAL TERMS USED IN PREPARATION OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FOR SHIPMENT. (Sec. 171.8)
CONSUMER
COMMODITY
(See ORM-D)
Means a material that is packaged or distributed in a form intended and suitable for
sale through retail sales agencies or instrumentalities for consumption by individuals
for purposes of personal care or household use. This term also includes drugs and
medicines. (Sec. 171.8)
FLASH POINT
Means the minimum temperature at which a substance gives off flammable vapors
which in contact with a spark or flame will ignite. For liquids, see Sec. 173.115; for
solids, see Sec. 173.150.
8-27-82
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
7
-------
215:2004
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
FORBIDDEN Means that the material is prohibited from being offered or accepted for transporta-
tion. NOTE: This prohibition does not apply if these materials are diluted, stabilized,
or incorporated in devices and they are classed in accordance with the definitions of
hazardous materials. [Sec. 172.101(d)(1)]
HAZARDOUS For transportation purposes, means a material, and its mixtures or solutions, that is
SUBSTANCES identified by the letter "E" in Column 2 of the Hazardous Materials Table to Sec.
172.101 when offered for transportation in one package, or in one transport vehicle if
not packaged, and when the quantity of the material therein equals or exceeds the
reportable quantity (RQ). For details, refer to Sec. 171.8 and Sec. 172.101. Hazardous
Materials table.
HAZARDOUS For transportation purposes, means any material that is subject to the hazardous waste
WASTES manifest requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency in CFR, Title 40, Part
123, Chapter F. (Sec. 171.8) For details on the Hazardous Waste and Consolidated
Permit Regulations, refer to CFR, Title 40, Pans 260-267 and Parts 122-125. Ques-
tions regarding these regulations, call Toll Free: (800) 424-9346 or (202) 554-1404.
LIMITED Means the maximum amount of a hazardous material; as specified in those sections
QUANTITY applicable to the particular hazard class, for which there are specific exceptions from
the requirements of this subchapter. See Sec. 173.118, 173.118a, 173.153, 173.244,
173.306, 173.345 and 173.364.
REPORTABLE For transportation purposes, means the quantity of hazardous substance and/or hazar-
QUANTITY dous waste specified in the Hazardous Material Table, Column 2 and identified by the
letter "E" in Column 1. (Sec. 171.8)
SPONTANEOUSLY Means a solid substance (including sludges and pastes) which may undergo spontane-
COMBUSTIBLE ous heating or self-ignition under conditions normally incident to transportation or
MATERIAL which may, upon contact with the atmosphere, undergo an increase in temperature and
(SOLID) ignite. (Sec. 171.8)
WATER REACTIVE Means any solid substance (including sludges and pastes) which, by interaction with
MATERIAL water, is likely to become spontaneously flammable or to give off flammable or toxic
(SOLID) gases in dangerous quantities. (Sec. 171.8)
NOTE: This handout is designed as a training aid for all interested parties who may become involved with hazardous
materials. It does not relieve persons from complying with the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials
Regulations. Final authority for use of these DOT hazard classes and definitions are found in CFR, Title 49, Parts
100 to 177.
Information Services Division, DMT-11
Office of Operations and Enforcement
Materials Transportation Bureau
Research and Special Programs Administration
Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C. 20590
NOTE: This material may be reproduced without special permission from this Bureau and any questions or comments
concerning this handout should be directed to the address above.
Revised February 1981
Chemical Regulation Reporter
-------
DOT INFORMATION BULLETINS
HAZ 37
215:2029
is o*
INDICATORS OF HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SHIPMENT VIOLATIONS
Thi9 is a partial checklist of things which vou as a shipper, container manufacturer, or r.irrnr nu\
use to 6pot check on vnur lompliancc with the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations. As stated it. the
title, these arc indicator1; of violation"; and not necessarily violations in and of t lieinse 1 ve •-.
TSe hazardous materials regulations for shippers are organized in Parts 171, 172, 173, and 178 to
Title 49, CFR, Parts 100-199, as communication regulations and general requirements. When a com-
pliance inspection Is made, document .it ion, marking. labeling and packaging are observed for discre-
pancies. With this checklist as n guide, you may spot check vour own documentation, m.irkii.... Inhal-
ing, and packaging for compliance. This lisi is intended to be used as an aid and ili-fc not covi-r
all aspects of the regulations.
1. CLASSIFICATION AND PROPER SHIPPING NAME
A. Improper classification o( hazardous materials.
B. Failure to classify material having more tnan one hazard.
C. Improper description and/or proper shipping name for mjterinl bi'in,; shippec.
D. Omission of technical name of material following proper shipping nane of msteri.il ofierrd
I I. PACKAGING (CONTAINERS IN GENERAL)
A. Use r»AT ion containers a"t h<-r l zed for the * t <• clipped
B. Use of containers that arc- leaking.
C. Manufacturing and marking containers as meeting a DOT specification when it does not meet
the specification.
D. Packaglngs exceeding maximum quantity limitations for materials.
E. Containers improperly marked.
F. Offering for shipment improperly packaged material.
G. Marking of consignees name omitted froj packaging.
III. CONTAINEkS (H1SCF.1J.A\E0US)
1. Labeled containers (without further overpack) with no DOT specification marking.
(Comnonlv found are 5 gallon 29 RauRe metal pails and 5 gallon rectangular cans.)
2. Containers •>'. hazardous materials witn t*-mpnrar" repairs.
a. Damaged, sealed with tape, putt>, chewing gum, or screws.
b. Shipped upside down.
3. Labeled containers In Improper condition.
a. Dented.
b. Rusted or corroded. (NOTE: These are judgmental derisions.)
for export by water.
^. Steel
10-24-60
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS INC. WASHINGTON DC 20037
13
-------
215:2030
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
. I . ru 111! i ni .n Pi* i pi! * i v h • . i ( i. .11 1 .m, r • r V Hi/ ¦, \ r« 1 < ! m- 1 ^ j .
') I it. I ,'li l iint >11 n*M ^ ui.irk.J "NKl ( I»» »i- im ¦ -> I. { • 1. > t 1 ¦'miihi .iriurer , dents, rust,
m.i I'.. »; I 1 v.- r«;)
'• I 1 tn» ' e J 1 *• 11 it m ner «- n if In d "sTC" .»nJ /.«r J 1 (., 1 7K , .••»; th.it .1 rr not DOT 1 7 C. 1 7 F , n r
I 7 L , or 1 7H r i^n t 11 n. t .
8. Libeled S 5 )• .*' 1 1 < >n opt p- hejil d r um^. with J r n 1 I j n>' h«so ,>s and/or tii.i" S/8" r j n >; bolt,
non-Jinp foiled rmr lu^s, and/ur "lc»rr lovV" rinp. flexures poss 1 b i 1 11 \ of non~
00! spft 1; u 11 inn.)
9 . I tt.jvo 1 f *.¦ J D'^T sm-c 1 f 11 .it ion nwrkin^ when inside u^ninncrs ire larger than the
1 1 r. 1 11 J. quintKv ox^cpt ion for t hr commod it v.
2. b^\es n.irked with DOT specification marking which arc por-)\ constructed (i.e., g3ps»,
uneven < lo snd joint f «op.int mpj .
3 Bo\(-s d.ir.i,.od b\ -'ilv"
i. 1 rip ro;\ r ) v (.Iufcg boxes (look for masking tape-, c e ] 1 <»ph ir.«. tape, ond string).
b . 1 c n ~ 1 n u . ^ "tamers.
h \ ->-nni s'1. ; i f icit ion :i^i?rboard use in lieu 01 us:.,. specification container whe^
rof, 1 r c.
C . Po 1_\ 1 one Cor.t a iner s
1. Oper-liead polyetnvlene containers (.authorized only uhrn bpec 1 ( icat ion containers are net
rc-^n ri-rJ )
2 . Illegibly m r k e d ccnt*. iners
3- Leaking coni^im-rs offered for shipment
D Fj hj?r
! . Su:i - • >'. )T s:«^ri! n rtt urn M ber d nn>
2 . Fiier ;! r 'jns .. 0:1 s: r ur t _• ! r : nau-ri-iU ve < ~ f r in.ir r^quirtG b\ t he « pt- r i f j a t 1 on .
¦i . I sc of c ] he t drur ni.i r/cc b'^T - 2 1 A wit hnu' 1 r. s 1 dt polyethvi^ne liner.
^ • 1' \)ny 1 n«' r rnr rrn r t h , 1 one e for b 1 7. a rdou > rr.a t e r 1 ."1 \ *> rarl i-l1 '' STC" .
S. hi^e* .!rur damnKed h tnrkiift truck.
b Jtipr^pv-r ffirkin^s on c??.: j jner^ for tlie ( omnndity bcint s'nip.itci
* . < i ndc r s
Ke-osc of single-u«;e cvljnders such .is DOT Specification 39.
2. Cylinders bovond test date.
1. CyMmlcrs in improper '.ond it ion.
a. No valve prrlfc«tjar.
b. B-j 1 r,e in side.
Chemical Regulation Reporter
14
-------
DOT INFORMATION BULLETINS
HA2 37
215:2031
Di'ittci .'j (.'l'l'.'.J, i- f'.A I' irpli i it l.-fi 11> r i i; * r . . >
il. Do: i-i I l v.i 1 ¦ i
i . C.\ I i ndcr s r >¦- ( 1 I I >'J I" ft tn-i t I) in tin- "i:icr n I t he ¦ v ! ' ;w< i (¦ 11 ln'nt prrm i ss 1 on .
V Cylinders improp'-iK nirW.-J (,hjpl i ra t 1 nn ft! serial nurt>,Tfc,.
(>. Cylinders offered for r r.. nspnrl.nl inn without proper identification «> f contents
7. ldi-nt i f k at ion svmbols n.-j registered with tin- Bu r ^.im i> : Ex,: J os i ves or the Llep.ir i n nt
of Tr.inspnrt.it ion.
8. Illegible cylinder rn.irkincs.
F. Por I .ib 1 l' Tanks
1. Name of owners or lessee omitted on tani-.
2. No labels and/or placards disolaved on container ri'nuiurE hazardous materials.
C . Ca rg.i _Tant, s
1. Using a cargo tank marked tor one hazardous material :or another hazardous material
without proper identification of contents.
2. Improperly marked, e.g. size of marking or not marked n ? contrasting color.
3. Omission of the marking "QT" or "NQT" when required on carr tank.
IV. MARKING OF CONTAINERS
A. No commodity description (proper shipping na^ii-) on the cont3:nv-r.
B. No name and address of consignee (or consignor) on the ccnc r.
C. No DOT Exemption number on containers shipped under DOT Exespl . ons.
D. Container markings not in a contrasting color.
E. Container of liquid hazardous material not marked on outs::e "THIS END UP" or "THIS SIDE I?".
F. Cross weight not marked on Radioactive Materials weighnt o\er 110 lbs.
C. Reconditioned drums improperly marked.
H. USA not included as part of the DOT Specification narkin^s r Radioactive Materials
packages destined for export shipments.
I. Portable tanks not marked with proper name -u ihf ha?. irdiu= -i;:(-rii! .
'-ABr.MNf,
A. So labels un outer container to represent (materials witn -ore tr.an or.c haz.ird) n;>.(L
packagings of hazardous material*. (Dm 1 labeling)
B. Label on the container not consistent with the hazard clas^ on the shipping papers.
C. I'se c.i nbsolete labels.
I). folor dnd/or size of label does not meet t Ik- standaids of T.ilo £9, CFR, Sec. 172.^07.
E. So label on container of hazardous materials other than "LIMITED 01ANTITY."
F. So label on "shipments destined for air transport.
(.. Labeling containers not required to be labeled.
10-24-80
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS INC V\ ASrvNG 1 ON DC 20037
15
-------
21&2032
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
\ * ' .i-' *' i I • 1 A V ' i) s" . ? .*• .» i r I l .in «-p < r ; «t j < »n
I . K 111 hi f »-«» K.i.l • • • u f : v. ^ 11 v | l «I «; I .tN" ) •» ( *h i t« I . W 1 1. »u II. .>» \ r 1 I »»w III) .mi iiMiliincrs
I [ W ' 0|'l'.N' I i *. J .1. •- 1
\\ PMLAKIHV
A. Fjilurr io ;»J.u < t vein* !«• rnjuirin#, p I.mrd i .
R. l.iilwrt to u*r m.ir o thin onr kind it! p]h.«i
A. N.* proper •i'nppin.; n.ir^ .ind'«»r r I as» l:r at ion of hazardous r.i t r r »•*» 1 entered un shipping
n ipors.
P.. Proper ship;-tn£ njne and'or c J .iss i f ir.it ion abbreviated.
C. No certific.it lTr : o r t.h i pren t .
U. Nr wordace I or "LIMITED iR'ANTlTV on sniprwnts exreptea from sp«*c j f i rat ion packaging and
labeling.
L. No DOT Exerrpt io* n..rbfr o" shipments novi"«: under DOT Exemption.
F. Color of label ipd'.'jt^d ) : ;u cf the- proper hazard class.
f.. Improper forn.it for Nz.'r-ftus material®: description on shipping papers. e . £ . HM entries
not first, h \ sh ] : ^'.t l-c; or no HM rolurr.
This material mav be reproduced without sperj.il
pt rrr. i ss i on from this office.
Department of Transport at ion
Research and Speci.il Programs Adainlsiration
Materials Transportation Bureau
Information Services Division (DMT-^3)
Washington, D.C. 20390
Chemical Regulation Reporter
16
-------
©HAZ-59
215:2037
USDeporimeni GUIDE FOR
of Transportation
Re&earchand
Special Programs
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHIPPING PAPERS
Administration
The following information has been abstracted from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49,
Parts 100-177
1. DEFINITIONS
A. SHIPPING PAPER (Sec. 171.8) A shipping paper may be a shipping order, bill of lading,
manifest, or other shipping document serving a similar purpose containing the information
required by Sec. 172.202, 172.203 and 172.204.
B. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST (CFR, Title 40, Sec. 262.20) A hazardous waste manifest is a
document (shipping paper) on which all hazardous waste is identified. A copy of the
manifest must accompany each shipment of waste from the point of pick-up to the destination.
(CFR, Title 49, Sec. 172.205)
2. SHIPPERS RESPONSIBILITY [Sec. 172.200(a)] The shipper has the responsibility to properly
prepare the shipping paper when offering a hazardous material for transport.
NOTE: For shipments of hazardous waste, the hazardous waste manifest is the only authorized
documentation. (CFR, Title 40, Sec. 262.23)
3. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DESCRIPTION (Sec. 172.202) The shipping description of a hazardous
material on a shipping paper must include the following information:
A. Proper shipping name- Sec. 172.101 or Sec. 172.102 (when authorized);
B. The hazard class prescribed for the material in the same section; [See exceptions
Sec. 172.202(a)(2)].
C. The identification number for the material (preceded by "UN" or "NA" as appropriate); and
D. Except for empty packagings, the total quantity (by weight, volume, or as otherwise
appropriate) of the hazardous materials covered by the description.
E. Except as otherwise provided in the regulations, the basic description in 3A, B and C
above must be shown in sequence. For example "Acetone, Flammable Liquid, UN1090."
F. The total quantity of the material covered by one description must appear before or after
(or both before and after) the basic description as indicated in 3A, B and C above.
(1) Abbreviations may be used to specify the type of packaging, weight or volume.
Example: "40 Cyl. Nitrogen Nonflammable gas UN 1066, 800 pounds"; "1 box Cement
liquid, n.o.s., Flammable liquid, NA1133, 25 lbs."
(2) Type of packaging and destination marks may be entered in any appropriate manner
before or after the basic description.
G. Technical and chemical group names may be entered in parentheses between the proper
shipping name and hazard class. Example: Corrosive liquid, n.o.s. (capryrl chloride),
corrosive material.
4. GENERAL ENTRIES ON SHIPPING PAPERS (Sec. 172.201)
A- CONTENTS When describing a hazardous material on the shipping paper(s), that description
must conform to the following requirements:
(1) When a hazardous material, including materials not subject to the regulations, is
described on the same shipping paper, the hazardous material description entries
required by Sec. 172.202 and those additional entries that may be required by-
Sec. 172.203.
a. Must be entered first (See Figure 1), or
b. Must be entered in a contrasting color, except that a description on a repro-
duction of a shipping paper may be highlighted, rather than printed, in a
contrasting color (these requirements apply only to the basic description
required by Sec. 172.202(a)(1), (2) and (3), (See Figure 1); or
c. Must be identified by the entry "X" placed before the proper shipping name in a
column captioned "HM" [the "X" may be replaced by "RQ" (Reportable Quantity),
if appropriate] See Figure 1.
(2) The required shipping description on a shipping paper and all copies that are used
for transportation purposes must be legible and printed (manually or mechanically)
in English.
(3) Unless it is specifically authorized or required, the required shipping description
may not contain any code or abbreviation.
8-27-82
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
9
-------
215:2038
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
bisic Discmrritm
'm •'
Hit
¦« Abbmiattd
n uud
fi»H< »«»« | | K»m« CUu I [ t«ul 0»»«lit)
„ •
\ / • /
tO'<-
"sar
10
Oram, Cttoliar. fUnmiblt liquid (111701
4SOO Ibi
40
Cji Witi«|«e. Ron lUmmibU Cn .UftlMt
100 tbi
I
Di«m. fUanibk Sftlid i»t ,0111)?$
<5? ibi
4
8mm. ftdvtrtfiint Mjlttul Piptt, NOl
10 tbt
I
toll. Papci fnnlm| Nrvipnnt
IH tfts
1?
Scti. Cjrtta P»pti
27 Ibi
COO
I CE«tlfICATtON |
huuoous mu«i«.s imini usud fust
msic DUtirnoR
Iip( »t
Ml]
Bt kbbiemtrd
II Uwd
Proptt Shipping Nim«
Hiixtf Ctrn
Hul Qsifititj
\ /
/
/
un
CI MOO* »
10
Dnat. Codim. Fbaatblt U««ld
«5O0 !»'
4
(eiti. Idnrtmai Hitoial. fipti. KOI
M Ibi
1
Oraa. fbaarife S*M. N.0.S JWlm —
«? tbi
1?
Sfti. Cjrkon P*p«i
17 Ibi
40
c#1 flM-fltanibk in ,VII0H
100 Ibi
H¥ [nlnn-Coelnilini Colon
ClltiriCITlON I
I Mete leprodscton $t »
shipping piper m»j b«
fci|Mifhic4 ij 9 hifhlt|h(iii|
pen nthir thin pnnlid ifl •
totor
NMMOOUS KITCIIU.5 HTIIES-COIUMSTIIIS COLOI
HUMMUS li«TUl«U MtFtltO IT 1" (I MM COUIM
fWUtt 1. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USTE0 ON SHIPPING WHS
Chemical Regulation Reporter
-------
DOT INFORMATION BULLETINS
HAZ-J9
215:2039
(4) A shipping paper may contain additional information concerning the material provided
the information is not inconsistent with the required description. Unless otherwise
permitted or required, additional information must be placed after the basic descrip-
tion required by Sec. 172.202(a).
a. When appropriate, the entries "IMCO" or "IMCO Class" may be entered immediately
before or immediately following the class entry in the basic description.
b. If a material meets the definition of more than one hazard class, the additional
hazard class or classes may be entered after the hazard class in the basic
description.
B. NAME OF SHIPPER A shipping paper for a shipment by water must contain the name of the
shipper.
5. ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS (Sec. 172.203) (ALL MODES)
A. Exempt ions - Each shipping paper issued in connection with a shipment made under an
exemption must bear the notation "DOT-E" followed by the exemption number assigned
(Example: DOT-E 4648) and so located that the exemption number is clearly associated with
the description to which the exemption applies.
B. Limited Quantities - Descriptions for materials defined as "Limited Quantities"...must
Include the words "Limited Quantities" or "Ltd. Qty." following the basic description.
C. Hazardous Substances
(1) If the proper shipping name for a mixture or solution that is a hazardous substance
does not identify the constituents making it a hazardous substance, the name or names
of such constituents shall be entered in association with the basic description.
(2) The letters "RQ" (Reportable Quantity) shall be entered on the shipping paper either
before or after the basic description required by Sec. 172.202 for each hazardous
substance. (See definition Sec. 171.8) Example: RQ, Cresol, Corrosive Material,
NA2076; or Adipic Acid, ORM-E, NA9077, RQ.
D. Radioactive Materials - For additional description for radioactive materials, refer to
Sec. 172.203(d).
E. Empty Packagings
(1) Except for a tank car, or any packaging that still contains a hazardous substance,
the description on the shipping paper for an empty packaging containing the residue
of a hazardous material may include the word(s) "EMPTY" or "EMPTY: Last Contained
(Name of Substance)" as appropriate in association with the basic description of the
hazardous material last contained in the packaging.
(2) For empty tank cars, see Sec. 174.25(c).
(3) If a packaging, including a tank car, contains a residue that is a hazardous substanc*
the description on the shipping paper shall be prefaced with the phrase "EMPTY: Last
Contained (Name of Substance)" and shall have "RQ" entered before or after the basic
description.
F. Dangerous When Wet - The words "Dangerous When Wet" shall be entered on the shipping paper
in association with the basic description when a package covered by the basic description
is required to be labeled with a "DANGEROUS WHEN WET" label.
G. Poisonous Materials - Notwithstanding the class to which a material is assigned:
(1) If the name of the compound or principal constituent that causes the material to meet
the definition of a poison is not included in the proper shipping name for the
material, the name of that compound or constituent shall be entered on the shipping
paper in association with the shipping description for the material.
(2) The name of the compound or principal constituent may be either a technical name or
any name for the material that is listed in the NIOSH Registry. (Registry of Toxic
Effects of Chemical Substances, 1978 Edition) (Sec. 172.203(k)]
NOTE: For additional details, sm Sec. 172.203(k)
H- Exceptions: OTHER REGULATED MATERIAL (ORM - A, B, C, AND D)
(1) Shipping paper requirements do not apply to any material other than a hazardous waste
or a hazardous substance that is:
a. An 0RM-A, B or C unless it is offered or intended for transportation by air or
water when it is subject to the regulations pertaining to transportation by air or
water as specified in Sec. 172.101 (Hazardous Materials Table); or
b. An ORM-D unless it is offered or intended for transportation by air.
B-27-62
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
11
-------
215:2040
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
MODAL REQUIREMENTS
(ADDITIONAL INFORMATION)
NOTE: In addition to the basic requirements for shipping papers, additional information is
listed for each mode.
6. TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL
A. SHIPPING PAPERS (Sec. 174.24)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may accept for trans-
portation by rail any hazardous material which is subject to this subchapter unless
he has received a shipping paper prepared in a manner specified in Sec. 172.200.
In addition, the shipping paper must include a certificate, if required by
Sec. 172.204. However, no member of the train crew of a train transporting the
hazardous material is required to have a shippers certificate on the shipping paper
in his possession if the original shipping paper containing the certificate is in
the originating carriers possession.
(2) This subpart does not apply to materials classed as 0RM-A, B, C or D.
B. ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION FOR SHIPPINC PAPERS [Sec. 172.203(g)]
(1) The shipping paper for a rail car containing a hazardous material must contain the
notation "Placarded" followed by the name of the placard required for the rail car.
(2) The shipping paper for each specification DOT 112A or 114A tank car (without head
shields) containing a flammable compressed gas must contain the notation "DOT 112A"
or "DOT 114A", as appropriate, and either "Must be handled in accordance with
FRA E.O. No. 5" or "Shove to rest per E.O. No. 5."
NOTE: For additional details, refer to Part 174.
7. TRANSPORTATION BY AIR
A. SHIPPING PAPERS ABOARD AIRCRAFT (Sec. 175.35) A copy of the shipping papers required by
Sec. 175.30(a)(2) must accompany the shipment it covers during transportation aboard an
aircraft.
NOTE: The documents required (shipping papers and notification of pilot-in-command) may be
combined into one document if it is given to the pilot-in-command before departure
of the aircraft. [Sec. 175.35(b)].
B. NOTIFICATION OF PILOT-IN-COMMAND (Sec. 175.33) The operator of the aircraft shall give
the pilot-in-coraraand the following information in writing before takeoff (Sec. 175.35):
(1) Description of hazardous material on shipping papers (Sec. 172.202 and 172.203);
(2) Location of the hazardous material in the aircraft; and
(3) The results of the inspection requirements by Sec. 175.30(b).
NOTE: For additional details, refer to Part 175.
8- TRANSPORTATION BY WATER
A. SHIPPING PAPERS (Sec. 176.24) A carrier may not transport a hazardous material by vessel
unless the material is properly described on the shipping paper in the manner prescribed
in Part 172.
B. CERTIFICATE (Sec. 176.27)
(1) A carrier may not transport a hazardous material by vessel unless he has received a
certificate prepared in accordance with Sec. 172.204.
(2) In the case of an import t export shipment of hazardous materials which will not be
transported by rail, highway, or air, the shipper may certify on the bill of lading or
other shipping paper that the hazardous material is properly classed, described,
marked, packaged and labeled according to Part 172 or in accordance with the require-
ments of the 1MC0 Code. (See Sec. 171.12)
C. DANGEROUS CARGO MANIFEST (Sec. 176.30) The master of a vessel transporting hazardous
materials or his authorized representative shall prepare a dangerous cargo manifest, list,
or stowage plan. This document may not include a material which is not subject to the
requirements of CFR, Title 49, or the IMCO Code. This document must be kept in a desig-
nated holder on or near the vessel's bridge. (See Sec. 176.30 for details)
D. EXEMPTIONS (Sec. 176.31) If a hazardous material is being transported by vessel under the
authority of an exemption and a copy of the exemption is required to be on board the
vessel. It must be kept with the dangerous cargo manifest.
NOTE; For additional details, refer to Part 176.
Chemical Regulation Reporter
12
-------
DOT INFORMATION BULLETINS
HAZ-59
2152041
E. ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION FOR SHIPPING PAPERS (Sec. 172.203(1)]
(1) Each shipment by water must have the following additional shipping paper entries:
a. Indentification of the type of packages such as barrels, drums, cylinders, and
boxes,
b. The number of each type of packages including those in freight container or on
a pallet, and
c. The gross weight of each type of package or the individual gross weight of each
package.
(2) The shipping papers for a hazardous material offered for transportation by water to
any country outside the United States must have in parenthesis the technical name
of the material following the proper shipping name when the material is described
by a "n.o.s." entry in Sec. 172.101 (Hazardous Materials Table). For example:
Corrosive liquid, n.o.s. (caprylyl chloride), Corrosive material. However, for a
mixture, only the technical name of any hazardous material giving the mixture its
hazardous properties must be identified.
9. TRANSPORTATION BY HIGHWAY
A. SHIPPING PAPERS (Sec. 177.817)
(1) General - A carrier may not transport a hazardous material unless it is accompanied
by a shipping paper that is prepared in accordance with Sec. 172.201, 172.202 and
172.203.
(2) Shipper's certification - An initial carrier may not accept hazardous materials
offered for transportation unless the shipping paper describing the material in-
cludes a shipper's certification which meets the requirements in Sec. 172.204 of this
subchapter. The certification is not required for shipments to be transported en-
tirely by private carriage and for bulk shipments to be transported in a cargo tank
supplied by the carrier. [Sec. 177.817(c)]
(3) Interlining with carriers by rail - A motor carrier shall mark on the shipping paper
required by this section, if it offers or delivers a freight container or transport
vehicle to a rail carrier for further transportation: [Sec. 177.817(c)]
a. A description of the freight container or transport vehicle; and
b. The kind of placard affixed to the freight container or transport vehicle.
(4) This subpart does not apply to materials classed as an ORM-A, B, C or D.
(5) Accessibility of shipping papers: The driver and each carrier using the vehicle
shall ensure that the shipping paper is readily available and recognizable by
authorities in the case of an accident or inspection. [See Sec. 177.817(e) for
details]
B. ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION rOR SHIPPING PAPERS [Sec. 172.203(h)] For additional descriptions
for Anhydrous ammonia see Sec. 172.203(h)(1); Liquefied petroleum gas see
Sec. 172.203(h)(2) and Exemptions see Sec. 172.203(a).
10. SHIPPER'S CERTIFICATION (Sec. 172.204)
A. GENERAL (Except B and D below)
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec. 172.204, each person who offers
a hazardous material for transportation shall certify that the material offered for
transportation is in accordance with the regulations by printing (manually or
mechanically) the following statement on the shipping paper containing the required
description:
This is to certify that the above-named materials are properly
classified, described, packaged, marked and labeled, and are in
proper condition for transportation according to the applicable
regulations of the Department of Transportation.*
NOTE: The works "herein-named" may be substituted for the words "above named".
*N0TE: For hazardous waste shipments, the words "and the EPA" must be added to the
end of the certification. [See CFR, Title 40, Sec. 262.21(b)]
8-27-62
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
13
-------
215:2042
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
B. AIR TRANSPORTATION
(1) General - Certification containing the following language may be used in place of
the certification required by paragraph A(l) above:
1 hereby certify that the contents of this consignment are fully
and accurately described above by proper shipping name and are
classified, packed, marked and labeled, and in proper condition
for carriage by air according to applicable national governmental
regulat ions.
(2) Duplicate Certificate - Each person who offers a hazardous material to an aircraft
operator for transportation by air shall provide two (2) copies of the certificate.
(Sec. 175.30)
(3) Passenger and Cargo Aircraft - If hazardous materials are offered for transportation
by air, add to the certificate the following statement:
This shipment is within the limitations prescribed for passenger/
cargo-only aircraft, (delete non-applicable)
(4) Radioactive Material - Each person who offers any radioactive material for trans-
portation aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft shall sign (mechanically or manually)
a printed certificate stating that the shipment contains radioactive material in-
tended for use in, or incident to, research, medical diagnosis or treatment.
NOTE: See Sec. 175.10 for exceptions.
C. SIGNATURE - The certifications required above must be legibly signed (mechanically or
manually) by a principal, officer, partner or employee of the shipper or his agent.
[Sec. 172.204(d))
D. EXCEPTIONS - Except for a hazardous waste, no certification is required for hazardous
material offered for transportation by motor vehicle and transported:
(1) In a cargo tank supplied by the carrier, or
(2) By the shipper as a private carrier except for a hazardous material that is to be
reshipped or transferred from one carrier to another.
(3) No certification is required for the return of an empty tank car which previously
contained a hazardous material and which has not been cleaned or purged.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST INFORMATION
The following information has been abstracted from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Title 49. Parts 100-177 and CFR, Title 40, Part 262.
1. DEFINITIONS
A. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST (CFR Title 40, 5262.20)
A hazardous waste manifest is a shipping document on which all hazardous wastes are
identified.
B. SHIPPING PAPER - A shipping order, bill of lading, manifest, or other shipping
document serving a similar purpose and containing the information required by
5172.202, 5172.203 and 5172.204.
2. DOT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS (5172.205)
A. No person may offer, transport, transfer or deliver a hazardous waste unless a
hazardous waste manifest is prepared, signed, carried and given as required of that
person by 5172.205.
B. The shipper (generator) must prepare the manifest in accordance with the EPA
Regulations, CFR Title 40, Part 262.
C. The original copy of the manifest must be dated by, and bear the handwritten signa-
ture of the person representing the:
(1) Shipper (generator) of waste at the time it is offered for transportation, and
(2) Initial carrier accepting the waste for transportation.
D. A copy of the manifest must be dated by, and bear the handwritten signature of the
person representing:
(1) Each subsequent carrier accepting the waste for transportation, at the time of
acceptance, and
(2) The designated facility rfceiving the waste, upon receipt.
Ctomica! Regulation Reporter
14
-------
DOT INFORMATION BULLETINS
HAZ-59
215:2043
£. A copy of Che manifest bearing all required dates and signatures must be:
(1) Given to a person representing each carrier accepting the waste for transportation,
(2) Carried during transportation in the same manner as required for shipping papers,
(3) Given to a person representing the designated facility receiving the waste,
(4) Returned to the shipper (generator) by the carrier that transported the waste from
the United States to a foreign destination with a notation of the date of departure
from the United States, and
(5) Retained by the shipper (generator) and by the initial and each subsequent carrier
for three (3) years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial carrier.
Each retained copy must bear all required signatures and dates up to and including
those entered by the next person who received the waste.
F. The requirements of 5172.205(d) and (3) do not apply to a rail carrier when waste is
delivered to a designated facility by railroad if:
(1) All of the information required to be entered on the manifest (except generator
and carrier identification numbers and the generator's certification) is entered
on the shipping paper carried in accordance with 5174.26(c);
(2) The delivering rail carrier obtains and retains a receipt for the waste that is
dated by and bears the handwritten signature of the person representing the
designated facility; and
(3) A copy of the shipping paper is retained for three (3) years by each railroad
transporting the waste.
C. The person delivering a hazardous waste to an initial rail carrier shall send a copy of
the manifest, dated and signed by a representative of the rail carrier, to the person
representing the designated facility.
H. A hazardous waste manifest required by CFR, Title AO, Part 262 containing all the Infor-
mation required by CFR, Title 49, Subpart C, may be used as the shipping paper.
3. THE MANIFEST-GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (5262.20)
A. A generator (shipper) who transports, or offers for transportation, hazardous waste
for off-site treatment, storage, or disposal must prepare a manifest before transporting
the waste off-site.
B. k generator (shipper) must designate on the manifest one facility which is permitted to
handle the waste described on the manifest.
C. A generator (shipper) may also designate on the manifest one alternate facility which
is permitted to handle his waste in the event an emergency prevents delivery of the
waste to the primary designated facility-
D. If the transporter (carrier) is unable to deliver the waste to the designated facility,
the generator must either designate another facility or instruct the transporter to
return the waste.
4. MANIFEST INFORMATION (5262.21)
A. The manifest must contain:
(1) Manifest document number;
(2) Generator's (Shipper's) name, mailing address, telephone number, and the EPA
identification number;
(3) Name and EPA identification number of each transporter (carrier);
(4) Name, address and EPA identification number of the designated facility and an
alternate facility, if any;
(5) Description of the waste(s) (e.g. proper shipping name required by the Department
of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations CFR, Title 49, 5172.101,
5172.202 and 5172.203); and
(6) Total quantity of each hazardous waste by units of weight or volume, and the type
and number of containers loaded into or onto the transport vehicle.
B. Certification [5262.21(b)] The following certification must appear on the manifest:
"This is to certify that the above named materials are properly classified, described,
packaged, marked, labeled and are in proper condition for transportation according
to the applicable regulations of the Department of Transportation and the EPA"
M7-82
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D C. 20037
15
-------
215:2044
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
5. COPIES OF MANIFEST REQUIRED (5262.22)
The manifest must consist of at least the number of copies to provide the generator, each
transporter and the owner or operator of the designated facility with one copy each for
their records and another copy to be returned to the generator.
6. USE OF THE MANIFEST (5262.23)
A. The generator must:
(1) Sign the manifest certification by hand;
(2) Obtain the handwritten signature of the initial transporter and date of acceptance
of manifest; and
(3) Retain one copy in accordance with 5262.40(a).
B. The generator must give the transporter the remaining copies of the manifest.
C. Shipment of hazardous waste within the United States solely by railroad or water (bulk
shipments only); the generator must send three (3) copies of the manifest dated and
signed in accordance with 5262.20 to the owner or operator of the designated facility.
NOTE: Copies of the manifest are not required for each transporter. For special
provisions for rail or water (bulk shipment) transporters see 5263.20(e).
7. PREPARATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FOR SHIPMENT (5262.30)
A. Packaging Hazardous Waste - The generator (shipper) has the responsibility for the
classification and packaging of hazardous waste prior to offering for transportation.
The requirements for packaging will be found in the Department of Transportation
Regulations CFR, Title 49, Parts 172, 173, 178 and 179.
B- Labeling Requirements (5262.31) - Prior to offering a hazardous waste for transportation
off-site, the generator (shipper) must label each package in accordance with CFR Title
49, Part 172, Subpart E.
C. Marking Requirements (5262.32) - Prior to offering hazardous waste for transportation
off-site, the generator must:
(1) Mark each package of the hazardous waste; and
(2) Mark each container 110 gallons or less offered for transportation with the
following words and information displayed in accordance with the requirements
of CFR, Title 49, Sec. 172.304.
"HAZARDOUS WASTE-Federal Law Prohibits Improper Disposal. If found,
contact the nearest police or public safety authority or the United
States Environmental Protection Agency"
Generator's Name and Address
Manifest Document Number
D- 1 Placarding Requirements (5262.33) - Prior to offering a hazardous waste for transporta-
tion off-site, the generator must:
(1) Placard the shipment; or
(2) Offer the initial transporter (carrier) the appropriate placards. (CFR Title 49,
Part 172, Subpart F)
NOTE: This handout is designed as a training aid only. It does not relieve persons from comply-
ing with the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations. Final
authority for use of shipping papers is found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49,
Part 100-177.
NOTE: This material may be reproduced without special permission from this office. Any comments
or recommendations should be sent to the address below.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU
OFFICE OF OPERATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION, DMT-11
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
Chemical Regulation Reporter
REVISED MAY 1981
16
-------
PACKAGING & LABELING
FOR SHIPPING UNKNOWNS
CHECKLIST:
1. Front side of cooler.
a) UP directional arrows, (all four sides)^_V
b) Appropriate hazard class label(s).*
c ) Danger label .*
_ 2. Top side (lid) of cooler.
a) Laboratory name and shipping address.
b) Appropriate hazard class label(s).
c ) Danger label .
d) Laboratory Samples label.
e) Thi s Side Up label.
3. Cooler taped closed.
4. Chain of custody document taped in a protective
envelope on under side of top (lid).
5. Large sealed plastic bag.*
6. Metal cans surrounded by ample vermiculite for
cushioning during shipping.
7. Metal cans.
a) Lab name and address on lid.
b) Sample number on bottom of can.*
c) Appropriate hazard class label(s).
d) Danger 1abel.
f) Lid secured on can with tape or clips.
8. Medium sized sealed plastic bag containing
vermiculite and sealed sample.* (sample in small
plastic bag)
9. Sample surrounded by ample vermiculite for
cushioning during shipping.
10. Sample sealed in two-mil-thick (or thicker) plastic
bag.
a) Able to read sample tag through plastic bag.
11. Appropriate sample identification tag.
12. Sample collected in an appropriate container.
a) 10% head space at 130°F (liquid).
b) Sample and jar not exceeding one pound (solid).
c) Non metalic Teflon lined lid.
* Optional
-------
ATTACHMENT 5-7
ANALYTICAL METHODS
1. U.S. EPA, Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846, Third
Edition, September 1986.
2. U.S. EPA, Methods For Chemical Analyis of Water and Wastes,
EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1983.
3. American Public Health Association, Standard Methods For the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, 16th Edition, 1985.
4. Katz, M., Methods of Air Sampling and Analysis, Second Edition, 1977.
5. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods.
6. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (N10SH) Methods.
7. U.S. Army, Laboratory Soils Testing, EM 1110-1906, May 1980.
8. U.S. EPA, Design and Development of a Hazardous Waste Reactivity Testing
Protocol, EPA-600/2-84-057, February 1984.
9. U.S. EPA, Sampling and Analysis Methods for Hazardous Waste Combustion,
EPA-600-8-84-002, February 1984.
-------
SECTION 6
QUALITY ASSURANCE
6.1 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) are quantitative and qualitative state-
ments describing the quality of data needed to support a specific environmen-
tal decision or action. These descriptors must be considered by a hierarchy
of decision makers in order to determine whether data are appropriate for a
particular application. Because higher-level decision makers may have many
other controlling or modifying considerations to interrelate, they must be
involved "up front" in the development of DQOs and be committed to a reiter-
active process with decision makers and technical staff below them in the
hi erarchy.
Data Quality Objectives are analogous to the first steps in the "Scienti-
fic Method." The problem must be identified and possible solutions suggested.
Scientifically valid experiments (non-biased, statistically analyzed, and
thorough) are then proposed. As the "Scientific Method" continues, these
experiments are run, analyzed, and reported in the literature for peer re-
view.
The process of developing DQOs is not intended to place additional
requirements on program managers, but is meant to be integrated into the
documentation of the normal thought processes of planning, designing and
carrying out data generation projects. Basically, the DQO process consists
of determining what information is needed, why it is needed, how it will be
acquired and used, and formulating consistent data quality goals.
6-1
-------
Included in the DQOs should be the types of analyses being performed:
Level I -- portable instruments and field test kits; Level II -- organics by
GC, inorganics by AA, XRF; Level III -- organics/inorganics using EPA pro-
cedures other than CLP, RCRA characteristic tests; Level IV--HSL orgar.ics/-
inorganics by GC/MS, AA, ICP; Level V -- nonconventional parameters, modified
methods, Appendix IX parameters.
The process chart in Attachment 6-1 summarizes how the complex but
logical DQO process works. Proper development of the DQO will result in the
preparation of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) more easily and
efficiently. Following the process chart are four checklists that may be
used in developing the DQO's, although all items may not apply to treatabil-
ity studies.
6.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLANS
Quality control or QC is the system of checks used to generate excel-
lence or quality in a program or object that is being produced. For manu-
facturing facilities and research laboratories, QC has historically consisted
of an aggregate of system of checks on the manufacturing process or the
research experiment. It may mean running known negative (blank) samples,
positive (reference) samples, and duplicate samples, or the testing of 1
through 10 percent of all products that come off the assembly line, or the
system of annual or semiannual inspections or equipment maintenance.
Quality Control is not the same as Quality Assurance (QA). While QC may
ask if we are doing things right, QA asks if we are doing the right things.
QA is the larger system designed to see that QC is maintained.
6-2
-------
QA integrates Data Quality Objectives (DQOs), Standardized Operating
Procedures (SOPs), and approved methodology with written descriptions detail-
ing these features and delineating responsibilities (the QA Plan). QA starts
at the conception of a project or process and extends through to the final
product. In other words, QA is management's effort to maximize the effective-
ness of the dollars spent, so what we get counts and is accountable.
The goal of EPA's QA program is to ensure that all data generated and
used to make decisions are scientifically sound, of known quality, thoroughly
documented, and legally defensive. An additional purpose is to obtain accep-
table data at a reasonable cost.
RREL defines four project categories with commensurate QA/QC require-
ments in terms of the type of work being done and the intended use of the
data: Category I -- Enforcement; Category II -- Strategy; Category III --
Technology Development; Category IV — Proof of Concept. Treatability
studies are typically defined as Category III or higher (more rigorous).
However, feasibility screening may not require rigorous QA, and it should be
noted that the level of QA has large cost implications.
There are ten key elements (sections) required for a Category III
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). These are shown below:
1. Project Description
2. Quality Assurance Objectives
3. Site Selection & Sampling Procedures
4. Analytical Procedures & Calibration
5. Data Reduction, Validation, & Reporting
6. Internal Quality Control Checks
7. Performance and Systems Audits
8. Calculation of Data Quality Indicators
9. Corrective Action
10. Quality Control Reports to Management
Sections 3 and 4 have been discussed previously. Comments on Section 6
follow.
6-3
-------
Of particular importance in treatability studies are replicate samples,
both field and laboratory. Samples should be run at least in triplicate.
Other important considerations are listed below:
° Split samples (field and/or laboratory, including splitting method)
° Replicate check standards
° Matrix spiked samples (field and/or laboratory)
0 Matrix spiked replicates (field and/or laboratory)
° Laboratory pure water spikes (e.g., QC check samples)
0 Surrogate samples
0 Internal standards
° Blanks (field, trip, method, reagent, and/or instrument)
° Zero and span gases
° Control charts (e.g., for calibration acceptance limits)
° Calibration standards and devices (traceable)
° Reagent checks (for all sample preparation and analysis methods
involving the use of laboratory reagents)
° In-house proficiency testing program to determine analyst's capa-
bilities (including documented procedures)
6.3 COST IMPLICATIONS
Because the analytical work in the treatability study represents the
major cost factor (from 60 through 75 percent), the analysis plan must be
thoughtfully and carefully assembled. The critical tests required to provide
meaningful data for the ROD must be identified along with their costs. In
order to obtain information on the costs of specific analytical procedures,
e.g., metals, GC/MS for volatiles and/or semi-volatiles, reference can be
made to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) of the U.S. EPA.
6-4
-------
ATTACHMENT 6-1
STAGE I
DECISION MAKER
Data Quality Objectives
1. Initial perception of what decision must be made.
2. What information is needed?
3. Why and When needed?
4. How will information/data be used?
5. What are consequences of inadequate/incomplete data?
6. Estimates of Time and Resources available?
7. Establishment of Priority for project?
8. Record Decision.
9. Close Project or Phase of Project.
STAGE II
SENIOR PROGRAM
STAFF
1. Examine Stage I Results
a. Interaction with Decision Maker(s).
b. Internal Discussion and Work Groups.
c. Section/Office Tasking.
2. Generate specific guidance for data collection
project.
a. Interaction with decision maker(s).
b. Internal Discussion and Work groups.
c. Section/Office Tasking
3. Refine and Define DQOs:
Following Oversight, Technical Review, Discussions,
etc.
a. Proposed and final statements of type and
quality of environmental data required.
b. Technical constraints; define logistic and
resource limits on Data Collection Project.
-------
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQOs) DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
FOR STAGE I (DECISION MAKER)
"AUTHORITIES"
1. Initial perception of what decision must be made. Complete? o
Comment:
2.
What information is needed?
Comment:
Complete? ~
3.
Why and When needed?
Comment:
Complete? ~
4.
How will information/data be used?
Comment:
Complete? ~
5.
What are consequences of inadequate/incomplete data?
Comment:
Complete? ~
6.
Estimates of Time and Resources available?
Comment:
Complete? ~
7.
Establishment of Priority for project?
Comment:
Complete? ~
8.
Record Decision.
Comment:
Complete? ~
9. Close Project or Phase of Project.
Comment:
Complete? ~
-------
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQOs) DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
FOR STAGE II (SENIOR PROGRAM STAFF)
"MANAGEMENT"
1. Examine Stage I Results Complete? ~
a. Interaction with Decision MakeKs). ~
b. Internal Discussion and Work Groups. ~
c. Section/Office Tasking. ~
Comment:_
2. Generate specific guidance for data collection project. Complete? ~
a. Interaction with decision makeKs). ~
b. Internal Discussion and Work groups. ~
c. Section/Office Tasking o
Comment:
3. Refine and Define DQOs: Complete? a
a. Proposed and final statements of type and quality
of environmental data Required. a
b. Technical constraints; define logistic and
resource limits on Data Collection Project. ~
Comment:
-------
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQOs) DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
FOR STAGE III (TECHNICAL STAFF)
"PLANNING"
1. Develop QA Project Plan and Work Plan: Complete? ~
a. Draft addressing all elements in guidance. ~
b. Internal Review. ~
c. External Review. o
d. Finalize Draft QAPjP. ~
e. Documentation of all operations. ~
f. Sample acquisition and analyses. ~
g. Data reduction and validation ~
Comment:
2. Develop Acceptance Criteria for evaluation of Project. Complete? ~
Comment:
3. Oversight of Project Team activities. Complete? ~
Comment:
-------
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQOs) DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
FOR STAGE IV (PROJECT TEAM)
"SUPPORT"
Execute Work Plan field operations adhering
to QAPjP criteria for procedures and documentation. Complete? ~
Comment;
Analyze samples, reduce and validate data. Complete? ~
Comment:
Make and correlate all necessary observations
for professional opinion statements. Complete? ~
Comment:
Preliminary Report
Complete? ~
Comment:
a. Validated data package
~
b. Operational documentation
~
c. Technical Deliverables as called for in QAPjP
(includes but not limited to, Professional Opinions,
Model or Trend analyses results, Photograph, etc.)
~
Execute Corrective actions if needed
Complete? ~
Comment:
Close out site operations unless otherwise
directed for anticipated subsequent phases.
Complete? ~
Comment:
-------
SECTION 7
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTREPRETATION
Upon completion of bench-scale treatability studies, the data are sum-
marized, reduced, and evaluated to determine if the process is a feasible
alternative for remediation of a particular Superfund site. The specific
objectives of data analysis and interpretation are to determine if the Data
Quality Objectives (DQOs) have been attained, if the performance standards
and cleanup goals can be met for the site, and if and how the results vary
according to waste matrix, contaminant concentrations, and/or any process
conditions tested. Data analysis is dependent on the experimental design
conducted prior to the bench-scale studies; data not properly collected
cannot be interpreted.
7.1 GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION
Data are generally presented in a form that is readily understood by the
reader, including summary tables and graphs. The exact presentation of the
data will depend on the relationship between variables being emphasized. If
the data meet the DQOs, the average values of replicates may generally be
used. However, if the data do not meet the DQOs, averaging should not be
used to smooth the data and present a misleading idea of the performance
characteristics of the system.
Independent variables are changed by design in the experiment or are
properties of the waste matrix and are plotted on the abscissa (the hori-
zontal axis), while dependent variables fluctuate as a result of varying the
7-1
-------
independent variables. Examples of the independent variables that may be
changed in an experiment are reaction time, reagent addition, waste concen-
tration, pH, temperature, and liquid-to-solid ratio. Examples of dependent
variables are the concentration in the treated stream (i.e., process resid-
uals), concentration in an extract (of the TCLP, EP, MWEP, or MEP) if an
extraction procedure is used for technology performance assessment, or concen-
tration in a secondary media (i.e., the media that is used to contact the
waste stream; this media will usually be the waste stream resulting from the
process).
7.2 DATA QUALITY
The first goal of data analysis should be to determine the quality of
the data collected. If the DQOs as specified in the Quality Assurance Proj-
ect Plan (QAPjP) have not been met for the project, then the interpretation
of the data will obviously be affected. All of the data should be checked to
assess accuracy (by matrix spikes), precision (by standard deviation for
triplicates or relative percent difference for duplicates, or by matrix spike
duplicates) and completeness (percent of data that are valid). If the DQOs
have not been met, the QA Officer must determine the appropriate action.
Continuing the evaluation of data that have not met the DQOs will probably
result in wasted time and conclusions that cannot be supported.
7.3 CLOSED-LOOP MASS BALANCE
In addition to assessing the accuracy, precision, and completeness by
comparing the data to objectives specified in the QAPjP, another method of
assessing the quality of the data and perhaps gaining insight into the system
is by conducting a closed-loop mass balance around the contaminant of interest.
7-2
-------
For example, in a process in which a solid matrix is contacted with a leach
solution to remove a particular contaminant and then filtered, the total
amount of the contaminant in the original solid should be equal to the total
amounts in the leach solution and residual solids after filtration. If all
of the contaminant cannot be accounted for, this may indicate inferior analyt-
ical data, nonhomogeneity of the starting solid (so that the analytical
result does not reflect the actual concentration), incorrect sampling proce-
dures, or a number of other factors.
Another example of the use of a closed-loop mass balance to interpret
data is the use of the TCLP to assess the effectiveness of solidification/
stabilization on a waste containing organics. In this case, the total amount
of organic compound in the nonsolidified waste should equal the total amounts
in the TCLP leachate plus the TCLP solid residue after filtration. If all of
the organic cannot be accounted for in this balance, this may indicate bad
analytical data, nonhomogeneity of the starting solid, or especially volatili-
zation of the organic in the mixing and extraction procedures. Without
completing this mass balance, a low result in the TCLP extract would be
attributed to the success of solidification in reducing the mobility of the
organic compound. Although this consideration is not necessarily relevant to
data quality objectives per se, performing these calculations will give clues
as to how to interpret the data.
7.4 ASSESSING THE EFFECT OF VARIABLES AND WASTE MATRIX
The data should be analyzed to assess the effect of any process vari-
ables on the performance of the system, and to determine if these variables
affect the system depending on the waste matrix treated (for example, several
7-3
-------
different sludge and soil types may be on site). For example, consider
testing a chemical destruction procedure on two waste matrices using five
different reaction times. If the tests are conducted in triplicate, the
experimental design for the study is shown in Table 7-1.
TABLE 7-1. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND NUMBER OF REPLICATES
Reaction
time
(hours)
Soil type
0.25 0.5
1
2
3
A
3 3
3
3
3
B
3 3
3
3
3
The statistical analysis of the data can be performed using standard
analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques. The ANOVA model can include soil
type and time as factors, as well as an interaction term between the two.
The ANOVA analysis provides answers to the following questions:
1) Is the effect of the reaction time the same for both soil types?
2) Are there overall differences in the mean concentrations between
the five reaction times?
If overall differences between concentrations for the reaction times are
not detected, then this variable has no significant effect on the operation
of the system. If differences are detected, the ANOVA analysis can be fol-
lowed by the Tukey multiple comparison procedure. Multiple comparison pro-
cedures provide information on which sample means differ significantly and by
how much. The results can be presented in a manner similar to the example in
Table 7-2.
7-4
-------
TABLE 7-2. EXAMPLE OF MULTIPLE COMPARISON RESULTS
FOR REACTION TIMES
Reaction time (hours)
Soil type 0.25 0.5 1 2 3
Residual soil concen-
trations (ppm)a 100 96 89 88 87
3 Means connected by a line are not significantly dif-
ferent.
In this example, mean residual soil concentrations for reaction times of 1,
2, and 3 hours are significantly lower than 0.25 and 0.5 hours but are not
significantly different from each other. These results would also indicate
that the extraction vessel reached equilibrium in 1 hour, and that this time
would effectively give the best performance. The results would also indicate
the percent improvement by increasing the residence time from 0.25 hours to
0.5 hours to 1 hour. Because the residence time is an important variable in
determining cost, two stages with a residence time of 0.25 hours each could
potentially provide equal or better results than a 1-hour residence time at
less cost. By including a factor for matrix type, the results will also
indicate if the different matrices require different times to come to equi-
1ibrium.
A similar analysis can be used for most other variables. Note that the
results provided in the table will depend on the particular goals of the data
analysis and interpretation. The results could be given in percent reduc-
tion, concentration of the contaminant in the residuals, or concentration in
the secondary media. In effect, experimental results will sometimes indicate
a condition that is more economical without sacrificing environmental criteria.
7-5
-------
A compromise between the two will rest on the cleanup criteria for the site
and the other options being evaluated.
7.5 CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANT
For a site containing a high variability of contaminant concentrations
within an area of waste material (e.g., soil) or containing discrete areas
with different levels of contamination, the experiment should be designed to
test the performance of the technology on a wide range of contaminant levels.
The purpose of this methodology is to ensure that the technology can treat a
wide variety of contaminant levels at one set of conditions (i.e., accounting
for variability within a given area of waste material) or that the technology
can treat a wide variety of contaminant levels at different sets of conditions
(i.e., for discrete areas of different levels of contamination). [Note,
however, that in bench-scale studies, each sample should be thoroughly homog-
enized; if not, "replication" of process conditions will be conducted on
batches of waste with different properties and contaminant levels, which is
not true replication.]
The resulting data should be analyzed to determine the effect of the
waste concentration on the ability of the technology to meet the performance
standards for the site. The objective of the analysis is to determine whether
the total amount removed (or residual soil concentration) varies systemat-
ically with the initial soil concentrations. Specifically, do higher initial
soil concentrations result in residual soil concentrations? Knowledge of the
relationship between initial and residual soil concentrations will allow
estimation of the removal efficiency given a contaminant concentration. This
is desirable in order to determine which soils at a particular site can be
treated with this technology to meet the performance standards for the site.
7-6
-------
Suppose that five samples of a soil are tested, each containing a differ-
ent level of the main contaminant of interest. The data that will be plotted
are the final soil concentrations versus the initial soil concentrations.
Regression analysis can be used to determine the relationship between the two
concentrations and provide a regression function with which the expected
final concentration can be estimated for a specific initial soil concentration.
From this equation, the initial soil concentration which gives a final soil
concentration equal to the cleanup standards for the site can be estimated.
This result will indicate for which soils and concentrations the technology
is potentially effective.
For example, suppose the regression analysis resulted in the regression
7"
line and associated 95 percent confidence bands in Figure^l. The regression
line represents the estimated mean residual concentrations for a given initial
soil concentration. The confidence bands represent the upper and lower 95
percent confidence limits for the mean residual soil concentrations at a
given initial soil concentration (i.e., we are 95 percent confident that the
true residual soil concentration is between the upper and lower confidence
limits for a given soil concentration). The initial soil concentration that
results in an unexpected mean residual concentration below the cleanup stan-
dards for the site (in this case, 50 ppm) can be found by identifying the
initial soil concentration with a lower confidence limit above the cleanup
standard. The result in this example indicates that only soils containing
200 ppm of the contaminant or less could be effectively treated with this
technology at the condition tested.
7-7
-------
Figure 7-1. Example regression line and confidence bands.
7-8
-------
SECTION 8
REPORTING
Developing a standard approach for presenting information gathered
during the treatability study will facilitate comparison of results of
studies conducted for similar treatment technologies or similar types of
contaminated media. Thus, the overall level of performance of treatability
studies will be evaluated, and transfer of technology-based results will be
expanded. This section presents an overview of a standard report format for
treatability studies data and of applicable computerized databases.
8.1 STANDARD REPORT FORMAT
Since the objective of treatability studies is to provide sufficient
data to evaluate treatment alternatives during the detailed analysis and
subsequent remedial design phases, the deliverables generated by the treata-
bility investigations must adequately convey the results of the testing. An
evaluation of the data must also be prepared to interpret test results of the
technology(ies) under investigation.
Three key elements form a standard structure for reporting treatability
study data:
1) A description of the testing that was performed
2) Presentation of the results of the tests
3) An interpretation of the results
Figure 8-1 shows these three key elements of a standard report format
along with the types of data necessary to complete each component of the
report.
8-1
-------
Description of Testing
Performed
• Pertinent information and
data from site
characterization
• Pre-design data acquisition
• Other available details
describing the media
contaminated and type(s) of
contaminants
Presentation of
Test Results
• Data arrayed by treatment
category, process,
contaminant group, media,
and scale
• QA/QC information including
analytical methods, QAPP,
etc.
Interpretation of
Test Results
• Reported removal
efficiencies and their
relationship to mandated
clean-up levels
• Key factors affecting
efficiency (e.g., operational,
cost, etc.)
• Conclusion relative to
optimization of the
technology during post-ROD
studies
Figure 8-1. Elements of Standard Report Format.
8-2
-------
8.2 DISCUSSION OF INFLUENT VS. EFFLUENT DATA
It is essential that all data gathered during the treatability study be
presented in a clear and concise manner to effect an accurate understanding
of the results. When comparing influent and effluent data, it may be neces-
sary to show a variety of data schemes for effluent, depicting anticipated
effluent (design), as well as actual bench- and pilot-scale results.
Further, it may be appropriate to develop a matrix to display treatment
data as shown in Figure 8-2.
8.3 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
An assessment of the destruction or removal of contaminants of concern
is often performed in post-ROD treatability studies. However, with respect
to pre-ROD treatability studies, the role of removal efficiency is somewhat
different. Specifically, percent removal of the contaminant of concern must
be considered in context to locally applicable cleanup levels, since the
selected treatment technology as the treatment train must ultimately conform
to these goals. Optimization of a technology under consideration is not
appropriate in a pre-ROD treatability study. However, any information rela-
tive to optimizing the technology may be presented as part of an appendix to
the report.
8.4 TREATABILITY DATABASE CONSIDERATIONS
Interaction with available databases can provide an additional perspec-
tive on the interpretation of results from treatability studies. EPA ORD
RREL is currently exploring the efficacy of constructing a database that
integrates pertinent elements of several existing databases. The resulting
consolidated database would be designed to provide sufficient high-quality
data and information that can be applied to treatability studies conducted
8-3
-------
Type of Waste
Type of Analysis
Liquid
Sludge
Solid
Soil
Drums
Gas
Priority Pollutant Scan
Metals
Hazardous Waste
Characteritics
Figure 8-2. Results of constituent analysis.
8-4
-------
for compounds from a similar class. The overall objective of the consoli-
dated database is to create a single mechanism for transferring knowledge
about what works and what doesn't work based on previous studies for like
contaminants.
No such consolidated database currently exists. However, several unique
databases in various phases of development are available throughout the
Agency. Each of the databases mentioned below contains some elements of
value in evaluating the effectiveness of a particular technology in treating
different classes of contaminants.
° Wastewater Treatability data base
° Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC)
° OSWER Electronic Bulletin Board
° Computerized On-Line Information System (COLIS)
° Treatment Data Management System (TDMS)
Wastewater Treatability Data Base
The Wastewater Treatability data base was developed at EPA ORD's Water
Engineering Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. It currently has over
1500 users throughout EPA Headquarters and the Regional offices. The system
is programmed in dBase III+ and is delivered on floppy disks at no charge.
Nine hundred compounds are currently represented, with 3000 to 4000 sets of
treatability data pairs available.
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC)
EPA's 0RD at Headquarters has overseen the creation and development of
ATTIC. This data base is a compendium of information from many available
databases and can be accessed through the RCRA/CERCLA Hotline or the OSWER
Electronic Bulletin Board. Targeted user groups for this system are: RPMs,
8-5
-------
OCSs, ARCs contractors, and State Superfund program staff. ATTIC contains
nine categories of information including a ROD data base, soil transport and
fate, hazardous waste collection data base, a historical user file, and
technical assistance.
OSWER Electronic Bulletin Board
The Electronic Bulletin Board at EPA Headquarters has evolved into a
sounding board for internal EPA policymaking. It also serves as a vehicle to
provide contractors with details on program development; the Bulletin Board
contains information from the SITE program.
Computerized On-Line Information System (COLIS)
COLIS has not been designed as a database, but as an information system.
The knowledge stored in this system is textual rather numerical in nature.
The system is housed and maintained at ORD RREL in Edison, New Jersey and can
be accessed through a personal computer with any type of modem. COLIS will
eventually be comprised of several distinct files. Currently, only the case
histories file has been fully developed. Data in this file is drawn primarily
from waste sites and oil spills reported in the early 1980's.
Treatment Data Management System (TDMS)
TDMS includes paired data points of treatment/removal efficiencies. The
focus of TDMS is on excavated soils: how they were treated and what were the
results. TDMS currently resides on a contract VAX mainframe.
NEXT STEPS FOR THIS CHAPTER:
* Create a matrix of pertinent databases which highlights the features and
shortcomings of each system and the relevant components for treatability
studies.
8-6
-------
SECTION 9
PERMITS/RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
One of the most important aspects of conducting treatability studies is
ensuring that the work is conducted in accordance with applicable regulations
and EPA policy. Two major issues that must be considered are: where will
the studies be conducted and how will study residuals be disposed of. It is
critical that these issues be resolved in the planning stage of the study and
that all activities are conducted in the most appropriate manner.
9.1 ON SITE VS. OFFSITE TESTING
A major decision in planning a treatability study is the determination
of whether the study will be conducted on site or offsite. There are both
technical and administrative advantages and disadvantages that must be weighed
in making this decision. Administratively, the decision is controlled by
legal and permitting considerations. From a technical standpoint, there are
several considerations including:
° Availability of onsite facilities (usable building space, utilities,
etc.)
0 Site access, physical restrictions
° Scale of treatability study (lab-, bench-, pilot-, or full-scale)
° Availability of transportable or mobile treatment equipment
° Health and safety considerations (i.e., can adequate protection be
provided on site)
° Costs of on site vs. offsite testing
9-1
-------
If a treatability study is conducted on site, no Federal permits are
required; however, project activities must meet State and local permit re-
quirements (if any). If the study is conducted at an offsite lab or test
facility, the Federal treatability study exclusion in Attachment 9-1 may
apply, depending upon the quantity of waste required for testing. The impli-
cations of these legal/permitting issues are summarized in Figure 9-1 in the
form of a decision tree.
9.2 MANAGEMENT OF TREATABILITY STUDY RESIDUALS
During every treatability study, residuals will be generated. During
the development of the study protocol it is important that adequate consid-
eration be given to development of a residuals management plan. Development
of such a plan will ensure that all project residuals will be effectively and
appropriately managed during project close-out activities. If a plan has not
been formalized, it may be found that residuals have been generated that are
difficult to manage or for which the parties involved are not willing, or at
least not anxious, to take responsibility.
A residuals management plan should contain, at a minimum, the following
information:
° Project background, purpose, and scope
° Inventory of residuals (anticipated)
° Characterization of residuals
° Plans for final disposal (for each residual), including responsible
parties (i.e., who will sign manifests if a TSDF is used)
° Cost estimates or assumptions
The plan should contain background information as to the purpose and scope of
the project so that reviewers can assess the plan in its proper context. In
9-2
-------
Figure 9-1. Decision tree for permitting requirements.
9-3
-------
this discussion, the plan should clearly indicate the responsibility of each
party. An example of a residuals management plan is included as Attachment
9-2.
The plan should include an inventory of project residuals. During the
planning stages of the project, projections must be made based on best judg-
ment as to the residuals that will be generated. In addition to the listing,
it is important to quantify the residuals. Again, the initial quantification
will be an estimate that eventually will be refined with actual quantities.
This inventory is essential in planning a treatability study. It affects
project management, logistical coordination, schedule and costs. Project
residuals may include:
0 Untreated waste that was not subjected to testing
° Treated waste that was subjected to the treatability study
° Treatment residuals (e.g., slag, ash, scrubber water, etc.)
° Laboratory samples
° Used containers
0 Contaminated protective clothing and debris
It is important to acknowledge that residuals will be generated and to take
them into consideration in the initial planning stage of the study.
Characterization of residuals must be included in the plan. The costs
of characterizing residuals must also be included in the planning process.
Generally, lab analyses are required to obtain data for EP Toxicity character-
ization (TCLP data may also be required, especially if land disposal is
considered). Other important considerations include realization that resid-
uals resulting from treatment of a listed hazardous waste are, by definition
the same listed hazardous waste. For example, ash resulting from incineration
9-4
-------
of K001 is itself K001. It is important to anticipate if any treatment
residuals will be generated that are difficult or impossible to dispose of.
For example, incineration of waste containing pentachlorophenol could result
in a residual containing dioxin/furan. There currently are no TSDF's permit-
ted to dispose of dioxin. This waste would, therefore, require storage until
a permitted commercial facility comes into existence.
In order for it to be effective, the residuals management plan must be
made available to all parties for their approval prior to initiation of the
study. This will ensure that problems do not arise at the end of the project
that cause legal or administrative problems. For example, if disposal will
be at a permitted TSDF, the plan must state who will obtain the necessary
approvals and who will actually manifest the hazardous residuals. Similarly,
if project residuals are to be returned to the site, the OSC must be aware of
this decision so that the arrival of project residuals can be coordinated
with other onsite work.
Schedule is an important aspect of any study. The disposal of project
residuals requires significant time to arrange, coordinate, and complete.
For example, if residuals are to be disposed of at a TSDF, it will be neces-
sary to obtain a waste approval from the selected facility for each residual.
The approval process generally takes from 3 to 6 weeks, excluding the 4 to 6
weeks generally required to obtain chemical characterization data necessary
to complete the waste approval forms. Once approval is granted, the waste
must be scheduled for transport and disposal. In the case of small quantity
wastes, the shipment may be scheduled for pickup on an existing "milk-run."
In this case, schedules will be dictated by the transporter. If the schedule
is set by the project team, costs for transport will increase significantly.
9-5
-------
9.3 EPA'S OFFSITE DISPOSAL POLICY
EPA's Offsite Disposal Policy (i.e., "Revised Procedures for Implement-
ing Off-Site Response Actions," OSWER Directive No. 9834.11, November 13,
1987) affects decisions regarding disposal of CERCLA wastes and, therefore,
of Superfund treatability study residuals. A copy of this policy is included
in Attachment 9-3. In summary, the policy states that Superfund wastes can
only be disposed of at facilities that are currently in regulatory compliance
with RCRA and SARA requirements. The purpose of this policy is to ensure
that CERCLA wastes do not contribute to present or future environmental
problems by directing these wastes to facilities determined to be environ-
mentally sound.
The list of facilities that are in compliance changes as facilities out
of compliance correct problems and as others encounter problems and fall out
of compliance. The current status of a specific facility can be assessed by
contacting a Regional RCRA Off-Site Contact (RROC). A list of RROC's is
presented in Table 9-1. An essential step in completing a residuals manage-
ment plan is ensuring that the selected TSDF's are in compliance and that
the disposal of residuals is in accordance with the offsite disposal policy.
9-6
-------
TABLE 9-1. REGIONAL RCRA OFF-SITE CONTACTS (RROCs)
Region Primary Contact/Phone Backup Contact/Phone
I
John Zipeto
FTS 833-1744
Linda Murphy
FTS 223-5655
n
Herb Mulholland
FTS 264-2621
Dit Cheung
FTS 264-6142
Joe Golumbek
FTS 264-2638
in
John Armstead
FTS 597-8175
Vernon Butler
FTS 597-6681
IV
Alan Antley
404-347-7603
Gregory Fraley
FTS 257-7603
V
Gertrude Matuschkovitz
FTS 353-7921
Joe Boyle
FTS 886-4449
Rick Karl
FTS 886-4448
Jim Brossman
FTS 886-4447
VI
Paul Sadowski
214/655-6765
Rufe Bryant
214/655-2120
Randy Brown
FTS 255-6745
Sam Becker
FTS 255-6770
VII
David Doyle
FTS 757-2891
Marc Rivas
FTS 757-2891
VIII
Don Rasch
FTS 564-1509
Mike Gansecki
FTS 564-1669
IX
Elaine Schimmel
415/974-0259
Karen Schwinn
FTS 454-8129
X
A1 Odmark
206/442-1886
David Teeter
FTS 399-2871
9-7
-------
ATTACHMENT 9-1
FEDERAL TREATABILITY STUDY EXCLUSION
-------
Tuesday
July 19, 1988
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 260 and 261
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste Treatability Studies Sample
Exemptions; Final Rule
-------
27290 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260 and 261
ISWH-FRL-3350-4 ]
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste Treatability Studies Sample
Exemption
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On September 18,1987, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a Notice of Data Availability,
which requested comment on whether
the sample exclusion provision should
be expanded to include waste samples
used in small-scale treatability studies.
The sample exclusion provision exempts
from regulation under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) waste samples collected
solely for the purpose of monitoring or
testing to determine their characteristics
or composition. The Notice also
presented information and requested
comment concerning the appropriate
limitations that could be imposed if the
sample exclusion were expanded.
As a result of comments received,
EPA is today issuing a final rule that
conditionally exempts waste samples
used in small-scale treatability studies
from Subtitle C regulation.
Consequently, generators of the waste
samples and owners or operators of
laboratories or testing facilities
conducting such treatability studies will
be exempt from the Subtitle C
hazardous waste regulations, including
the permitting requirements, when
certain conditions are met
date: This regulation becomes effective
on July 19,1988.
ADDRESSES: The OSW Docket is located
in the sub-basement at the following
address and is open from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m.. Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays: EPA RCRA Docket
(sub-basement). 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC Z04S0.
The public must make an appointment
(to review docket materials) by calling
(202) 475-9327. Refer to Docket number
F-88-TSSE-FFFFF when making
appointments to review any background
documentation for this rulemaking
Copies cost $0.15 per page. Copies of the
background document entitled
"Summary and EPA Responses to Public
Comments on the September 18,1987
Notice of Data Availability and Request
for Comment, and the September 25,
1981 Interim Final Rule" are available
for viewing in the OSW Docket Room
For Further documentation and
information, see Docket Number
F-87-TSEF-FFFFF.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline toll free
at (800) 424-9346 in Washington, DC, or
at (202) 382-3000. For technical
information contact Mike Petruska.
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562B), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,
(202) 475-9888.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
Summary
I. Background.
II. Discussion of Major Issues
A. Introduction
1. Need and Rationale for Today's
Rulemaking
2. Determination of de minimis Risk
B Scope of the Exemption
1. Definition of Treatability Study
2. Inclusion of Liner Compatibility and
Other Studies
3. Effects on Exporters of Hazardous
Waste
C. Limitations
1. Quantity Limits per Waste Stream per
Treatment Process
2. Transportation Shipment Limits—
Generator and Facility
3. Treatment Rate Limit
4. Storage Limits
5. Residues and Unused Samples-Time
Limitations
6. Mobile Treatment Units
D. Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
E. EPA Identification Numbers-
Applicability of OSHA Training
Requirements
F. Incentives for Safe Transport
III. Today's Amendment
IV State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules m Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
V. Effective Date
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order No. 12291
B. Regulator}' Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. Supporting Documentation
VIII. List of Subjects
I. Background
On September 25, 1981 (see 46 FR
47426), EPA issued an interim final rule
that conditionally exempted from the
Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations
any waste samples collected solely for
the purpose of monitoring or testing to
determine their characteristics or
composition. These regulations include
the generator and transporter
requirements of Parts 262 and 263 and
the treatment, storage, and permitting
requirements of Parts 264, 265, and 270.
In particular, the regulations exempt
waste samples from the Subtitle C
requirements when: (1) The sample is
being transported to the laboratory for
testing or is being transported back to
the sample collector after the testing. (2)
.the sample is being stored by the sample
collector or laboratory before testing or
after testing prior to its return to the
generator; (3) the sample is being
analyzed to determine its characteristics
or composition; or (4) the sample is
being stored at the laboratory for a
specific purpose such as a court case or
enforcement action. However, samples
subject to the exemption must still
comply with U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), U.S. Postal
Service (USPS), or other applicable
shipping requirements. The sample must
be packaged so that it does not leak,
spill, or vaporize from its packaging.
The Agency granted this exclusion
because of the de minimis public health
and environmental risks involved. In
particular, the Agency found that certain
incentives already existed that would
assure protection of human health and
the environment without requiring these
samples to be subject to the full set of
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) hazardous waste
regulations. These incentives include (1)
the costs associated with sample
collection, shipping, analysis, and
storage: (2) the generator's need to
obtain results of analyses to determine
if and how they must comply with the
RCRA hazardous waste requirements;
and (3) the considerable likelihood that
a testing laboratory would return the
sample to the generator as part of a
contractual agreement (partly based on
the generator's desire to protect
proprietary information and partly
based on the testing laboratory's desire
to avoid the costs of disposal), reducing
the concern that the sample would be
indiscriminately disposed. The preamble
stated that the exclusion did not cover
large-size samples that are used in
treatability or other testing at pilot scale
or experimental facilities. However, the
preamble did not specify whether the
exclusion applied to small- or bench-
scale treatability studies at laboratories
or other testing facilities. Today's final
rule directly addresses this issue.
The preamble of the 1981 interim final
rule also stated that the Agency had
considered and rejected a quantity limit
for the samples subject to the exclusion
Its basis for this was that the available
information indicated that the size of
samples shipped for characterization or
analytical purposes usually did not
exceed 1 gallon. Therefore, the Agency
saw no need to set a specific quantity
limit. However, the preamble also slated
that EPA would consider imposing a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 27291
limit on sample size if comments or
experience indicated that such a limit
was necessary (46 FR 47427).
While the comments received on the
1981 interim final rule generally
supported thejexclusion for samples
shipped for waste characterization, a
large percentage of commenters also
recommended that the sample exclusion
provision be expanded to include waste
samples used in treatability studies,
including large-size samples used in
pilot-scale units or at experimental
facilities.
Furthermore, on June 2,1987, the
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
(HWTCJ submitted a rulemaking
petition requesting that the Agency
promulgate regulations to provide
limited exemptions from the permitting
requirements of RCRA to facilities
conducting treatability studies. The
petition proposed a three-part solution:
(1) Expand the sample exclusion
provision to allow treatability tests to be
conditionally exempted from regulation;
(2) expand the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) permits
exclusion at 40 CFR 300.68(a)(3) to
include off-site treatability testing when
performed at the direction of an EPA or
State on-scene coordinator to implement
a response consistent with CERCLA
section 121; and (3) issue interim
guidance to implement, at least in part,
the suggested changes described in (1)
and (2) above [i.e.. interpret the existing
sample exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(d) to
include treatability studies, and issue
interim guidance to on-scene
coordinators regarding off-site
treatability studies). The petition
proposed several limitations for small-
scale treatability studies. The petition
also recommended regulatory changes
that would allow large-scale treatability
studies to be conducted provided that
the facility complies with the
manifesting requirements and certain
interim status standards. (See section
II.C.. Limitations, discussed below.)
The petition asserted that immediate
regulatory relief was needed because
the present RCRA Subtitle C permitting
requirements unnecessarily interfere
with the experimentation and research
necessary to evaluate the various
treatment options for CERCLA cleanup
activities. HWTC further argued that
these same problems will have a similar
effect on RCRA corrective action.
Agency experience with the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) program and CERCLA cleanup
actions support the HWTC's assertion.
Based on these factors [i.e.. comments
on the sample exclusion interim final
rule, the HWTC petition, and EPA's own
experience), EPA published a Notice of
Data Availability and Request for
Comment on September 18,1987 (50 FR
35279). The Notice reopened the
comment period on the earlier interim
final rule and specifically asked whether
EPA should expand the sample
exclusion provision in 40 CFR 261.4(d) to
include waste samples used in small-
scale treatability studies. The Notice
also presented information and
requested comment concerning the
appropriate limitations that could be
imposed if the sample exclusion
provision were expanded.
Almost all commenters to the notice
recommended that the Agency expand
the sample exclusion provision to
include waste samples used in small-
scale treatability studies. The
commenters generally agreed that the
Agency could promulgate such an
exclusion and allow meaningful studies
to be conducted because of the de
minimis risk to human health and the
environment. However, a number of
commenters argued that the limitations
discussed in the Notice were overly
stringent and suggested that higher
limitations be allowed.
Based on the Agency's own
experience and the comments received,
EPA is today issuing a final rule that
conditionally exempts waste samples
used in small-scale treatability studies
from regulation under Subtitle C of
RCRA. The Agency will address the
second part of HWTC's petition
concerning larger scale studies at a later
date. The remainder of the preamble
discusses the major comments received
on the Notice of Data Availability and
EPA's response to them. All other
comments, both from the Notice of Data
Availability and to the original interim
final rule, are discussed in a background
document that is available in the docket
to this rulemaking. (See EPA RCRA
docket address in preceding section.)
II. Discussion of Major Issues
A. Introduction
A total of 40 comments were received
in response to the Notice of Data
Availability. The commenters in general
agreed with HWTC that the Agency
should expand the sample exclusion
provision to apply to waste samples
used in small-scale treatability studies.
However, there was a wide range of
opinion as to the scope of activities that
should be allowed under the exemption
and the appropriate limitations that the
Agency should impose. Before
discussing these, however, it is
appropriate to discuss the need and
rationale for today's rulemaking.
1. Need and Rotionale for Today's
Rulemaking
In the Agency's experience, permitting
requirements for offsite treatability
studies have resulted in delays in
evaluating remediation alternatives for
both CERCLA site clean-ups and the
RCRA corrective action program.
Additionally, the current and upcoming
Land Disposal Restrictions Program is
another factor arguing strongly for a
need to develop alternative treatment
technologies.
The overriding objective of Congress
in the 1984 RCRA Amendments—to
reduce land disposal of hazardous
wastes—has already resulted both in
heavy demands for existing treatment
technologies and in increased urgency
for developing new and better treatment
methods as an alternative to the land
disposal of hazardous waste. In
addition, developing techniques to
minimize the generation of hazardous
waste, and to promote recycling and
reuse of waste, are all important Agency
goals and Congressional mandates. EPA
is committed to facilitating research and
development activities that will help
meet these objectives.
The Agency believes the current
regulatory framework that sets fortli
RCRA permitting requirements for
Subtitle C facilities is unnecessarily
stringent for regulating certain activities,
e.g., small-scale treatability studies. As
noted above, comments in 1981
suggested a need to extend the sample
exclusion provision to treatability
studies because of the low risk and the
large benefits of conducting these
studies if RCRA permits were not
required.
The HWTC petition summarizes this
position on behalf of many facilities that
conduct treatability studies as part of
their research activities. In addition,
HWTC stressed that the development of
new treatment capacity, needed to meet
the demands placed on industry as the
land disposal restrictions take effect, is
not facilitated by the current
regulations. The potential lack of
treatment capacity, using either new or
improved existing technologies, means
that EPA may have to issue additional
variances to the land disposal
restrictions, posing an increased threat
of ground water and surface water
contamination.
Maintaining unnecessary regulatory
barriers to conducting treatability
studies is. therefore, contrary to the
Agency's implementation of the
mandated land disposal restrictions.
Furthermore, these regulatory barriers
send the wrong message to the regulated
-------
27292 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
community. The Agency intends to
promote, not defeat, research and
development in support of the national
objectives to reduce land disposal of
hazardous wastes and to increase
reliance on waste minimization and
treatment technologies that reduce risk
to human health and the environment.
However, the Agency remains pledged
to carry out its primary statutory
obligation to ensure that removing
regulatory barriers does not result in
unwarranted or increased risks to
human health and the environment. The
Agency has determined that this
balance can be properly maintained in
promulgating a RCRA exemption for
small scale treatability studies.
2. Determination of De Minimis Risk
Since Congress passed RCRA in 1976,
the Agency has developed and
implemented a "cradle to grave"
program to protect human health and
the environment from the improper
management of hazardous wastes. A
principal purpose of the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations is to ensure
that hazardous wastes are safely
transported to facilities properly
designed and operated to manage these
wastes in a manner that will minimize
the threat to human health and the
environment. Hazardous waste
generators, transporters, and owners
and operators of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) each have
specific responsibilities for properly
managing those wastes defined as
hazardous.
The Agency believes that it can
exempt hazardous waste that is used in
small-scale treatability studies from the
RCRA hazardous waste regulations
because a number of factors will
combine to ensure that the risks to
human health and the environment are
de minimis. These factors include: (1) A
limitation on the size of the sample that
is exempted; (2) the high cost of
collecting and shipping the sample; (3) a
limitation on the quantity of waste that
can be shipped at any one time: (4) the
applicability of the Department of
Transportation (DOT), U.S. Postal
Service (USPS), or other regulations
governing the transportation of
hazardous materials; (5) a limitation on
the amount of hazardous waste that can
be stored at a laboratory or testing
facility: (G) a limitation on the amount of
hazardous waste that may be processed
(i.e.. tested in a treatability unit) in any
one day: (7) the prohibitive costs
involved in conducting legitimate
treatability studies as an alternative to
commercial treatment and disposal: (8) a
limitation on the time that a waste
sample used in a treatability study or
any residues generated from such
studies may remain at the laboratory or
testing facility without being subject to
the hazardous waste regulations; (9) the
RCRA requirement that any unused
sample and residues from a treatability
study must still be managed as a
hazardous waste (if, in fact, it is still
hazardous); and (10) certain reporting
and recordkeeping requirements that
will enable the Agency to conduct
inspections and bring enforcement
actions against persons who abuse this
exemption. In addition, regulations and
requirements administered by other
Federal agencies such as the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) also ensure
proper management.
The Agency believes that all the
above factors contribute to an argument
for de minimis risk. Some factors, such
as the sample size, shipment size,
transportation standards, and storage
limitations, directly relate to the de
minimis risk in each phase of the
treatability study process. Other factors
such as the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements and the one-time 1000 kg
per waste stream limitation ensure that
treatment and disposal of hazardous
waste do not occur under the guise of
conducting treatability studies.
More specifically, under the
conditional exemption being
promulgated today, the generator or
sample collector may not ship more than
one of the following in any single
shipment: (1) 1000 kg of non-acute
hazardous waste; (2) 1 kg of acute
hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.33(e));
or (3) 250 kg of acute hazardous waste
that is contained in contaminated soils,
water, or some other contaminated
medium. Since the shipments remain
subject to DOT, USPS, or other
applicable shipping regulations, they
must be packaged and labeled in the
same manner as other shipments of
hazardous materials. One difference is
that these waste samples will not
require a manifest. EPA believes that a
manifest is not required in this situation,
since the generator is spending large
sums of money to obtain the results of a
treatability study. Thus, it is highly
unlikely that the sample would be
indiscriminately disposed. Furthermore,
the generator or sample collector is
likely to have a contractual arrangement
with the laboratory or testing facility
conducting the treatability study either
to have the facility return any unused
sample and/or any residues that are
generated from the treatability study for
subsequent manifesting and shipment to
a designated facility (see 40 CFR 260.10)
or recycling facility or to have the
laboratory or testing facility directly
manifest and ship the wastes to an
appropriate designated facility within
specified time limits. Unless the context
otherwise requires, the use of this term
in today's preamble and rule does not
imply that the facility is required to be
permitted or to have interim status The
generator must also maintain copies of
the shipping papers and the contract
with the testing facility for a period
ending 3 years from the completion date
of the study.
The operator of a vehicle transporting
waste samples is still required to comply
with the applicable DOT requirements,
including notification of the National
Response Center in the event of a
hazardous material spill of more than a
reportable quantity and initiation of
cleanup measures in accordance with 49
CFR 171.15.
Owners and operators of a laboratory
or testing facility conducting such
treatability studies must comply with
the limitations regarding shipment,
storage, treatment rate, and disposition
of unused sample and residues after
completion of the studies. The overall
limitations on storage and treatment
rates, discussed later in today's
preamble, are sufficiently restrictive to
compel a laboratory or testing facility to
carefully coordinate the size and timing
of treatability sample shipments. The
owners and operators of these
laboratories or testing facilities must
also comply with applicable regulations
promulgated by OSHA.
Further business and financial
incentives compelling a laboratory or
testing facility to properly handle these
samples include the cost-intensive
nature of conducting treatability studies,
the need to provide the client with
documented test results, the desire of
the laboratory or testing facility to
maintain its corporate reputation, and
the desire to avoid any liability. After
the treatability study is completed, the
owners or operators of a laboratory or
testing facility must either return the
unused sample and residues to the
generator or manifest and ship them to a
RCRA designated facility (if the material
is a RCRA hazardous waste) within the
time limitations specified. A laboratory
or testing facility not operating within
these limitations must comply with the
appropriate RCRA requirements.
Finally, the Agency is stipulating
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that will document
compliance with the limitations and will
allow the Agency to take enforcement
action against persons who attempt to
abuse the exemption. The specific
reporting and recordkeeping
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 27293
requirements are discussed later in
today's preamble.
B. Scope of the Exemption
1. Definition of Treatability Study
In the Notice of Data Availability, the
Agency included a definition of
"treatability study" similar to that
proposed by HWTC. According to this
definition, a treatability study is one in
which a relatively small amount of
hazardous waste is subjected to a
known treatment process to determine
the following: (1) Whether the waste is
amenable to a treatment process; (2)
what pretreatment (if any) is required;
(3) the optimal process conditions
needed to achieve the desired treatment;
(4) the efficiency of the treatment
process; or (5) the characteristics and
volume of residuals from a particular
treatment process. (See 52 FR 35280.)
The commenters generally agreed
with the definition of treatability study.
However, many commenters expressed
concern that the use of the term "known
treatment process" was overly
restrictive and might hinder the
development of innovative technologies.
Thus, these commenters recommended
that the word "known" be deleted from
the definition in the final rule. HWTC's
proposed regulatory language did not
include a restriction to "known"
technologies.
The Agency agrees with these
commenters. As stated earlier, it is
important to promote the development
of treatment technologies that will
reduce the land disposal of hazardous
waste and increase the reliance on
waste minimization and treatment
technologies that reduce risk to human
health and the environment. In so doing.
EPA does not want to restrict industry
to the technologies that are already
established or "known"; rather, it wants
to promote the development of
innovative technologies. Therefore, the
Agency has modified the definition of
"treatability study" accordingly. At the
same time, it is concerned that the
treatability study sample exemption
may be improperly used as a means to
avoid regulation when regulation is
warranted. To prevent this, EPA has
included specific language in the
definition of treatability study to guard
against such abuse. This language
makes it clear that the exemption is for
the evaluation of a treatment process
and is not to be used for commercial
treatment or disposal of hazardous
waste. Furthermore, the Agency
emphasizes that the definition of •
treatability studies covered under the
exemption does not apply where the
practice could result in a significant
uncontrolled release of hazardous
constituents to the environment. It
would, therefore, include neither open
burning nor any type of treatment
involving placement of a hazardous
waste on the land [e.g., in situ
stabilization).
Several commenters also suggested
that the Agency list, in the rule, the
types of treatment studies to be included
in the final definition. Although the
Agency can see some merit in this
suggestion, it has decided not to
incorporate a specific list into the
regulations. EPA believes that such a list
could hinder the development of
innovative technologies. For example, if
it included a list in the rule, the Agency
would be required to go through
rulemaking before new or innovative
treatment technologies would get the
benefit of the treatability exemption. As
previously discussed, the Agency
believes that as long as the limitations
imposed in today's rule are met, any
treatability study will pose a de minimis
risk. Examples of the types of
treatability studies included in the
exemption are physical/chemical/
biological treatment, thermal treatment
(incineration, pyrolysis, oxidation,
combustion) solidification, sludge
dewatering, volume reduction, toxicity
reduction, and recycling feasibility.
2. Inclusion of Liner Compatibility and
Other Studies
In the Notice of Data Availability, the
Agency solicited comment as to whether
the exemption should include other
waste testing studies, such as liner
compatibility studies. Many commenters
agreed that the exemption should be
expanded to include other types of
studies. The commenters argued that, in
addition to liner compatibility studies,
the exemption should also include
studies of corrosion, toxicological and
health effects, and other material
compatibility studies [e.g. pumps and
personal protective equipment). While
such studies are not strictly treatability
studies under the proposed definition,
the commenters argued that waste
testing is necessary to develop improved
hazardous waste management
technologies.
The Agency agrees with the
commenters that such studies, although
not strictly treatability studies, are
necessary for the further development of
hazardous waste management
technologies. Furthermore, the Agency
believes that such studies can be
conducted using small quantities of
hazardous waste under laboratory
conditions. Also, these types of studies
are subject to the same financial and
business incentives for safe handling as
are treatability studies. Therefore, with
the imposition of the limitations in this
final rule, these studies will involve only
de minimis risk and need not be subject
to RCRA permitting regulations. The
Agency is, therefore, allowing the
following types of studies to be
conducted and exempted under the
hazardous waste regulations: liner
compatibility studies, corrosion studies,
toxicological and health effects studies,
and other material compatibility studies
[e.g., relating to leachate collection
systems, geotextile materials, other land
disposal unit requirements, pumps and
personal protective equipment).
3. Effects on Exporters of Hazardous
Waste
EPA, in today's rule, is exempting
samples sent for treatability studies
from Subtitle C requirements. These
include the requirement to notify EPA
prior to export of hazardous waste (40
CFR 262.50 et seq.). At the time export
requirements were promulgated, EPA
discussed in the preamble its rationale
for allowing the export, without
notification, of wastes exempt from
manifesting requirements (51 FR 28664,
August 8,1986). In this discussion on
export notification requirements, EPA
specifically focussed on the sample
exemption in 40 CFR 261.4(d).
The rule promulgated today expands
the scope of this exemption as
contemplated in 1986. For the same
reasons discussed in the August 8,1986,
rule relating to § 261.4(d) samples (51 FR
28664 et seq.), exporters of treatability
study samples who comply with the
limitations of today's rule are also
exempt'from the export notification
requirements of Subpart E of Part 262.
While the Agency is exempting these
treatability study samples from the
export notification requirements at this
time, the Agency is revisiting the
question as to whether it should exclude
unmanifested waste from the export
notification requirements and may
modify its position in the future.
C. Limitations
In the Notice of Data Availability, the
Agency requested specific comment on
what types of limitations should be
placed on the exemption if it were to be
expanded to include treatability studies.
In addition, EPA specifically requested
comment on the limitations suggested by
the HWTC in its petition. The HWTC
suggested quantity limits for shipping,
storage, and treatment of hazardous
waste samples for the purpose of
conducting a treatability study. In
particular, the Notice suggested the
following limits: (1) No shipment may
-------
27294 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
exceed 250 kg; (2) no more than 1000 kg
of exempted waste (including residues
derived from the treatability study) may
be present at the laboratory or testing
facility conducting the treatability study
at any one time; and (3) no more than
250 kg of exempted waste may be
introduced into the treatability study in
any one day.
A wide range of opinions concerned
appropriate limitations that would
provide for meaningful treatability
studies. While most commenters
believed that the limitations they
suggested were necessary to conduct
treatability studies, no commenters
provided data indicating that their
suggested limits were protective of
human health and the environment. The
following indicates the range of quantity
limits proposed by commenters for
shipment, treatment, and storage:
Shipment;
mean quantity: 554 kg
standard deviation: 794 kg
range: 250 to 4000 kg
most frequently cited suggestion: 250
kg
Treatment:
mean; 448 kg
standard deviation: 417 kg
range: 250 to 2000 kg
most frequently cited suggestion: 250
kg
Storage:
mean: 2000 kg
standard deviation: 2285 kg
range: 250 to 10,000 kg
most frequently cited suggestion: 1000
kg
Many commenters were supportive of
the limitations suggested by HWTC in
its petition. However, some commenters
argued that the limitations suggested in
the notice were not sufficient; although
these commenters provided no data
suggesting that their limits were
protective of human health and the
environment, they maintained that
larger quantities of waste sample were
necessary to conduct treatability
studies. In particular, some commenters
argued that the storage limitations were
unnecessarily restrictive. Additionally,
some commenters urged that a higher
treatability study limit was necessary as
some of the treatability tests required
quantities of waste in excess of 1000 kg.
Finally, some commenters recommended
that the Agency include a mechanism
for approval of case-by-case variances
from the HWTC quantity limitations or
the quantity limitations ultimately
chosen.
Nevertheless, all commenters
generally agreed that suitable
limitations combined with economic
forces would prevent the exemption
from becoming a means to circumvent
the RCRA Subtitle C regulations for
treatment and disposal of hazardous
waste Additionally, many commenters
noted that it would not be economically
feasible for a person to perform an
endless series of tests, since treatability
study costs are much higher than
commercial treatment or disposal costs
on a per pound basis. In particular,
Shirco (TSEF-001) stated that most
treatability tests had unit costs greatly
in excess of costs associated with
treatment and disposal options. Shirco
cited an example where treatability
study costs were about $1,000 per pound
versus $0.80 to $1.20 per pound for
disposal at a commercial facility.
Numerous other commenters stated that
the high costs associated with
performing treatability studies would
render invalid any concern the Agency
had that the exemption could become a
"loophole" in the RCRA Subtitle C
regulations.
The Agency believes that the
limitations established in this exemption
will ensure that it does not become a
"loophole" and will ensure de minimis
risk so that no significant threat to
human health and the environment will
occur. The following sections discuss
the limits selected by the Agency and
present the rationale for the limitations
adopted.
1. Quantity Limits per Waste Stream per
Treatment Process
In response to the Notice of Data
Availability, several commenters
recommended that limits should be set
for each generated waste stream to
guard against the possibility that
generators and facilities might conduct a
plethora of treatability studies in lieu of
hazardous waste treatment or disposal.
While data was provided that would
suggest this would not happen, the
Agency has decided that some
limitations should be imposed as an
extra precaution. Thus, to avoid the
potential for such an abuse, the Agency
has first made it clear in the definition of
"treatability study" that the exemption
is for the evaluation of a treatment
process and is not to be utilized as a
commercial treatment option. In
addition, the Agency has placed limits
on the amount of waste that can be
subject to a treatability study evaluation
per generated waste stream. Thus, the
rule provides for an exemption of 1000
kg of non-acute hazardous waste per
waste stream per treatment process; 1
kg of acute hazardous waste per waste
stream per treatment process; or 250 kg
of soils, water, or debris contaminated
by acute hazardous waste per waste
stream per treatment process. The
Agency, in making this decision, realizes
that a generator may need to evaluate
alternative treatment processes for a
particular waste stream. EPA believes
that the limits set will be adequate to
allow sufficient studies to be conducted
Furthermore, the quantity limits are
consistent with other limits discussed
elsewhere in today's preamble.
The Agency is broadly defining
"waste stream" such that a waste
stream and the quantity limit are not
based on the EPA waste code alone;
rather, the Agency will interpret and
apply the quantity limit for each medium
or physical form in which the waste
appears. The Agency believes that this
broad interpretation is necessary since
each medium [i.e., soils, water, or
debris) might require a different
treatability study and may need to be
shipped to a different laboratory or
testing facility for such studies to be
conducted. The Agency is also broadly
defining "treatment process" to allow a
generator to evaluate various alternative
approaches. For example, a generator
could send 1000 kg of non-acute
hazardous waste, or 1 kg of acute
hazardous waste, or 250 kg of soils,
water, or debris contaminated with
acute hazardous waste for each
generated waste stream to a number of
different processes: biological treatment,
incineration, fixation, etc. As allowed by
this exemption, the generator or sample
collector would be limited to a total of
1000 kg of nonacute hazardous waste of
a particular waste stream to investigate
alternative fixation processes (or, as
applicable, 250 kg of soils, water, or
debris contaminated with acute
hazardous waste, orl kg of acute
hazardous waste). The Agency has
selected the above limits recognizing
that in some instances there may be a
need to evaluate alternative treatment
processes. Finally, the Agency has
decided not to put any limits on the
number of treatability studies that a
laboratory or testing facility can perform
per year. However, if this proves to be a
problem, the Agency may consider
additional regulations.
As noted above, some commenters
suggested that higher quantity limits arc
necessary in order to evaluate certain
treatability study processes or that
additional amounts of waste may be
necessary in instances where
unforeseen circumstances have affected
the results of all or part of a treatability
study evaluation. They suggested that
case-by-case allowances in excess of
the amounts specified above should be
made available if need can be
demonstrated. The Agency agrees that
some flexibility should be made
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 19G3 / Rules and Regulations 272S5
available to allow studies to be
completed properly. However, the
Agency wishes to ensure that adequate
controls are placed on all such
evaluations to protect human health and
the environment. Accordingly, the
Agency has included a provision that
allows the Regional Administrator to
grant requests for waste stream quantity
limits in excess of those specified above,
up to an additional 500 kg of non-acute
hazardous waste, 1 kg of acute
hazardous waste, and 250 kg of soils,
water, and debris contaminated with
acute hazardous waste. The Regional
Administrator shall only allow
additional quantities of hazardous
waste when it can be demonstrated that
one of the following circumstances or
situations exist: (1) That there has been
an equipment or mechanical failure and
that additional waste is needed to
conduct a study; (2) that there is a need
to verify the results of a previously
evaluated treatment process; (3) that
there is a need to study and analyze
alternative techniques within a
previously evaluated treatment process;
or (4) that there is a need to do further
evaluation of an ongoing treatability
study to determine final specifications
for treatment. These adjustments may
be authorized only if the 1000 kg (or 250
kg for soils, water, or debris
contaminated with acute hazardous
waste, or 1 kg for acute hazardous
waste) quantity limit per waste stream
per treatment process has been
subjected to a treatability study
evaluation and insufficient data are
available to properly design a treatment
process. When authorizing additional
quantities, the Regional Administrator
will only authorize adjustments for the
minimum quantity necessary to
complete the treatability study
evaluation. The Agency believes that
most treatability studies can be
completed utilizing an extra 250 kg of
sample or less, and only in unusual
circumstances will quantities greater
than 250 kg be required.
Generators and/or sample collectors
seeking such an authorization for
additional quantities must furnish
sufficient information to the Regional
Administrators to verify that they have
met the conditions allowing for quantity
adjustments. Generators and/or sample
collectors will be required to submit, in
writing, the specific reason why an
additional quantity of sample for the
treatability study evaluation is
necessary [i.e., one of the four situations
described above). He or she shall also
provide: (1) Verification cf the
additional quantity necessary; (2)
documentation accounting for all
samples of hazardous waste from the
waste stream which have previously
been sent for treatability study
evaluation: (3) a description of the
technical modifications or change in
specifications which will be evaluated
and the expected results; and, (5) if
further study is being required due to
equipment or mechanical failure, the
generator and/or sample collector must
include information from the laboratory
or testing facility indicating what
handling procedures or equipment
improvements have been made to
protect against further breakdowns.
The Regional Administrator may
perform or require additional analyses
and investigations as are necessary to
determine the minimal amount of
additional waste necessary to conduct
the study and yield the additional data
necessary to properly design and/or
evaluate the performance of the
treatment process.
2. Transportation Shipment Limits—
Cenerator and Facility
The HWTC, in its petition, suggested
that shipments of waste samples
weighing less than 250 kg
(approximately one standard 55-gallon
drum) should be exempted when such
samples are being shipped for the
purpose of conducting treatability
studies. The petition also recognized
that larger size samples might be
necessary for conducting treatability
studies on contaminated soils or water;
hence, the HWTC recommended that a
provision for exempting larger size
samples should be available. A number
of commcnters indicated that the 250-kg
shipment limit was too restrictive and
suggested that the limit be increased to
100G kg. These commenters argued that
the risk associated with shipping a
larger amount [e.g., 1000 kg) is no greater
than that associated with four shipments
of 250 kg each when one considers the
potential for transportation accidents.
After careful consideration of all the
issues, the Agency has decided to set a
single shipment limitation of 1000 kg of
non-acute hazardous waste; 1 kg of
acute hazardous waste; or 250 kg of
soils, water, or debris contaminated
with acute hazardous waste. These
shipment limitations (which, in effect,
govern the exemption from the RCRA
hazardous waste transporter regulations
and manifesting requirements) will
apply to the shipment of waste samples
from the generator or sample collector to
the laboratory or testing facility when
such samples are being sent for the
purpose of conducting a treatability
study. The exemption will also apply
when unused waste samples and
residues generated by the treatability
study are returned to the generator or
sample collector following completion of
the study.
The Agency is setting this limit to be
consistent with the quantity limits set on
generators for the amount of waste thai
can be subject to the treatability study
sample exemption as discussed in the
previous section. The Agency agrees
with commenters that the risk
associated with shipping the maximum
limit of 1000 kg is no greater than that
associated with four shipments of 250 kg
each. However, it also believes these
levels will pose de minimis risk.
In addition, as already discussed, the
Agency believes other factors exist that
will ensure safe delivery of the waste
samples to and from the laboratory or
testing facility. For example, the waste
samples will still be subject to the
applicable DOT or USPS regulations
regarding shipment of hazardous
materials. If the shipments do not fall
under DOT or USPS jurisdiction, the
generator or sample collector and the
laboratory or testing facility must follow
the requirements for labeling and
packaging as set forth by EPA in this
amendment The requirements state that
a sample must be packaged so that it
does not leak, spill, or vaporize from its
packaging. In addition, the following
information must accompany the
sample: (1) The sample collector's name,
address, telephone number, and EPA
identification number: (2) the laboratory
or testing facility's name, mailing
address, telephone number, and EPA
identification number. (3) the quantity of
the sample; (4) the date of shipment; and
(5) a description of the sample. Finally,
the Agency believes that most
shipments will be considerably smaller
than the limit, since other forces, such as
storage limits and treatment rates at the
laboratory or testing facility, will require
careful control of the amount of waste
shipped to the laboratory or testing
facility. The costs to conduct the study
and to collect, pack, and ship the sample
will tend to limit the sample size to the
smallest amount practicable.
3. Treatment Rate Limit
The HWTC, in its petition, suggested
that the treatment rate limit should be
250 kg per day per laboratory or testing
facility. Many of the commenters agreed,
however, others argued that the limit
should be larger and that it should be
based on either the number of treatment
units or the number of treatment
processes that the laboratory or testing
facility was capable of conducting. For
example, if a facility was capable of
conducting several soil fixation studies
or biological treatment studies at one
-------
27296 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
time, then the limit should be 250 kg per
process. Other commenters argued for
even higher limils, indicating that it
should be 250 kg per unit.
After reviewing the available
information and considering the
comments, the Agency has adopted a
treatment rate limit of 250 kg per day of
"as received" waste for the entire
laboratory or testing facility. The term
"as received" has been chosen by the
Agency because some of the treatment
processes involve the addition of non-
waste material to reduce the
environmental mobility of hazardous
constituents. "As received" refers to the
waste shipped by the generator or
sample collector as it arrives at the
laboratory or testing facility. Based on
the information provided by the HWTC,
information submitted by other
commenters in response to the Notice of
Data Availability, and EPA's own
experience, the Agency believes that
most treatability studies can be
conducted at or below the treatment
rate limit of 250 kg per day.
The Agency believes this level will
allow many wastes to be treated and
evaluated as part of a treatability study,
while posing only a de minimis risk to
human health and the environment. For
example, if a laboratory or testing
facility were to conduct a treatability
study on a waste using bench-scale
incineration and the study achieved a
99% destruction removal efficiency, only
a small amount of toxic material would
be released into the environment, In
most instances, the amount released is
much lower than any level of concern. In
addition, since in most cases these
studies will be conducted on an
intermittenl basis, there is less concern
with repeated exposure.
Laboratories or testing facilities that
are conducting treatability studies and
that meet the treatment rate limit are
exempted from the requirements to
obtain a Subtitle C treatment permit.
The Agency wants to emphasize that the
purpose of the exemption is for
conducting treatability studies, not for
the commercial management of
hazardous waste. The Agency believes
that facilities anticipating the need to
conduct an excessively large number of
studies, or those having numerous
treatment units allowing them to
conduct many studies concurrently, will
probably need to obtain a Research,
Development, and Demonstration permit
(40 CFR 270.65). It should also be noted
that the Agency recently promulgated a
new set of permitting standards under
Subpart X of Part 264 (52 FR 46946,
December 10,1987) for miscellaneous
hazardous waste management units. The
Agency is also considering developing
regulations under Subpart Y that would
establish permitting standards for
experimental facilities conducting
research and development on the
storage, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous waste.
4. Storage Limits
The HWTC, in its petition,
recommended that a facility be allowed
to store 1000 kg of hazardous waste on
site without a storage permit, as long as
such waste is for the purpose of
conducting treatability studies. HWTC
argued that this amount is essentially
equal to the small quantity generator
(SQG) limits and that the 1000 kg of
waste included all waste (both received
waste and treated residue). Many
commenters argued that the 1000-kg
storage limit would not allow them
sufficient inventory to conduct certain
treatability studies or argued that the
storage limit should be based on the
number of units present at the facility.
After evaluating this issue, the
Agency has decided to adopt a storage
limitation of 1000 kg per laboratory or
testing facility. However, the Agency
has also decided to specify the 1000-kg
storage limitation for "as received
waste. The 1000-kg storage limitation
per laboratory or testing facility can
include 500 kg of soils, water, or debris
contaminated with acute hazardous
waste or 1 kg of acute hazardous waste.
The Agency is making it clear in this
rule that the storage exemption only
applies to laboratories or testing
facilities conducting treatability studies.
The quantity limitations allow sufficient
inventory to conduct small-scale
treatability studies while ensuring de
minimis risk to human health and the
environment. Higher storage limits
would not give us this same assurance.
Also the Agency notes, as discussed
previously, financial and business
incentives are present that help to
ensure de minimis risk levels are
maintained.
The Agency limits for soils, water,
and other debris contaminated with
acute hazardous waste were selected to
allow small-scale treatability studies to
be conducted on media contaminated
with dioxin wastes and certain
pesticides such as aldrin and aldicarb.
Although the 500-kg storage limit is
higher than that currently established
for SQGs, the Agency believes that the
500-kg limit will still be protective of
human health and the environment and
pose de minimis risk, since in most
instances the sample will only be stored
for a short period of time prior to being
utilized in a study. Furthermore, this
category is limited to materials in which
the acute hazardous waste involves a
contaminant in a medium such as water
or soil. Therefore, EPA would expect the
concentration of the acute hazardous
waste to be very low. Furthermore, the
contaminant may be bound to the
medium itself. For other acute
hazardous wastes [i.e., the actual listed
waste), the Agency has adopted a 1 -kg
limit consistent with the SQG
regulations.
5. Residues and Unused Samples-Time
Limitations
Although the Notice of Data
Availability did not propose any time
limitations for completion of a
treatability study, some commenters
strongly recommended that appropriate
time limits be placed on the storage of
the "as received" waste samples and the
residues generated from the treatability
study. Suggestions on appropriate time
limits varied widely. However, the
commenters generally indicated that 1
year provides ample time to complete
most treatability studies.
The Agency is in agreement with
commenters that specific time limits for
completing treatability studies are
necessary. Time limitations are
necessary to guard against potential
abuses such as use of a laboratory cr
testing facility for long-term storage to
avoid treatment and disposal Any
untreated sample and any residue
generated during the treatability study
must be returned to the generator withm
90 days of study completion or within 1
year from the date of shipment by the
generator to the laboratory or testing
facility, whichever is earlier Otherwise,
these materials must be managed, by the
laboratory or testing facility conducting
the treatability study, as a RCRA
hazardous waste (unless the waste is no
longer hazardous). These time limits
provide the laboratory or testing facility
conducting the treatability study enough
time to do the evaluation, but at the
same time do not allow persons to store
these wastes indefinitely The 1-year
time limit proved to be noncontroversial
when adopted in other areas For
example, the 1-year time limit is
consistent with the speculative
accumulation provision and the closed-
loop tank provision. Under these
provisions, persons or facilities holding
materials have 1 year to accumulate
them before they are potentially subject
to regulation.
Laboratories or testing facilities that
do not return the unused sample or the
residues to the generator or sample
collector within the specified time limits
are subject to appropriate regulation
Facilities must determine if they meet
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
the SQG requirements of § 2G1.5 or the
accumulation requirements of § 262.34,
and they may need to obtain a storage
permit and comply with its conditions.
Once samples and residues are returned
to the generator, they are no longer
exempt under today's rule. Ultimately,
the unused sample and residues that are
still hazardous must be manifested and
disposed of in a RCRA-designated
facility by the laboratory or testing
facility, the waste generator, or sample
collector.
6. Mobile Treatment Units
Although the issue of mobile
treatment units (MTUs) was not
addressed in the Notice of Data
Availability and Request for Comment,
concern was expressed over how this
exemption applies to MTUs. EPA has
determined that MTUs conducting
treatability studies may qualify for this
exemption. However, each MTU or
group of MTUs operating at the same
location is subject to the treatment rate,
storage, and time limitations and the
notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements that are
applicable to stationary laboratories or
testing facilities conducting treatability
studies. That is, a group of MTUs
operating at one location will be treated
as one MTU facility for purposes of
§ 261.4 (e) and (f). Furthermore, these
requirements apply to each location
where an MTU will conduct treatability
studies.
D. Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
Although the Notice of Data
Availability did not specifically
recommend that reporting and
recordkeeping provisions be adopted,
some commenters suggested that some
form of reporting and recordkeeping
should be required in the treatability
study exemption. They argued that,
without some form of reporting or
recordkeeping requirements, EPA would
not have a means of determining who is
violating the exemption or the amount of
waste subjected to treatability studies.
The Agency strongly agrees with the
commenters and believes that reporting
and recordkeeping requirements are
necessary to facilitate inspector review
and, if necessary, to assist in
enforcement action. In fact, 40 CFR
210.2(f) already requires that persons
who claim that their waste is
conditionally exempt from regulation
must provide appropriate
documentation that they meet the
conditions of the exemption. Therefore,
the Agency is stipulating specific
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that will document
compliance with the quantity and time
limitations set forth in this rulemaking.
The reporting and recordkeeping
requirements stipulated below are the
minimum requirements necessary to
ensure compliance with the limitations
i.n the treatability sample exemption.
1. The generator of the sample (who
may also be the shipper or sample
collector) and the laboratory or testing
facility conducting the treatability study
must keep the following records for 3
years after the completion of the study:
a. A copy of the contract (between the
generator and the laboratory or testing
facility) to conduct the treatability
study;
b. Copies of all shipping documents.
(If the waste was shipped to an MTU,
copies of the shipping papers must be
kept with the unit for inspector review.)
2. Generators and sample collectors
must also maintain records indicating
the following: (1) The amount of waste
(per waste stream and treatment
process) shipped under the exemption;
(2) to whom the shipment was sent
(name, address, and EPA identification
number of the laboratory or testing
facility conducting the study); (3) the
date shipment was made; and (4)
whether or not any unused sample or
any residue generated from the
treatability study was returned. In
addition, beginning in 1989, generators
must report this information in their
biennial reports.
3. In addition, laboratories or testing
facilities conducting or intending to
conduct treatability studies must
accomplish the following;
a. Send a letter to the EPA Regional
Administrator or the authorized State
informing the Agency that the
laboratory or testing facility intends to
conduct small-scale treatability studies.
This letter must be received no less than
45 days before the facility begins
conducting treatability studies. The
letter should indicate the address and
EPA identification number of the
laboratory or testing facility conducting
studies and the types of treatability
studies anticipated. Owners and
operators of facilities that do not have
an EPA identification number must
obtain one before conducting any
treatability studies under this
exemption. This reporting requirement
and the requirement to obtain an EPA
identification number apply to owners
and operators of MTUs at every
treatability study location (except at
CERCLA sites where, under CERCLA
section 121(e)(1) and 40 CFR 300.68(a)(3),
RCRA permits are not required).
b. Maintain appropriate records and
documentation for a period of 3 years
27297
following completion of each treatability
study that show compliance with the
appropriate quantity and time
limitations addressed in the final rule
The records must indicate that the
laboratory or testing facility is meeting
the requirements for shipment limits,
treatment rate limits, and storage limits
Specific minimum information, by
treatability study, that must be
maintained include the following:
• The name, address, and EPA
identification number of the generator or
sample collector of the waste samples;
• The date the shipment was
received;
• The quantity of waste accepted;
• The quantity of "as received" waste
in storage each day;
• The date the treatment study was
initiated and the amount of "as
received" waste introduced to treatment
each day;
• The date the treatability study was
concluded; and
• The date the unused sample and
residue were returned to the generator
or, if sent to a designated facility, the
name of the facility and its EPA
identification number. As noted above,
the laboratory or testing facility must
keep copies of all shipping documents
associated with transport of the waste
to and from the facility.
c. By March 15 of each year, submit a
report to the authorized State or
Regional Administrator that includes an
estimate of the number of studies and
the amount of waste expected to be
used in treatability studies during the
current year and the following
information for the previous calendar
year;
• The name, address, and EPA
identification number of the generator or
sample collector of each waste sample.
• The date the shipment was
received;
• The quantity of waste accepted,
• The total quantity of "as received"
waste in storage each day;
• The date the treatment study was
initiated and the amount of "as
received" waste introduced to treatment
each day;
• The date the treatability study was
concluded; and
• The date any unused sample and
residues generated from the treatability
study were returned to the generator or
sample collector or, if sent to a
designated facility, the name of the
facility and the EPA identification
number.
d. Notify the Regional Administrator
or authorized State by letter when and if
the laboratory or testing facility is no
longer planning to conduct any
-------
27298
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
treatability studies at the site. (For
example, when an MTU completes a
treatability study at a site, the owners or
operators must submit the required
notice that they will no longer be
conducting treatability studies al that
site.)
E. EPA Identification Numbers—
Applicability of OS HA Training
Requirements
Some commenters suggested that any
laboratory or testing facility conducting
treatability studies should be required to
have an EPA identification number.
These commenters argued that such a
restriction would ensure that the facility
is in compliance with the requirements
to have a facility contingency plan, has
established emergency procedures, and
is in compliance with OSHA's
hazardous waste workers' training and
medical monitoring requirements. (See
29 CFR 1910.120, 51 FR 45654, December
19.1986.)
The Agency partially agrees and is
requiring any laboratory or testing
facility conducting treatability studies to
notify the Agency and obtain an EPA
identification number if the facility does
not already have one. However, as
already explained, the Agency believes
laboratories or testing facilities
conducting treatability studies within
the limits specified present a de minimis
risk. For example, the OSHA hazardous
waste operators and emergency
response requirements (29 CFR 1910.120)
are applicable except for SQGs and
facilities complying with the
accumulation time requirements of 40
CFR 262.34. Other OSHA requirements,
such as the OSHA laboratory standards
and general duty clause (29 USC
054(a)(1)), may apply depending on the
type of laboratory or testing facility and
the nature of its activities. Thus, EPA
believes requirements such as
contingency plans and emergency
procedures are not necessary for the
protection of human health and the
environment
F. Incentives for Safe Transport
In the Notice of Data Availability, the
Agency specifically requested comment
on whether the incentives for safe
transport and storage of waste
characterization samples would also
apply to treatability samples. Most
commenters agreed that suitable
incentives exist to ensure proper
handling and shipping of treatability
study samples.
The Agency generally agrees. In
particular, a principal purpose of the
generator and transporter requirements
is to assure that shipments of hazardous
wastes are safely delivered to an
appropriate destination [i.e., a permitted
or interim status hazardous waste
management facility). This is
accomplished through the requirements
for manifesting, recordkeeping,
packaging, and labeling of hazardous
waste. The principal purpose of the
manifest system is to ensure "cradle to
grave" accountability for shipments of
hazardous waste from the generator to a
TSDF.
In the case of treatability study
samples, EPA wants to ensure that the
samples are delivered to the facility
conducting the treatability study, and
that both the unused sample and all
residues generated in the treatability
study are sent back to the generator or
sample collector or, alternatively,
shipped to a designated facility if the
waste remains hazardous.
The Agency believes that sufficient
incentives and requirements are in place
to provide for the safe shipment of
samples to and from laboratories and
testing facilities conducting treatability
studies. In particular, they include:
1. Maintenance of corporate
reputation and public confidence;
2. The high cost of these studies
coupled with the generator's or sample
collector's need for properly
documented results;
3. The need for the generator or
sample collector to verify results of a
treatability study; and
4. Requirements in today's rule for
either returning the unused samples and
residues to the generator or sample
collector, or for manifesting and
shipping these materials to a TSDF for
ultimate disposal.
The Agency believes that the above
incentives and requirements will guard
against any facility not complying with
the limitations or conducting bogus
treatability studies. Furthermore, DOT
or other regulations and guidelines
control the transportation of such
samples even in the absence of EPA
regulation. The requirements to comply
with DOT shipping regulations regarding
packaging and labeling will be
substantially the same as present
requirements for shipping hazardous
waste. Additionally, the USPS has
stringent guidelines governing the
shipment of hazardous materials,
including samples. (See the "Domestic
Mail Manual," Part 124 and Publication
52, "Acceptance of Hazardous or
Perishable Articles.") For the above
reasons, the Agency believes that the
transport of small quantities of
hazardous waste poses de minimis risk
during shipment to a laboratory or
testing facility or when being returned to
the generator or sample collector.
III. Today's Amendment
The Agency believes that the full
complement of the hazardous waste
regulations found in 40 CFR, Parts 2G0
through 260 and 270, when applied to
waste samples used in small-scale
treatability studies, are more
comprehensive than necessary to
adequately protect human health and
the environment. In addition, the
Agency believes that it needs to
promote research and the development
of innovative technologies to manage
hazardous wastes. Therefore, EPA is
amending the regulations to
conditionally exempt waste samples
processed in small-scale treatability
studies from the hazardous waste
regulations under certain conditions.
In particular, EPA is today adding
new paragraphs (e) and (f) to 40 CTO
261.4 which accomplish the following:
First, persons who generate samples are
exempted from the generator and
transporter requirements when samples
are shipped by the generator, or any
other person who collects the sample
(the "sample collector"), to a laboratory
or testing facility for the purpose of
conducting a treatability analysis, or
when shipped from the facility back to
the sample collector, provided that
certain packaging and labeling
requirements are met. Second, any
laboratory or testing facility that
conducts treatability studies may store
these waste samples and residues
generated from the treatability study
within the quantity and time limits
specified and not be subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR, Parts 264. 265.
and 270. Third, the actual testing of the
samples does not require a permit,
provided the laboratory or testing
facility complies with the limitations
specified in today's rule.
Laboratories and testing facilities that
conduct treatability studies must also
keep records and documents regarding
each treatability study as enumerated in
II.D.3.6. above. Additionally, today's
rule requires facilities conducting
treatability studies to submit an annual
report to the authorized State or
Administrator of the EPA Region in
which the laboratory or testing facility is
located. The required annual report
must be a distinct document prepared
by the owner and/or operator of the
laboratory or testing facility indicating
the previous calendar year's activities
regarding treatability studies. The report
must be submitted by March 15 of each
year and must identify the laboratory or
testing facility by name, EPA
identification number, and the location
(site address) at which the treatability
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
27299
studies were conducted. Paragraph
II.D.3.C. above lists specific information
required in the report. The obligation to
submit annual reports continues until
the laboratory or testing facility
discontinues treatability studies, returns
all unused "as received" samples and
any residues generated in the
treatability studies back to the generator
or sample collector, and notifies the
Regional Administrator or State Director
that the laboratory or testing facility no
longer plans to conduct any treatability
studies at the site.
Paragraph (e), Treatability Study
Samples, provides an exemption for ,
generators of samples of hazardous
waste to be evaluated in treatability
studies, while they are being prepared
for transport or being transported,
provided that these samples and their
residues are returned to the generator
within specified time limits. The
exemption limits the sample collector or
generator from shipping more than 1000
kg per non-acute hazardous waste
stream per treatment process (or 250 kg
of soils, water, or debris contaminated
with acute hazardous waste, or 1 kg of
acute hazardous waste). Shipments must
comply with the applicable DOT, USPS,
or other applicable regulations for
shipping hazardous materials.
The generator or sample collector
must also maintain records indicating
the amount of waste shipped under the
exemption, the name and address of the
laboratory or testing facility, the facility
EPA identification number, type of
study, and the expected duration of the
study. Beginning in 1989, the generator
or sample collector must also include
the above information in its biennial
report.
Paragraph (f), Samples Undergoing
Treatability Studies at Laboratories or
Testing Facilities, describes the
limitations that apply to a facility
conducting treatability studies under
this exemption. The facility may subject
no more than 250 kg of "as received"
waste to treatability studies in any one
day. The facility may store a maximum
of 1000 kg of "as received" waste, of
which 500 kg can be soils, water, or
debri9 contaminated with acute
hazardous waste or 1 kg of acute
hazardous waste. The facility must also
return any unused sample and residues
to the generator within 90 days after
completion of the study or within 1 year
after initial shipment (whichever is
earlier), or otherwise manage the sample
and residue as a RCRA hazardous
waste, if the residue is still hazardous.
The facility must meet certain
specified reporting requirements. The
facility must provide notification (by
letter) to the Regional Administrator or
authorized State indicating that the
facility intends to conduct treatability
studies under the exemption. It must
obtain an EPA identification number if it
does not have one. The facility must
also maintain records documenting
compliance with the specified time and
quantity limits for treatment and storage
and must keep records of all shipping
documents for 3 years from the
completion of the treatability study.
The owner or operator of a facility
conducting treatability studies must also
submit a report to the Regional
Administrator or authorized State
indicating the type and number of
treatability studies conducted during the
previous calendar year, for whom each
study was conducted, the quantity of
hazardous waste utilized in each
treatability study, when each study was
conducted, and theiinal disposition of
residue and any unused sample. The
report must include an estimate of the
number of treatability studies to be
conducted and the quantity of
hazardous waste expected to be used in
treatability studies during the coming
year. The facility must also notify the
Regional Administrator or authorized
State by letter when and if the facility is
no longer planning to conduct any
treatability studies at the site.
IV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR,
Part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008, 7003, and 3013 of RCRA, although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities in the State that the State was
authorized to permit. When new, more
stringent Federal requirements were
promulgated or enacted, the State was
obliged to enact equivalent authority
within specified time frames. New
Federal requirements did not take effect
in an authorized State until the State
adopted the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under section 3006(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g). new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by the HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to implement those
requirements and prohibitions in an
authorized State, including the issuance
of permits, until the State is granted
authorization to do so. While States
must still adopt HSWA-related
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, HSWA applies in
authorized States in the interim.
B. Effect of State Authorizations
Today's announcement promulgates
regulations that are not effective under
HSWA in authorized States, since this
rulemaking does not impose
requirements or prohibitions contained
in HSWA. Thus, the regulations will be
applicable only in those States that do
not have final authorization. In an
authorized State, the regulations will not
be applicable until the State revises its
program to adopt equivalent regulations
under State law.
40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States having final authorization must
modify their programs to include
equivalent regulations within a year of
promulgation of these regulations if only
regulatory changes are necessary, or
within 2 years of promulgation if
statutory changes are necessary. These
deadlines can be extended in
exceptional cases (40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)).
Once EPA approves the modification,
the State requirements become Subtitle
C RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have regulations
similar to those in today's rule. These
State regulations have not been
compared with the Federal regulations
being promulgated today to determine
whether they meet the tests for
authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
regulations in lieu of EPA until the State
program modification is submitted to
EPA and approved. Of course, States
with existing regulations may continue
to administer and enforce their
regulations as a matter of State law.
Authorized States are only required to
modify their programs when EPA
promulgates Federal regulations that are
more stringent or broader in scope than
the authorized State regulations. For
those changes that are less stringent or
reduce the scope of the Federal program.
States are not required to modify their
programs. This is a result of section 3009
of RCRA, which allows States to impose
more stringent or broader regulations
than the Federal program. The
regulations promulgated today at
-------
27300
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
§ § 261.4 (e) and (f) are considered to be
less stringent than or reduce the scope
of the existing Federal regulations
because today's rule exempts certain
activities now within the purview of
RCRA. Therefore, authorized States are
not required to modify their programs to
adopt regulations consistent with and
equivalent to this rulemaking.
Even though States are not required to
adopt today's rulemaking, EPA strongly
encourages States to do so as quickly as
possible. As already explained in this
preamble, today's rule is needed to
facilitate evaluating remediation
alternatives for CERCLA clean-ups and
the RCRA Corrective Action Program,
and to speed research and development
for treatment alternatives to land
disposal and waste minimization,
recycling, and reuse. States are,
therefore, urged to consider the adoption
of today's rule; EPA will expedite
review of authorized State program
revision applications.
States are also encouraged to use
existing authorities to provide for
comparable treatability exemptions
prior to adopting and receiving
authorization for today's rule. Some
States may have authority comparable
to RCRA Section 7003, which allows
EPA to order response action in the case
of imminent and substantial
endangerment to health or the
environment "notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act." An authorized
State may use comparable section 7003-
type authority to authorize treatability
studies and may waive the generator,
transporter, notification, and permit
requirements consistent with today's
rulemaking.
In addition to, or in lieu of, a section
7003-type authority, a State may have
general waiver, permit waiver, or
emergency permit authority. Consistent
with this rule, states are encouraged to
use any such authority to grant
treatability exemptions in a manner
consistent with today's rule.
V. Effective Dale
Section 3010(b) of RCRA provides that
EPA's hazardous waste regulations and
revisions to those regulations take effect
C months after promulgation. The
purpose of this requirement is to allow
facilities that handle hazardous wastes
sufficient lead time to prepare for and to
comply with major new regulatory
requirements. Given the potential of this
rule to increase the timeliness of
CERCLA remedial clean-up activities,
RCRA corrective actions, and
compliance with the land disposal
restrictions, the Agency believes that an
effective date of 6 months after
promulgation would unnecessarily
disrupt implementation of the
regulations and would not be in the
public interest. Since this amendment
reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for facilities that
handle waste samples, there is no basis
for allowing a lengthy time period to
prepare for compliance. The same
reasons provide good cause to make this
rule effective immediately upon
publication notwithstanding section 4(d)
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. 553(d). Therefore, this
amendment takes effect immediately
upon publication in the Federal Register.
The application of this final rule is
prospective only. Any treatability
studies covered by this final rule that
were conducted before the effective
date of this regulation are subject to the
Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations,
including permitting requirements.
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order No. 12291
Under Executive Order No. 12291,
EPA must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This final regulation is not
major because it will not result in an
effect on the economy of $100 million or
more, and it will not increase costs or
prices to industry. Rather, this regulation
will reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous
waste management regulations by
eliminating permitting requirements for
laboratories and testing facilities
intending to conduct treatability studies.
The Agency estimates that perhaps 400
facilities and laboratories nationwide
will be affected by promulgation of this
rule. Facilities and laboratories will be
spared the time (as much as 2 years) and
the costs (estimated to be between
$100,000 and $200,000) otherwise
necessary to obtain a RCRA permit. In
addition, there will be no adverse effect
on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises
to compete with the non-U.S.-based
enterprises in domestic or export
markets. Because this amendment is not
a major regulation, no Regulatory
Impact Analysis has been conducted.
This amendment was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order No 12291.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.. whenever an
Agency is required to publish general
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or
final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities [i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). The Administrator may
certify, however, that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
noted previously in this preamble, the
universe of facilities affected is
estimated to total about 400; of these,
perhaps 200 are small business entities.
By eliminating time-consuming and
costly permitting requirements, the
Agency anticipates that promulgation of
this rule will have a positive effect on
small entities.
This amendment will have no adverse
economic impact on small entities. In
fact, it should reduce the burden
imposed on small entities that conduct
treatability studies and comply with the
provisions of this rulemaking.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
final regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
This regulation therefore does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this rule have
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq., and have been
assigned the OMB control number 2050-
0088 (Treatability Studies Notification
and Recordkeeping).
Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
vary from 90 to 250 hours per response,
with an average of 155 hours per
response, including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-
223, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW„ Washington.
DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503.
VII. Supporting Documentation
A background document in which
EPA responds to any comments not
addressed in this preamble, entitled
"Summary and EPA Responses to Public
Comments on the September 18,1987
Notice oT Data Availability and Request
for Comment, and the September 25.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 1938 / Rules and Regulations
27301
1981 Interim Final Rule," dated June
1988. is available in the RCRA docket at
EPA (LG-100), 401 M St., SW„
Washington, DC 20460. The docket
number for this rulemaking is F-8&-
TSSE-FFFFFF. The docket is open from
9 a m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The public
must make an appointment to review
docket materials by calling (202) 475-
9327. Copies cost $0.15 per page.
VIII. List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous waste.
40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling.
Date: July 11,1988.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The Authority Citation for Part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a). 6921
through 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935. 6937. 6938. 6939
and 6974.
2. Section 260 10 is amended by
adding the following definition in
alphabetical order:
§260.10 Definitions.
*****
"Treatability Study" means a study in
which a hazardous waste is subjected to
a treatment process to determine: (1)
Whether the waste is amenable to the
treatment process, (2) what pretreatment
(if any) is required, (3) the optimal
process conditions needed to achieve
the desired treatment, (4) the efficiency
of a treatment process for a specific
waste or wastes, or (5) the
characteristics and volumes of residuals
from a particular treatment process.
Also included in this definition for the
purpose of the § 261.4 (e) and (f)
exemptions are liner compatibility,
corrosion, and other material
compatibility studies and toxicological
and health effects studies. A
"treatability study" is not a means to
commercially treat or dispose of
hazardous waste.
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The Authority Citation for Part 261
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(d), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
4. Section 261.4 is amended by adding
two new paragraphs (e) and (f) to read
as follows:
§ 261.4 Exclusions.
*****
(a) Treatability Study Samples. (1)
Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2)
of this section, persons who generate or
collect samples for the purpose of
conducting treatability studies as
defined in section 260.10, are not subject
to any requirement of Parts 261 through
263 of this chapter or to the notification
requirements of Section 3010 of RCRA,
nor are such samples included in the
quantity determinations of § 261.5 and
§ 262.34(d) when:
(1) The sample is being collected and
prepared for transportation by the
generator or sample collector or
(li) The sample is being accumulated
or stored by the generator or sample
collector prior to transportation to a
laboratory or testing facility; or
(iii) The sample is being transported
to the laboratory or testing facility for
the purpose of conducting a treatability
study.
(2) The exemption in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section is applicable to samples
of hazardous waste being collected and
shipped for the purpose of conducting
treatability studies provided that:
(i) The generator or sample collector
uses (in "treatability studies") no more
than 1000 kg of any non-acute hazardous
waste. 1 kg of acute hazardous waste, or
250 kg of soils, water, or debris
contaminated with acute hazardous
waste for each process being evaluated
for each generated waste stream: and
(ii) The mass of each sample shipment
does not exceed 1000 kg of non-acute
hazardous waste, 1 kg of acute
hazardous waste, or 250 kg of soils,
water, or debris contaminated with
acute hazardous waste; and
(iii) The sample must be packaged so
that it will not leak, spill, or vaporize
from its packaging during shipment and
the requirements of paragraph A or B of
this subparagraph are met.
(A) The transportation of each sample
shipment complies with U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT). U.S. Postal
Service (USPS), or any other applicable
shipping requirements: or
(B) If the DOT, USPS, or other
shipping requirements do not apply to
the shipment of the sample, the
following information must accompany
the sample:
(J) The name, mailing address, and
telephone number of the originator of
the sample;
(2) The name, address, and telephone
number of the facility that will perform
the treatability study,
(3) The quantity of the sample;
(4) The date of shipment; and
(5) A description of the sample,
including its EPA Hazardous Waste
Number.
(iv) The sample is shipped to a
laboratory or testing facility which is
exempt under § 261.4(f) or has an
appropriate RCRA permit or interim
status.
(v) The generator or sample collector
maintains the following records for a
period ending 3 years after completion
of the treatability study:
(A) Copies of the shipping documents;
(B) A copy of the contract with the
facility conducting the treatability study;
(C) Documentation showing:
(7) The amount of waste shipped
under this exemption;
[2) The name, address, and EPA
identification number of the laboratory
or testing facility that received the
waste;
[3) The date the shipment was made;
and
[4) Whether or not unused samples
and residues were returned to the
generator.
(vi) The generator reports the
information required under paragraph
(e)(v)(C) of this section in its biennial
report.
(3) The Regional Administrator, or
State Director (if located in an
authorized State), may grant requests,
on a case-by-case basis, for quantity
limits in excess of those specified in
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, for up
to an additional 500 kg of non-acute
hazardous waste, 1 kg of acute
hazardous waste, and 250 kg of soils,
water, or debris contaminated with
acute hazardous waste, to conduct
further treatability study evaluation
when: There has been an equipment or
mechanical failure during the conduct of
a treatability study; there is a need to
verify the results of a previously
conducted treatability study; there is a
need to study and analyze alternative
techniques within a previously
evaluated treatment process: or there is
a need to do further evaluation of an
ongoing treatability study to determine
final specifications for treatment. The
additional quantities allowed are
subject to all the provisions in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)(ii)(vi) of this
section. The generator or sample
collector must apply to the Regional
Administrator in the Region where the
sample is collected and provide in
writing the following information:
-------
27302 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
(i) The reason why the generator or
sample collector requires additional
quantity of sample for the treatabilily
study evaluation and the additional
quantity needed;
(ii) Documentation accounting for all
samples of hazardous waste from the
waste stream which have been sent for
or undergone treatability studies
including the data each previous sample
from the waste stream was shipped, the
quantity of each previous shipment, the
laboratory or testing facility to which it
was shipped, what treatability study
processes were conducted on each
sample shipped, and the available
results of each treatability study;
(iii) A description of the technical
modifications or change in
specifications which will be evaluated
and the expected results;
(iv) If such further study is being
required due to equipment or
mechanical failure, the applicant must
include information regarding the reason
for the failure or breakdown and also
include what procedures or equipment
improvements have been made to
protect against further breakdowns; and
(v) Such other information that the
Regional Administrator considers
necessary.
(f) Samples Undergoing Treatability
Studies at Laboratories and Testing
Facilities. Samples undergoing
treatability studies and the laboratory or
testing facility conducting such
treatability studies (to the extern such
facilities are not otherwise subject lo
RCRA requirements) are not subject to
any requirement of this Part, Part 124,
Parts 262-266, 268, and 270, or to the
notification requirements of Section 3010
of RCRA provided that the conditions of
paragraphs (f) (1) through (11) of this
section are met. A mobile treatment unit
(MTU] may qualify as a testing facility
subject to paragraphs (f) (1) through (11)
of this section. Where a group of MTUs
are located at the same site, the
limitations specified in (f) (1) through
(11) of this section apply to the entire
group of MTUs collectively as if the
group were one MTU.
(1) No less than 45 days before
conducting treatability studios, the
facility notifies the Regional
Administrator, or State Director (if
located in an authorized State), in
writing that it intends to conduct
treatability studies under this
paragraph.
(2) The laboratory or testing facility
conducting the treatability study hns an
EPA identification number.
(3) No more than a total of 250 kg of
"as received" hazardous waste is
subjected to initiation of treatment in all
treatability studies in any single day.
"As received" waste refers to the waste
as received in the shipment from the
generator or sample collector.
(4) The quantity of "as received"
hazardous waste stored at the facility
for the purpose of evaluation in
treatability studies does not exceed 1000
kg, the total of which can include 500 kg
of soils, water, or debris contaminated
with acute hazardous waste or 1 kg of
acute hazardous waste. This quantity
limitation does not include:
(i) Treatability study residues; and
(ii) Treatment materials (including
nonhazardous solid waste) added to "as
received" hazardous waste.
(5) No more than 90 days have
elapsed since the treatability study for
the sample was completed, or no more
than one year has elapsed since the
generator or sample collector shipped
the sample to the laboratory or testing
facility, whichever date first occurs.
(6) The treatability study does not
involve the placement of hazardous
waste on the land or open burning of
hazardous waste.
(7) The facility maintains records for 3
years following completion of each
study that show compliance with the
treatment rate limits and the storage
time and quantity limits. The following
specific information must be included
for each treatability study conducted:
(i) The name, address, and EPA
identification number of the generator or
sample collector of each waste sample;
(ii) The date the shipment was
received;
(iii) The quantity of waste accepted:
(iv) The quantity of "as received"
waste in storage each day;
(v) The date the treatment study was
initiated and the amount of "as
received" waste introduced to treatment
each day;
(vi) The date the treatability study
was concluded;
(vii) The date any unused sample or
residues generated from the treatability
study were returned to the generator or
sample collector or, if sent to a
designated facility, the name of the
facility and the EPA identification
number.
(8) The facility keeps, on-site, a copy
of the treatability study contract and all
shipping papers associated with the
transport of treatability study samples
to and from the facility for a period
ending 3 years from the completion date
of each treatability study.
(9) The facility prepares and submits a
report to the Regional Administrator, or
State Director (if located in an
authorized State), by March 15 of each
year that estimates the number of
studies and the amount of waste
expected to be used in treatability
studies during the current year, and
includes the following information for
the previous calendar yean
(i) The name, address, and EPA
identification number of the facility
conducting the treatability studies;
(ii) The types (by process) of
treatability studies conducted:
(iii) The names and addresses of
persons for whom studies have been
conducted (including their EPA
identification numbers);
(iv) The total quantity of waste in
storage each day;
(v) The quantity and types of waste
subjected to treatability studies,
(vi) When each treatability study was
conducted;
(vii) The final disposition of residues
and unused sample from each
treatability study.
(10) The facility determines whether
any unused sample or residues
generated by the treatability study are
hazardous waste under § 261.3 and, if
so. are subject to Parts 261 through 263,
and Part 270 of this Chapter, unless the
residues and unused samples are
returned to the sample originator under
the § 261.4(e) exemption.
(11) The facility notifies the Regional
Administrator, or State Director (if
located in an authorized State), by letter
when the facility is no longer planning
to conduct any treatability studies at the
site.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0068)
[FR Doc. 88-10108 Filed 7-1G-88. 8 45 srn]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
ATTACHMENT 9-2
EXAMPLE RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PLAN
-------
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PLAN
for
EVALUATION OF SOIL AMENDMENTS
FOR SUPERFUND SITES
ty
PE1 Associates, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
EPA Contract No. 68-03-3413
Work Assignment No 0-19A
Modification No. 1
PN 3741-19A
Work Assignment Manager
Jon Herrmann
Revised - April 1988
HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
CONTENTS
PURPOSE
APPROACH
TRACKING OF PROJECT RESIDUALS
INVENTORY OF EXISTING PROJECT RESIDUALS
ADDITIONAL PROJECT RESIDUALS
PROPOSED DISPOSAL PLANS
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY
-------
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PLAN
PURPOSE
This Residuals Management Plan documents the final disposition of
all known and anticipated residuals that have and will result from the
evaluation of natural zeolites as soil amendments for Superfund sites.
Modification No. 1 to the Scope of Work of the subject Work Assignment
directs PE1 Associates, Inc. to develop and implement a plan that addresses
the disposal of all hazardous and non-hazardous project wastes. The purpose
of this plan is to provide an inventory of the project site materials, the
proposed method of declaring them as surplus (i.e. residuals), determining
the proper method of final residuals management (including disposal as
appropriate), and estimating costs.
APPROACH
PE1 is responsible for making the arrangements and coordinating the
necessary logistics to effect the proper identification and disposal of all project
residuals. This is a necessary activity because the material being tested and
evaluated is contaminated soil from Superfund sites. All site materials are
samples until declared as surplus to the needs of this or other projects.
Whenever possible the soils will be returned to the site from which they were
obtained. When this is not an alternative, the materials will be disposed of at
a permitted disposal facility.
The proposed approach involves return of project residuals to EPA
Region 10 Manachester Laboratory (i.e. return of samples to the generator).
These materials will be shipped with a Bill of Lading by a common carrier
following DOT packaging and labeling requirements. The materials then will
be transported from the Manchester facility (i e. the generator) bv a licensed
hazardous waste transporter to a permitted disposal facility. EPA Region 10
officials will complete and sign manifests as required for transport and
disposal of hazardous waste. Every effort will be made by PE1 to coordinate
the logistics of these shipments to minimize the handling and times of
storage.
The information presented in the following pages identifies the project
samples, potential residuals, quantities, hazardous/non-hazardous,
transporter, transportation costs, disposal facility and disposal costs.
MATERIALS TRACKING
All shippment of samples and surplus materials will be documented
with Chain-of-Custody forms (e.g Region 10 Custody Sheets) in addition to
the bills of lading. Copies of the completed custody forms will be kept by Mr
1
-------
John Barich of EPA Region 10 and Mr. Bob Hoye and Mr. jon Herrmann of
PEI and EPA HWERL, respectively. The custody sheets will document the
type of material (e.g. soil from Bunker Hill), the sample identification
number, the point of origination and destination, and be signed by parties
relinquishing and receiving the materials.
l
-------
INVENTORY OF EXISTING PROJECT RESIDUALS
AS OF MARCH 1988
SOIL TEST MATERIAL
20 DOT 37A80 5-gallon drums, unopened, containing a total of -1200
lbs of soil from United Chrome Superfund site (at Manchester)
MISCELLANEOUS RESIDUALS
1 DOT 17H 55-gallon drum containing used protective clothing and
floor sweepings (at Manchester)
2 DOT 37A 5-gallon drums containing used protective clothing from
screening study soil mixing (1 30-gallon drum contained in one of the
55-gallon drums)
142 1-liter plastic bottles containing MWEP extracts from screening
study
EMPTY/USED CONTAINERS
21 empty DOT 37A 5-gallon metal pails with lids used as shipping
containers for Bunker Hill soil
3 DOT 17H open top 55-gallon drums, empty, used for Bunker Hill Soil
mixing
1 DOT 17H open top 30-gallon drums, empty, used for Bunker Hill Soil
mixing
1 DOT 17H 30-gallon drum, empty, used for mixing of Bunker Hill ana
United Chrome soil during screening study soil mixing
3
-------
ADDITIONAL PROJECT RESIDUALS THAT WILL BE GENERATED
AT OR PRIOR TO PROJECT COMPLETION
SOIL TEST MATERIAL
-240 lbs Bunker Hill soil used for MWEP and permeability tests at PEI
-800 lbs Bunker Hill soil used for plant uptake studies at CERL
96 liters of MWEP extracts conducted at PEI (1 liter containers)
EMPTY/USED CONTAINERS
8 empty DOT 37A 5-gallon metal pails with lids used as shipping
containers for Bunker Hill soil to PEI
16 empty DOT 37A 5-gallon metal pails with lids used as shipping
containers for Bunker Hill soil to PEI
4
-------
PROPOSED RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PLANS
United Chrome Soil
The 20 5-gallon pails of United Chrome soil that were previously
located at the Manchester facility were returned to the point of generation (i.e.
the United Chrome Superfund site in Corvallis, Oregon). EPA Region 10 and
the site remediation contractor agreed to accept this material including the
metal pails and include it with other soils being removed from the site. The
samples were hand delivered by PE1 to the United Chrome site. Because the
pails had not been opened the shipment did not require repackaging. The
samples were delivered to:
Mr. Randy Pratt
On Site Coordinator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
200 Airport Road
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
(503) 758-5028
Bunker Hill Soils
Bunker Hill test soils will be returned to the Manchester Laboratory
j
from PE1 and CERL after testing and evaluation is completed. The soil will be
transported in 55-gallon DOT17E steel drums. A common carrier will be
used. The material, after being declared as surplus, will be transported on a
Bill-of-Lading as Hazardous Substance-solid-n.o.s (other classification will be
used if appropriate based on characterization data). After being declared as
surplus, the material will be transported as a hazardous waste from the
Manchester Laboratory to the disposal facility (e.g. USPCI in Utah or Chem-
Security in Oregon) by a licensed hazardous waste transporter. EPA Region 10
officials will sign the manifests. A total volume of about 120 gallons of soil is
anticipated. The soils will be contained in two (possibly three) DOT17 steel
open top drums.
Empty/Used Containers
The empty used containers (i.e., the 5-gallon DOT37A steel pails) that
were used as outer containers for shipment of samples and that have not
been contaminated with soils can be reused/recycled as outer shipping
containers or disposed of as non-hazardous refuse. Multiple plastic bags
and/or plastic containers were used as liners, these materials have been
5
-------
placed in the 55-gallon drum with the contaminated protective clothing. In
the case where metal pails have been contaminated with Superfund soils they
will be crushed and placed in 55-gallon DOT17 open top steel drums. These
drums will be shipped from the Manchester to the disposal facility as
hazardous waste in the same manner as described for the soil.
Miscellaneous Residues
The contaminated protective clothing and debris from the screening
study that are contained in two 5-gallon steel pails will be placed in the 55-
gallon drum with similar material generated during the full test mixing
phase. All of this material is located at Manchester. This drum will be sent as
a hazardous waste, in the same manner as the soil, for disposal.
The liquid extracts that are RCRA EP toxic will be disposed of at a
permitted treatment facility (e.g. Chem Processors, Inc. of Seattle or USPCI).
The extracts consist of:
68 liters of United Chrome soil screening study extracts
These extracts contain 44 to 53 mg/1 chromium and therefore exceed
the EP toxic level of 5 mg/1 that defines it as a RCRA hazardous
waste. Additonally, the extracts are corrosive because they have
been preserved to a pH <2.
164 liters of Bunker Hill extracts
These extracts contain <0.1 to a maximum of 6.7 mg/1 lead and have
a pH<2. Only 10 liters of these extracts will be RCRA EP toxic
because they contain 5 mg/1 of lead.
Both the RCRA EP toxic extracts and the non-EP toxic extracts, all of which
have pH<2, will be transported to Manchester from PEI as hazardous
substances (per DOT requirements), combined into two drums, and
transported under Region 10 manifest as a hazardous waste to a permitted
treatment facility (e.g. Chem Processors of Seattle).
6
-------
PRELIMINARY
ESTIMATE
4/7/88
DRAFT -- MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY FOR POTENTIAL RESIDUALS Revision 3
Residual
Quantity
Hazardous
Transporter
Transport Cost
Estimated
Disposal Facility
Disposal Cost
Estimated
United Chrome soil
(unused sample)
1200 lbs
Yes
Hand Delivered
$800
Returned to United
Chrome site
0
Bunker Hill soil
(tested sample)
1200 lbs
In 2 55-gal.
drums
Yes
Common carrier to
Manchester
Chem-Security
Arlington, OR
$500
$360
Chem-Security*
Arlington, OR
$413
MWEP Extracts
EP toxic extracts, pH<2
Non EP toxic extracts,
pH<2
20 gallon
40 gallon
Yes
Yes
Common carrier to
Manchester
Chem Processors Inc.
Seattle, WA
$500
$230
Chem Processors Inc.
Seattle, WA
$500
Debris from soil mixing
Protective clothing etc
2 55-gal drum
Yes
Chem-Security
Arlington, OR
$180
Chem-Security*
Arlington, OR
$404
Empty containers
(DOT37A)
53
No
None
0
None
0
Total Estimated Costs
$2,570
$1,317
* $250 waste approval fee included in disposal costs
-------
ATTACHMENT 9-3
EPA OFFSITE DISPOSAL POLICY
-------
4ER&
WesNrtglofi. OC 20400
OSWER Directive initiation Request
1. Otr»c#»» Number
9834.11
3. 0*jtmto< lrrteg & Dipl.
off-site Response Actions.
2) Prcvidim Notice to Facilities
3) Eligibility of Facilities in'
Assessment M5nitorina~$33ff- 2-vM Sy«t*n> Formal Standard*.
8. Signature o( L«ad Offlca Or»ctiv« Coordr«tor
At- LaJc^
Oau
///fj/si
^TtTW^ / £
Data i
Z///3/?7
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
- DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
REVISED PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING OFF-SITE RESPONSE ACTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
The off-site policy describes procedures that should be
observed when a response action under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
or Section 7003 of RCRA involves off-site storage, treatment or
disposal of CERCLA waste. The procedures also apply to actions
taken jointly under CERCLA and another statute.
The purpose of the off-site policy is to avoid having
CERCLA wastes contribute to present or future environmental
problems by directing these wastes to facilities determined to
be environmentally sound. It is EPA's responsibility to ensure
that the criteria for governing off-site transfer of CERCLA
waste result in decisions that are environmentally sensible and
that reflect sound public policy. Therefore, in developing
acceptability criteria, the Agency has applied environmental
standards and other sound management practices to ensure that.
CERCLA waste will be appropriately managed.
EPA issued the original off-site policy in May 1985. See
"Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response
Actions", memorandum from Jack W. McGraw to the Regional
Administrators. That policy was published in the Federal
Register on November 5, 1985. The 1986 amendments to CERCLA,
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
adopted EPA's policy for off-site transfer of CERCLA wastes,
with some modifications. CERCLA 5121(d)(3) requires that
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants transferred
off-site for treatment, storage or disposal during a CERCLA
response action be transferred to a facility operating in
compliance with §§3004 and 1005 of RCRA and other applicable
laws or regulations. The statute also requires that receiving
units at land disposal facilities have no releases of hazardous
wastes or hazardous constituents. Any releases from other
units at a land disposal facility must also be controlled by a
RCRA or equivalent corrective action program. While the
original policy required compliance with RCRA and other
applicable lavs, SARA goes beyond the original policy,
primarily by prohibiting disposal at units at a land disposal
facility with releases, rather than allowing the Agency to
judge whether the releases constituted environmental conditions
that affected the satisfactory operation of a facility.
The off-site policy has been revised in light of the
mandates of SARA. This revised policy also extends the SARA
concepts to certain situations not specifically covered by the
statute. These requirements apply to CERCLA decision documents
signed, and RCRA §7003 actions taken, after enactment of SARA.
Specifically, this policy covers:
-------
-2-
o Extending SARA's "no release" requirement to all RCRA
units receiving CERCLA waste, not just units at RCRA
land disposal facilities;
o Expanding SARA's release prohibition to include
releases of CERCLA hazardous substances, in addition
to releases of RCRA hazardous waste and hazardous
constituents;
o Addressing releases from other units at RCRA treatment
and storage facilities; and
o Addressing off-site transfer to non-RCRA facilities.
The revised policy also reinterprets the May 1985 policy as it
now applies to CERCLA decision documents signed, and RCRA §7003
actions taken, prior to the enactment of SARA.
The revised off-site policy is effective immediately upon
issuance. It is considered to be an interim policy as key
elements of the policy will be incorporated in a proposed rule
to be published in the Federal Register. As part of that
rulemaking, the policy will be subject to public comment.
Comments received during that period may cause additional
revisions to the policy. The final rule will reflect the final
policy under CERCLA 1121(d)(3) and EPA will issue a revised
implementation policy memorandum if necessary.
II. APPLICABILITY
There are a number of variables which will determine
whether and how the off-site policy applies: waste type,
authority, funding source, and whether the decision document or
order supporting the clean-up was signed before or after the
en&ctMnt of SARA (i.e., before or after October 17, 1986). In
order tQ determine which elements of the policy apply to a
specific CERCLA cleanup each factor must be considered.
Tiis first factor to consider is the type of waste to be
transferred. The revised policy applies to the off-site
treatment, storags or disposal of all CERCLA vasts. CERCLA
wastes include RCRA hazardous wastes and other CERCLA hazardous
substances, pollutants and contaminants. RCRA hazardous wastes
are either listed or defined by characteristic in 40 CPR Part
261. CERCLA hazardous substances are defined in 40 C7R 300.6.
Because RCRA permits and interim status apply to specific
wastes and specific storage, treatment or disposal processes,
the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) or On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC) must determine that the facility's permit or interim
-------
-3-
status authorizes receipt of the wastes that would be
transported to the facility and the type of process
contemplated for the wastes. Therefore, it is important that
facility selection be coordinated with RCRA personnel.
A CERCLA hazardous substance that is not a RCRA hazardous
waste or hazardous constituent (i.e., non-RCRA waste) may be
taken to a RCRA facility if it is not otherwise incompatible
with the RCRA waste, even though receipt of that waste is not
expressly authorized under interim status or in the permit.
Non-RCRA wastes can also be managed at non-RCRA facilities.
Criteria applicable to CERCLA wastes that can be disposed of at
non-Subtitle C facilities are discussed later in this revised
policy.
The second factor to consider in determining whether this
revised policy applies is the statutory authority for the
action. This revised off-site policy applies to any remedial
or removal action involving the off-site transfer of any
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant under any CERCLA
authority or under RCRA §7003. This policy also applies to
response actions taken under §311 of the Clean Water Act,
except for cleanups of petroleum products. The policy also
covers cleanups at Federal facilities under §120 of SARA.
The third factor to assess is the source of funding. The
revised policy applies to all Fund-financed response actions,
whether EPA or the State is the lead agency. The policy does
not apply to State-lead enforcement actions (even at NPL sites)
if no CERCLA funds are involved. It does apply to State-lead
enforcement actions where EPA provides any site-specific
funding through a Cooperative Agreement or Multi-Site
Cooperative Agreement, even though the State may be using its
own enforcement authorities to compel the cleanup. Similarly,
non-NPL sites are covered by this policy only where there is an
expenditure of Fund money or where the cleanup is undertaken
under CXRCLA authority.
Th« final factor that affects how this revised policy
applies is the date of the decision document. As noted
earlier, there are two classes of actions subject to slightly
different procedures governing off-site transfer: first, those
actions resulting froa pre-SARA decision documents or RCRA
§7003 orders issued prior to October 17, 1986 ^ are subject to
the May 1985 policy as updated by this revised policy; and
second, those actions resulting from post-SARA decision
documents or RCRA §7003 orders issued after October 17, 1986,
are subject to the requirements of SARA as interpreted and
expanded by this revised policy. Although the procedures in
this policy are similar for these two classes of actions, there
are important differences (e.g., the requirements pertaining to
-------
-4-
9834.11
releases from other units at a facility) that will be
highlighted throughout this document.
Compliance with the revised procedures i3 mandatory for
removal and remedial actions. However, there is an emergency
exemption for removals if the OSC determines that the
exigencies of the situation require off-site treatment, storage
or disposal without following the requirements. This exception
may be used when the OSC believes that the threat posed by the
substances makes it imperative to remove the substances
immediately and there is insufficient time to observe these
procedures without endangering public health, welfare or the
environment. In such cases, the OSC should consider temporary
solutions (e.g., interim storage) to allow time to locate an
acceptable facility. The OSC must provide a written
explanation of his or her decision to use this emergency
exemption to the Regional Administrator within 60 days of
taking the action. In Regions in which authority to make
removal decisions has not been fully delegated by the Regional
Administrator to the OSC, the decisions discussed above must be
made by the Regional official to whom removal authority haa
been delegated. This emergency exemption is also available to
OSC's taking response actions under 5311 of the Clean Water
Act.
UL DEFINITIONS
A. Release
For the purposes of this policy, the term "release" is
defined here as it is defined by §101(22) of CERCLA, which is
repeated in 40 CFR 300.6 of the HCP, and the RCRA §3008(h)
guidance ("Interpretation of Section 3008(h) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act", memorandum from J. Winston Porter and Courtney
M. Price to the Regional Administrators, al, December 16,
1985). To sunarlzs, a release is any spilling, leaking,
pimping* pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injection,
escaping, leaching, dumping or disposing to the environment.
This Inoludes releases to surface vatsr, ground water, land
surface, soil and air.
A release also includes a substantial threat of a release.
In determining whether a substantial threat of release exists,
both the imminence of the threat and the potential magnitude of
the release should be considered. Examples of situations where
a substantial threat of a release may exist include a weakened
or inadequately engineered dike wall at a surface impoundment,
or a severely rusted treatment or storage tank.
De minimis releases from receiving units are exempt; that
is, they are not considered to be releases under the off-site
-------
-5-
9834.11
policy, fl* minimis releases are those that do not adversely
affect public health or the environment, such as releases to
the air from temporary opening and closing of bungs, releases
between landfill liners of 1 gallon/acre/day or less, or stack
emissions from incinerators not otherwise subject to Clean Air
Act permits. Releases that need to be addressed by
implementing a contingency plan would not normally be
considered dfi minimis releases.
Federally-permitted releases, as defined by CERCLA
§101(10) and 40 CFR 300.6, are also exempt. These include
discharges or releases in compliance with applicable permits
under RCRA, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking
Water Act, Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, and
Atomic Energy Act or analogous State authorities.
For purposes of this policy, an interim status unit in
RCRA ground-water assessment monitoring (under 40 CFR 265.93)
or a permitted unit in compliance monitoring (under 40 CFR
2 64.99) is not presumed to have a release. EPA will evaluate
available information, including the data which led to a
determination of the need for assessment or compliance
monitoring, data gathered during assessment monitoring, and any
other relevant data, including that gathered from applicable
compliance inspections. A determination of unacceptability
should be made when information will support the conclusion
that there is a probable release to ground water from the
receiving unit. Finding a release can happen at any time
before, during or after an assessment or compliance monitoring
program.
On the other hand, it is not necessary to have actual
sampling data to determine that there is a release. An
inspector may find other evidence that a release has occurred,
such as a broken dike or feed line at a surface impoundment.
Less obvious indications of a release Bight also be adequate to
maJce the determination. For exaaple, EPA could have sufficient
information on the contents of a land disposal unit, the design
and operating characteristics of the unit, or the hydrogeology
of the area in which the unit is located to conclude that there
is or ha* been a release to the environment.
B. Receiving Unit
The receiving unit is any unit that receives off-site
CERCLA waste:
(1) for treatment using BDAT, including any pre-
treatment or storage units used prior to treatment;
(2) for treatment to substantially reduce its mobility,
-------
-6-
9834.1 I
toxicity or persistence in the absence of a defined
BDAT; or
(3) for storage or ultimate disposal of waste not treated
to the previous criteria.
Note that the acceptability criteria may vary from unit to
unit, and that the receiving unit may vary from transfer to
transfer.
C. Other Units
Other units are all other regulated units and solid waste
management units (SWMU's) at a facility that are not receiving
units.
D. Controlled Release
In order to be considered a controlled release, the
release must be addressed by a RCRA corrective action progra*
(incorporated in a permit or order) or a corrective action
program approved and enforceable under another applicable
Federal or delegated State authority.
ELi Relevant Violations
Relevant violations include Class I violations as defined
by the RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (December 21, 1984, and
subsequent revisions) at or affecting a receiving unit. A
Class I violation is a significant deviation from regulations,
compliance order provisions or permit conditions designed to:
o Ensure that hazardous waste is destined for and
delivered to authorized facilities;
o Prevent releases of hazardous vaste or constituents
to the environment;
o Ensure early detection of such releases; or
o Compel corrective action for releases.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements (such as failure to
submit the biennial report or failure to maintain a copy of the
closure plan at the facility) are generally not considered to
be Class I violations.
Violations affecting a receiving unit include all
ground-water monitoring violations unless the receiving unit is
outside the waste management area which the ground-water
monitoring system was designed to monitor. Facility-wide Class
I violations (such as failure to comply with financial
-------
-7-
9834.11
responsibility requirements, inadequate closure plan,
inadequate waste analysis plan, inadequate inspection plan,
etc.) that affect the receiving unit are also relevant
violations.
Violations of State or other Federal laws should also be
examined for relevance, considering the significance of the
requirement that is being violated; the extent of deviation
from the requirement; and the potential or actual threat to
human health or the environment.
F. Relevant Release
A relevant release under this revised policy includes:
o Any release or significant threat of release of a
hazardous substance (defined in 40 CFR 300.6) not
previously excluded (i.e., minimis releases or
permitted releases) at all units of a RCRA Subtitls C
land disposal facility and at receiving units of a
RCRA Subtitle C treatment or storage facility; and
o Environmentally significant releases of any hazardous
substance not previously excluded at non-receiving
units at RCRA Subtitle C treatment and storage
facilities and at all units at other facilities.
G. Relevant Conditions
Relevant conditions include any environmental conditions
(besides a relevant violation) at a facility that pose a
significant threat to public health, welfare or the environment
or that otherwise affect the satisfactory operation of the
facility.
iL Rtipgnalfelt fratngy
Determination* of acceptability to receive an off-site
transfer, of CSRCLA waste will be made by EPA or by States
authorised for corrective action under §3004(u) of RCRA.
Refsrencee in this document to the "responsible Agency" refer
only to EPA Regions or to States with this authority.
I. Responsible Government Official
The responsible government official is that person
authorized in the responsible Agency to make acceptability
determinations under this revised policy.
-------
-8-
9834.1 1
IV, ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
A. Acceptability Criteria for Wastes Generated Under Pre-SARft
Decision Documents
CERCLA wastes from actions resulting from pre-SARA
decision documents and pre-SARA RCRA §7003 orders may go to a
facility meeting the following criteria:
o There are no relevant violations at or affecting the
receiving unit; and
o There are no relevant conditions at the facility
(i.e., other environmental conditions that pose a
significant threat to public health, welfare or the
environment or otherwise affect the satisfactory
operation of the facility).
In order to determine if there is a relevant violation,
an appropriate compliance inspection must be conducted no more
than six months before the expected date of receipt of CERCLA
waste. This inspection, at a minimum, must address all
regulated units. This inspection may be conducted by EPA, a
State or an authorized representative. When a State conducts
the inspection, it should determine the facility's compliance
status. Where a violation or potential violation comes to
EPA's attention (e.g., through a citizen complaint or a
facility visit by permit staff), the Region or State is
expected to investigate whether a violation occurred as soon as
is reasonably possible.
The May 1985 policy does not refer specifically to
releases. Rather, a corrective action plan is required for
relevant conditions. Therefore, in some cases, a facility
receiving CERCLA wastes from an action subject to a pre-SARA
decision document may not need to institute a program to
control releases. Releases will be evaluated by the
responsible Agency to determine whether such releases
constitute relevant conditions under this policy.
The activities related to determining acceptability,
providing notice to facilities, regaining acceptability and
implementation procedures are discussed in the "Implementation''
section of this document, and apply to off-site transfers of
waste generated under pre-SARA and post-SARA decision
documents.
-------
9-
9834.1 1
B_> Acceptability Criteria for Wastes Generated Under Post-SAPA
Decision Documents
Under this revised policy, there are three basic criteria
that are used to determine the acceptability of a facility to
receive off-site transfers of CERCLA waste generated under a
post-SARA decision document or post-SARA RCRA §7003 cleanup.
The criteria are:
o There must be no relevant violations at or affecting
the receiving unit;
o There must be releases from receiving units and
contamination from prior releases at receiving units
must be addressed as appropriate; and
o Releases at other units must be addressed as
appropriate.
The last two criteria are applied somewhat differently,
depending on the type of facility. These differences are
described below.
1. Criteria Applicable to All RCRA Subtitle C Treatment.
Storage and Disposal Facilities. The first criterion that
applies to all Subtitle C facilities is that there can b« no
relevant violations at or affecting the receiving unit. As
discussed earlier, this determination must be based on an
inspection conducted no more than six months prior to receipt
of CERCLA waste.
A second element that applies to all Subtitle C facilities
is that there must be nfi releases at receiving units. Releases
from receiving units, except for minimis releases and State-
and Federally-permitted releases, must b« eliminated and any
prior contamination from the release must ba controlled by a
corrective action parmit or order under Subtitle C, as
described in tha next section.
Ttm final criterion that applies to all Subtitle C
facilities, ia that the facility must have undergone a RCRA
Facility Aaaessaant (RFA) or equivalent facility-vide
investigation. Thia investigation addreaaes EPA7a affirmative
duty under CERCLA §121(d)(3) to determine that there are no
releases at the facility.
Releases of RCRA hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents and CERCLA hazardous subatances are all included
under the policy. While the RFA need not focus on identifying
releases of hazardous substances that are not RCRA hazardous
wastes or hazardous constituents, to the extent such releases
are discovered in an RFA or through other means, they will be
-------
-10-
9834.1 I
considered the same as a release of hazardous waste or
hazardous constituents.
o Additional Criteria Applicable to RCRA Subtitle C Land
Disposal Facilities. Land disposal facilities must meet
additional requirements imposed by SARA and this policy. The
term "land disposal facility" means any RCRA facility at which
a land disposal unit is located, regardless of whether the land
disposal unit is the receiving unit. Land disposal units
include surface impoundments, landfills, land treatment units
and waste piles.
As stated earlier, there must be no releases at or from
receiving units. In addition, releases from other units at a
land disposal facility must be controlled under a corrective
action program. The RFA will help determine whether there is a
release. In addition, land disposal facilities must have
received a comprehensive ground-water monitoring evaluation
(CME) or an operation and maintenance (04K) inspection within
the last year.
Units at RCRA Subtitle C land disposal facilities
receiving CERCLA waste that is also RCRA hazardous waste must
meet the RCRA minimum technology requirements of RCRA §3004(o).
Only where a facility has been granted a waiver can a land
disposal unit not meeting the minimum technology requirements
be considered acceptable for off-site disposal of CERCLA waste
that is RCRA hazardous waste.
o Criteria Applicable to Subtitle C Treatment and Storage
Facilities. The criterion for controlling releases from other
units does not apply to all releases at treatment and storage
facilities, as it does at land disposal facilities. Releases
from other units at treatment and storage facilities must be
evaluated for environmental significance and their effect on
the satisfactory operation of the facility. If determined by
the responsible Agency to be environmentally significant,
release* must be controlled by a corrective action program
under a* applicable authority. Releases from other units at
treatMSt and storage facilities determined not to be
envirotnMntally significant do not affect the acceptability of
the facility for receipt of CERCLA waste.
2. Criteria Applicable to RCRA Permit-bv-Rule Facilities.
This revised policy is also applicable to facilities subject to
the RCRA permit-by-rule provisions in 40 CFR 270.60. These
include ocean disposal barges or vessels, injection wells and
publicly owned treatment worlcs (POTWs) . Permit-by-rule
facilities receiving RCRA hazardous waste must have a RCRA
permit or RCRA interim status. RCRA permit-by-rule facilities
must also receive an inspection for compliance with applicable
RCRA permit or interim status requirements. In addition, these
-------
-11-
9834.1 1
facilitie* (and other nori-RCRA facilities) should be inspected
by th* appropriate inspectors for other applicable laws.
In general, except for POTWs (discussed below) , these
facilities will be subject to the same requirements as RCRA
treatment and storage facilities. That is, there can be no
releases of hazardous waste, hazardous constituents or
hazardous substances from receiving units. There also can be
no relevant violations at or affecting the receiving unit, as
confirmed by an inspection conducted no more than six months
prior to the receipt of CERCLA waste. Releases from other
units determined by the responsible Agency to be
environmentally significant must be controlled by an
enforceable agreement under the applicable authority.
Criteria for discharge of wastewater from CERCLA sites to
POTWs can be found in a memorandum titled, "Discharge of
Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into POTWs," dated April 15, 1986.
That memorandum requires an evaluation during the RI/FS proof**
for the CERCLA site to consider such points as:
o the quantity and quality of the CERCLA wastewater and
its compatibility with the POTW;
o the ability of the POTW to ensure compliance with
applicable pretreatment standards;
o the POTWs record of compliance with its NPDES permit;
and
o the potential for ground-water contamination from
transport to or impoundment of CERCLA wastewater at
the POTW.
Eased on a consideration of these and other points listed in
the memorandum, the POTW may be deemed appropriate or
inappropriate for receipt of CERCLA waste.
3-. criteria Applicable to Non-Subtitle C Facilities. In
son* inat&nc**, it may b* appropriate to use a non-Subtitle C
facility for off-sit* transfer: for example, PCB disposal is
regulated under the Toxic Substance* Control Act (TSCA);
nonhazardous vast* disposal is regulated under Subtitle D of
RCRA and applicable state lavs; and disposal of radionuclide*
is regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. At such facilities,
all r*leaa«s are treated in the same manner a* releases from
other units at Subtitle C treatment and storage facilities.
That is, the responsible Agency should make a determination as
to whether the release is environmentally significant and, if
so, the release should be controlled by a corrective action
program under the applicable Federal or State authority.
-------
-12-
9834.1 1
Requirements for the disposal of PCBs are established in
40 CFR 761.60. Generally, these regulations require that
whenever disposal of PCBs is undertaken, they must be
incinerated, unless the concentrations are less than 50 ppm.
If the concentrations are between 50 and 500 ppm, the rule
provides for certain exceptions that provide alternatives to
the incineration requirements. The principal alternative is
disposal in a TSCA-permitted landfill for PCBs. If a TSCA
landfill is the receiving unit for PCBs, then that facility is
subject to the same criteria applicable if a RCRA land disposal
unit is the receiving unit; i.e., no relevant violations, no
releases at the receiving unit and controlled releases at other
units. PCBs at levels less than 50 ppm may be transported to
acceptable Subtitle D facilities as discussed previously.
V. TMPT .^MENTATION
A. Determining Acceptability
Acceptability determinations under the off-site policy
will be made by EPA or by States authorized for corrective
action under §3004(u) of RCRA. Where States have such
authority, the State may make acceptability determinations for
facilities in the State in consultation with EPA. Regardless
of a State's authorization status, the Region and States should
establish, in the Superfund Memorandum of Agreement, mechanisms
to ensure timely exchange of information, notification of
facilities and coordination of activities related to the
acceptability of facilities and potential selection of
facilities for off-site transfer. The Regions and States also
need to establish or enhance coordination mechanisms with their
respective RCRA program staffs in order to ensure timely
receipt of information on inspections, violations and releases.
These agreements can be embodied in State authorization
Memoranda of Agreement, State grant agreements, or State-EPA
enforceaent agreements.
Thm responsible government official in the Region or State
in vhidk a hazardous waste facility is located will determine
whether the facility has relevant violations or releases which
may preclude its use for off-site transfer of CERCLA wastes.
Each Region and State should have a designated off-site
coordinator responsible for ensuring effective communication
between CERCLA response program staff and RCRA enforcement
staff within the Regional Offices, with States, and with other
Regions and States.
The off-site coordinator should maintain a file of all
information on the compliance and release status of each
commercial facility in the Region or State. This information
should be updated based on the results of State- or
-------
-13-
9834.11
EPA-conducted compliance inspections or other information on
these facilities.
CERCLA response program staff should identify potential
off-site facilities early in the removal action or the remedial
design process and check with the appropriate Regional and/or
State off-site coordinator(s) regarding the acceptability
status of the facilities. If one or more facilities is
identified that has not received an inspection within the last
six months, the Regional off-site coordinator(s) should arrange
to have such inspection(s) conducted within a timeframe
dictated by the project schedule. The CERCLA REM/FIT
contractor may conduct the inspection under the direction of
the Deputy Project Officer. If contractor personnel are used,
the Region should ensure that such personnel are adequately
trained to conduct the inspections.
Responsible Agencies should base their acceptability
determinations on an evaluation of a facility's compliance
status and, as appropriate, whether the facility has releases
or other environmental conditions that affect the satisfactory
operation of the facility. States not authorized for HSWA
corrective action may assist EPA in making the acceptability
determination by determining a facility's compliance status
(based on a State inspection) and providing this information to
EPA. Regions and States should use the following typ«s of
information to make acceptability determinations:
o State- or EPA-conducted inspections. EPA will
continue to assign high priority to conducting
inspections at commercial land disposal, treatment
and storage facilities. Facilities designated to
receive CERCLA waste must b« inspected within six
months of the planned receipt of the waste. In
addition, land disposal facilities must have received
a comprehensive ground-water monitoring inspection
(CXB) or an operation and maintenance (0U{)
inspection within the last year, in accordance with
the timeframes specified in the RCRA Implementation
Plan (RIP).
o RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs^. To be eligible
under this policy, a RCRA Subtitle C facility must
have had an RFA or equivalent facility-wide
investigation. The RFA or its equivalent must be
designed to identify existing and potential releases
of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents from
solid waste management units at the facility.
o Other data sources. Other documents such as the
facility's permit application, permit, Ground Water
Task Force report, ground-water monitoring data or
-------
-14-
9834.1 1
ground-water assessment report can contain
information on violations, releases or other
conditions. Relevant information from these
documents should also be used to determine a
facility's acceptability to receive waste under the
off-site policy.
B. Notice Procedures
EPA expects that Regions and States will take timely and
appropriate enforcement action on determining that a violation
has occurred. Where a responsible Agency performs an
inspection that identifies a relevant violation at a commercial
facility likely to accept CERCLA wastes, within five working
days of the violation determination, the responsible Agency
must provide written notice to the facility of the violation
and the effects of applying this policy. States not authorized
for HSWA corrective action should inform EPA of the violation
so that EPA can notify the facility of the effect of the
violation under this policy. (See RCRA Enforcement Response
Policy for a discussion of appropriate enforcement responses
and timeframes for Class I violations.)
When the responsible Agency determines that a relevant
release has occurred, or that relevant conditions exist, the
responsible Agency must notify the facility in writing within
five working days of that determination. The notice must also
state the effect of the determination under this policy. A
copy of any notice must also be provided to the non-issuing
Region or State in which the facility is located. States not
authorized for HSWA corrective action should provide EPA with
information on releases so that EPA can determine whether a
relevant release has occurred.
Private parties conducting a response action subject to
this policy will need to obtain information on the
acceptability of commercial facilities. The responsible Agency
must respond with respect to both pre-SARA and post-SARA
waste*. - In addition, the responsible Agency should indicate
whether th« facility is currently undergoing a review of
acceptability and the date the review is expected to be
completed. No enforceaent sensitive or predecisional
information should be released.
A facility nay sub*it a bid for receipt of CSRCLA waste
during a period of unacceptability. However, a facility must
be acceptable in order to be awarded a contract for receipt of
CERCLA waste.
Scooe and Contents of the Notice. The responsible Agency
must send the notice to the facility owner/operator by
certified and first-class mail, return receipt requested. The
-------
-15-
9834.1 i
certified notice, if not acknowledged by the receipt return
card, will be considered to have been received by the addressee
if properly sent by first-class mail to the last address known
to"the responsible Agency. The notice should contain the
following:
o A finding that the facility may have conditions that
render it unacceptable for receipt of off-site waste,
based upon available information from an RFA, an
inspection, or other data sources;
o A description of the specific acts, omissions or
conditions that form the basis of the findings?
o Notice that the facility owner/operator has the
opportunity to request an informal conference with
the responsible government official to discuss the
basis for the facility's unacceptability
determination under this revised policy, provided
that such a request is made within 10 calendar daya
from the date of the notice. The owner/operator may
submit written comments within 30 calendar days from
the date of the notice in lieu of holding the
conference.
o Notice that failure to request an informal meeting or
submit written comments will result in no further
consideration of the determination by the responsible
Agency during the 60 calendar days after issuance of
the notice. The responsible Agency will cease any
transport of CERCLA waste to the facility on the 60th
calendar day after issuance of the notice.
o Notice that the owner/operator may request, within 10
calendar daya of hearing from the responsible
government official after the informal conference or
the submittal of written consents, a reconsideration
of the determination by the Regional Administrator or
appropriate state official. The Regional
Administrator or State official may agree to review
tha determination at his or her discretion; and
o Notice that such a review by the Regional
Administrator or appropriate State official, if
agreed to, will be conducted within 60 calendar days
of the initial notice, if poaaible, but that the
review will not atay the determination.
The facility may continue to receive CERCLA waste for 60
calendar days after issuance of the initial notice. As
indicated above, facility owners or operators may request an
informal conference with the responsible government official
-------
-16-
9834.1 I
within 10 calendar days from the date of issuance of the
notice, to discuss the basis for a violation or release
determination and its relevance to the facility's acceptability
tovreceive CERCLA wastes. Any such meeting should take place
within 30 calendar days of the date the initial notice is
issued. If unacceptability is based on a State inspection or
enforcement action, a representative of the State should attend
the meeting. If the State does not attend, EPA will notify the
State of the outcome of the meeting. The owner/opeator may
submit written comments within 30 calendar days from the date
of the notice in lieu of holding the conference. If the
responsible Agency does not find that the information submitted
at the informal conference or in comments is sufficient to
support a finding of acceptability to receive CERCLA wastes, it
should so inform the facility orally or in writing.
within 10 calendar days of hearing from the responsible
government official after the informal conference or the
submittal of written comments, the facility owner or operator
may request a reconsideration of the determination by the
Regional Administrator or appropriate State official. The
Regional Administrator or appropriate State official may use
his or her discretion in deciding whether to conduct a review
of the determination. Such a review, if granted, should be
conducted within the 60 day period (originating with the
notice) to the extent possible. The review will not stay the
determination.
The RPM, OSC or equivalent site manager must stop transfer
of waste to a facility on the 60th calendar day after issuance
of a notice. The facility then remains unacceptable until such
time as the responsible Agency notifies the owner or operator
otherwise. The off-site coordinator and the OSC/RJPM should
maintain close coordination throughout the 60-day period.
In limited cases, the responsible Agency may use its
discretion to extend the 60 day period if it requires more time
to reviav a submission. The facility should be notified of any
extension,, and it remains acceptable during any extension.
Th« responsible Agency may also use its discretion to
determine that a facility's unacceptability is immediately
effective upon receipt of a notice to that effect. This may
occur in situations such as, but not limited to, emergencies
(e.g., fire or explosion) or egregious violations (e.g.,
criminal violations or chronic recalcitrance) or other
situations that render the facility incapable of safely
handling CERCLA waste.
Implementation of this notice provision does not relieve
the Regions or States from taking appropriate enforcement
action under RCRA or CERCLA.
-------
-17-
9834.1
C. Procedures for Facilities with Outstanding Unacceptable jt-y
Determinations
Under the original Kay 1985 off-site policy, facilities
determined to be unacceptable to receive CERCLA wastes were
provided with written notice and were generally afforded
informal opportunities to comment on the determination (the
latter step was not required by the policy). Although the
Agency believes that these steps represented adequate
procedural safeguards for facilities seeking to receive CERCLA
wastes, EPA has decided to provide an additional opportunity
for review, in light of this revised policy, for facilities
with unacceptability determinations already in place on the
effective date of the revised policy.
Any such facility that wishes to meet with the responsible
Agency to discuss the basis for a violation or release
determination and its relevance to the facility's ability to-
receive CERCLA wastes, may request an informal conference with
or submit written comments to the responsible Agency at any
point up to the 60th day after the publication of the proposed
rule on the off-site policy in the Federal Register. Such a
meeting should take place within 30 calendar days of the
request. If the responsible government Agency does not find
the information presented to be sufficient to support a finding
of acceptability to receive CERCLA wastes, then it should
inform the facility orally or in writing that the
unacceptability determination will continue to be in force.
The facility may, within 10 calendar days of hearing from the
responsible government official after the informal conference
or submittal of written comments, petition the EPA Regional
Administrator or appropriate State official for
reconsideration. The Regional Administrator or State official
may use his or her discretion in deciding whether to grant
reconsideration.
TtMtM procedures for review of unacceptability
determl&fcione that were already in place on the effective date
of thl» r«vi»ed policy will not act to stay the effect of the
underlying unacceptability determinations during the period of
review.
D. Re-evaluating Unacceptability
An unacceptable facility can be reconsidered for
management of CERCLA wastes whenever the responsible Agency
finds that the facility meets the criteria described in the
"Acceptability Criteria" section of this policy.
For the purposes of this policy, releases will be
considered controlled upon issuance of an order or permit that
-------
-18-
9834.1
initiate* arid requires completion of one or more of the
following: a facility-wide RCRA Facility Investigation (RTI);
a Corrective Measures Study (CMS) ; or Corrective Measures
Implementation (CMI). The facility must comply with the permit
or order to remain acceptable to receive CERCLA waste. At the
completion of any such phase of the corrective action process,
the responsible Agency should again review the facility for
acceptability under the off-site policy using the criteria
listed in this document, and as necessary and appropriate, make
new acceptability determinations, and issue additional orders
or modify permit conditions to control identified releases.
Releases that require a determination of environmental
significance will be considered controlled upon issuance of an
order or permit to conduct an RFI, CMS or CHI, or upon
completion of an RFI which concludes that the release is not
environmentally significant. Again, the facility must comply
with the permit or order to remain acceptable to receive CERCLA
waste.
If the facility is determined to be unacceptable as a
result of relevant violations at or affecting the receiving
unit, the State (if it made the initial determination) or EPA
must determine that the receiving unit is in full physical
compliance with all applicable requirements. Where a State not
authorized for HSWA corrective action makes this determination,
it should notify EPA immediately of the facility's return to
compliance, so that the Agency can expeditiously inform the
facility that it is once again acceptable to receive CERCLA
wastes.
The responsible Agency will notify the facility of its
return to acceptability by certified and first-class mail,
return receipt requested.
E. Implementation Procedures
All r«a«diftl decision documents must discuss compliance
with this policy for alternatives involving off-site management
of CERC&L vastus. Decision documents for removal actions also
should Include such a discussion.
Provisions requiring compliance with this policy should be
included in all contracts for response action, Cooperative
Agreements with States undertaking Superfund response actions,
and enforcement agreements. For ongoing projects, these
provisions will b« implemented as follows, taking into
consideration the differences in applicable requirements for
pre- and post-SARA decision documents:
o RI/FS: The Regions shall immediately notify Agency
contractors and States that alternative# for off-site
-------
-19-
9834.11
management of wastes must be evaluated against the
provisions of this policy.
o Remedial Design: The Regions shall immediately
notify Agency contractors, the States, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers that all remedies that
include off-site disposal of CERCLA waste must comply
with the provisions of this policy.
o Remedial Action: The Regions shall immediately
assess the status of compliance, releases and other
environmental conditions at facilities receiving
CERCLA waste from ongoing projects. If a facility is
found not to be acceptable, the responsible Agency
should notify the facility of its unacceptability.
o Enforcement: Cleanups by responsible parties under
enforcement actions currently under negotiation and
all future actions must comply with this policy.
Existing agreements need not be amended. However,
EPA reserves the right to apply these procedures to
existing agreements, to the extent it is consistent
with the release and reopener clauses in the
settlement agreement.
If the response action is proceeding under a Federal lead,
the Regions should wor)c with the Corps of Engineers or EPA
Contracts Officer to negotiate a contracts modification to an
existing contract, if necessary. If the response action is
proceeding under a State lead, the Regions should amend the
Cooperative Agreement.
-------
SECTION 10
SCHEDULE AND COST CONSIDERATIONS
To date, the greatest impediments to the performance of pre-ROD treat-
ability studies have been schedule and budget constraints imposed by the
RI/FS process. The additional time and cost required to conduct treatability
testing must be weighed against the potential for improved performance or
savings in time or money when the selected technology is implemented. The
need for treatability studies should be identified as early as possible in
the RI/FS to allow for adequate planning. Attachment 10-1 presents a typical
schedule for a two-tiered treatability study. Alternatives to treatability
testing, such as in-depth literature review, additional waste characteriza-
tion, or consideration of technologies that can be implemented without treat-
ability studies, should also be considered.
Some of the key variables affecting the time and cost of treatability
studies are as follows:
° Scale of the test (bench vs. pilot)
0 Number of process or operating variables
° Number and type of analyses
0 Level of data quality
0 Location of testing (on site vs. offsite)
° Waste disposal
Bench tests generally are performed in a laboratory and involve small
volumes of waste and expendable glassware (e.g., bottles or beakers) or
off-the-shelf equipment. As such, they can be used economically to screen a
10-1
-------
relatively large number of treatment parameters. Bench tests may be per-
formed over a few days or weeks, with costs ranging from $30,000 to $50,000.
Pilot tests generally are performed on site and involve treatment of
comparatively large volumes of wastes in reactors that simulate the config-
uration and operation of full-scale systems. Because significant time may be
required to reach steady-state conditions, only a limited number of process
and operating variables can reasonably be evaluated. Pilot tests generally
take several weeks to several months to complete, with costs ranging from
$100,000 to $150,000.
Analytical costs can represent up to 75 percent of the total cost of a
treatability study. The number of samples and the target analytes, there-
fore, should be chosen judiciously. Attachment 10-2 provides typical unit
prices for various types of analyses. Where possible, indicator parameters
(e.g., T0C) should be used as an inexpensive means of monitoring treatment
performance. In addition, the level of data quality should be commensurate
with the test objectives, as rigorous QA can add significantly to the analyt-
ical costs.
Treatability studies conducted on site may entail mobilization of test-
ing and/or analytical facilities. Treatability studies conducted offsite, on
the other hand, necessitates shipment of samples to the test facility or lab
and shipment of residuals back to the site. If residuals cannot be returned
to the site, substantial costs may be incurred for their disposal at a com-
mercial hazardous waste TSDF.
10-2
-------
ATTACHMENT 10-1.
TYPICAL SCHEDULE FOR A TWO-TIERED TREATABILITY STUDY
ACTIVITIES
PROJECT PHASES AND MONTHS Ia/EEX-S
-Phase 1
~H-
Phase 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 :7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Task 1. Conceptual Design and Analysis
TolskIcl. Re^efl.v^ch A
-------
ATTACHMENT 10-2
ANALYTICAL UNIT PRICES
-------
PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.
PEI ANALYTICAL SERVICES
SCHEDULE OF PRICES
-------
^Ibl^C^ntents •
PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.
ANALYTICAL SERVICES
SCHEDULE OF PRICES
MAY 1987
Introduction
General Information
Matrices
Discounts
Parameters
Quality
Turnaround Times
Methods and Certifications
Sampling Kits
Data Management
Schedule of Prices
Priority Pollutants and Hazardous Substance List Compounds 1
Appendix IX and VIII 1
Contract Laboratory Program Protocols 2
Dioxins and Furans 2
Waste Characterization 3
Hydrocarbons 4
Additional EPA 600 Series 4
Metals 5
Conventional Water Parameters 6
Industrial Hygiene Analyses 7
Ambient Air and Related Analysis 8
Other Analyses 8
• Aquatic Bioassay
• Complete Radiochemistry
• Dioxin and Furans (by low and high-resolution GC/MS)
• Gas Analyses/Microcircuits
• Geotechnical and Geochemical
• Other Industrial Hygiene
• Mixed Radioactive/Hazardous Waste (without sample dilution)
• Mobile Labs and Other Field Analytical Services
• Source Emissions
• Trial Burns
Notes 9
Terms & Conditions
10
-------
General Information
PEI Associates, Inc. Analytical Services offers a unique combination of:
• National coverage with a coast-to-coast network of affiliated EPA- and state-approved laboratories providing full
organic, inorganic and classical wet chemistry analyses.
• Mobile laboratories, field sampling and analytical project management expertise to meet on-site needs.
• Highly-specialized services including complete radiochemical and mixed waste analyses, dioxin and other high
hazard analyses, high resolution GC/MS and triple quad GC/MS services, bioassay, geotechnical and geochemical
testing, method development and industrial hygiene services.
• Strictly maintained and fully documented quality assurance and control programs required to ensure the validity
of test results.
PEI is committed to full service, innovation and precision in analysis and testing—no matter the size of the job. From
trace organics to trace metals in media such as air, water, sludge, soil, sediment or tissue—whether a single sample
analysis, or complex work on a variety of samples—PEI's lab rapidly turns around precise analyses on any number
of parameters. These quality data, obtained utilizing the latest technology and equipment, are the key to environmental
problem solution.
PEI also provides clients with more than just test results. We offer service tailored to meet our client's specific schedule
and technical requirements. The following pages briefly explain these services and include prices for the most
frequently requested analyses.
Matrices
Environmental sample matrices range from clean drinking water to complex highly contaminated sludges and solids.
The methods and procedures required to obtain quality results, and therefore the costs of analysis, vary substantially
depending on the sample matrix. In order to provide the fairest possible rates to our clients, prices are provided for
three (3) separate classes of matrices: Clear Water; Other Waters/Soils; and Sludges/Other Solids.
Discounts
Prices are provided for sample lots of one or two samples. For most analyses, discounts are available for larger sample
lots. Please call for project-specific rates.
Parameters
PEI offers complete organic, inorganic and classical wet chemistry analyses, as well as many highly-specialized
services not readily available elsewhere. However, it is not practical to enumerate in a price list all the services
available from PEI.
Prices are provided for the most frequently requested analyses. Prices for other analyses are available on request.
Quality
The analytical experts at PEI are committed to providing data of known quality which meets the needs of our clients.
To meet this commitment, PEI operates in accordance with a comprehensive and pervasive Quality Assurance
Program, with clearly defined quality control procedures. Detailed QA/QC procedures are followed from receipt of
samples through analysis and reporting of data, including sample disposition and records management. Regular
rigorous internal and external audits ensure compliance with the Program.
The PEI QA/QC program meets or exceeds the applicable standards established by the EPA, state agencies, and
other federal agencies. In addition, PEI's Lab is experienced in providing services tailored to meet the requirements
of project-specific QA Project Plans (QAPPs).
-------
Turnaround Times
Routine turnaround time for most analyses is 10 to 15 (maximum) working days. Results often can be provided more
quickly without any surcharges, depending on lab workloads and the lype of analysis. Rush service generally is
available for an additional fee, but must be pre-arranged with the laboratory. See TERMS & CONDITIONS for more
details.
Methods and Certifications
When applicable, PEI uses standard methods such as those published by EPA, ASTM, AOAC, AIHA, USATHAMA,
COE, and NIOSH. In addition, PEI offers custom analytical services to meet unique requirements arising from special
situations Method references in the price list are to EPA approved methods unless otherwise noted.
PEI and the affiliated labs are certified/approved by all major state and federal agencies. A complete listing of
certifications/approvals is available on request.
Sampling Kits
Prices include sampling kits which are to be returned to the PEI laboratory, provided sufficient advance notice is given
so that kits can be shipped to the client's location via routine ground carrier. For provision of sampling kits in an
emergency situation, an additional charge which includes the cost of shipment will be assessed. The cost of returning
samples to PEI for analysis is the responsibility of the client.
Data Management
The PEI laboratory is equipped with sophisticated computerized lab management systems to schedule and track
samples from receipt at the laboratory to final reporting. These systems allow for rapid access to sample status
information at client or management request. In addition, PEI can provide, on request, complete data management
services, integrating analysis results with related site or project data, providing direct electronic access to data,
providing statistical analysis of data, etc. Please call for further details and price information for these services.
ii
-------
PRICE/SAMPLE
(1 or 2 Samples)
OTHER SLUDGE/
CLEAR WATERS/ OTHER
PARAMETER METHOD4 WATER' SOILS2 SOLIDS3
PP/HSL Volatile Organics
624/8240
$220
$275
$315
PP/HSL Acids & Base/
Neutrals Combined5
625/8270
$450
$550
$600
PP/HSL Organochlorine
Pesticides/PCB
608/8080
$155
$180
$230
PP Metals (Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni,
Ag, Tl, Zn, Sb, As, Se, Hg)
EPA
$215
$260
$320
PP Inorganics (Cyanide and
Phenol)
EPA
$75
if*
CD
O
$110
HSL Metals (Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Ca,
Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, K, Mg, Mn,
Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Tl, V, Zn)
EPA
$275
$350
$450
PRICE/SAMPLE
(1 or 2 Samples)
PARAMETER
METHOD"
OTHER SLUDGE/
CLEAR WATERS/ OTHER
WATER' SOILS2 SOLIDS3
Total Appendix IX
EPA
$2,975 $3,690 On Request
Parameters
Individual Appendx IX
EPA
Prices Available upon Request
Parameters
Appendix VIII
EPA/
Prices Available upon Request
Parameters
Various Other
1
-------
•" '¦•¦«*"(-~V •"¦¦¦¦
"' '¦'¦ ^yviv:'<•'' ''" ¦
PARAMETER
]
CLP Volatile Organics !
CLP Volatile Organics
with 10 Compound Library Search
CLP Acids & Base/Neutral
Combined5
CLP Acids & Base/Neutral
Combined with 20 Compound
Library Search
CLP Organochlorine
Pesticides and PCBs
CLP Metals (Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Ca,
Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, K, Mg, Mn,
Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Tl, V, Zn)
CLP Inorganics (Cyanide)
METHOD"
CLP
CLP
CLP
CLP
CLP
CLP
CLP
PRICE/SAMPLE
(1 or 2 Samples)
OTHER
CLEAR WATERS/
WATER1 SOILS2
$270
$320
$500
$550
$185
$315
$100
$315
$365
$600
$650
$210
$390
$115
SLUDGE/
OTHER
SOLIDS3
$365
$415
$700
$750
$260
$490
$125
PRICE/SAMPLE
(1 or 2 Samples)
OTHER
WATERS/
CLEAR SOILS/
PARAMETER WATER1 WIPES2
2,3,7,8-TCDD or TCDF
$360
$400
$525
Total Dioxins or Furans
$600
$650
$750
Dioxins/Furans by GC/High Resolution MS
Prices Available upon Request
OIL/
SLUDGE/ i
OTHER
SOLIDS3
2
-------
PRICE/SAMPLE
(1 or 2 Samples)
OTHER
SLUDGE/
CLEAR
WATERS/
OTHER
PARAMETER
METHOD4
WATER1
SOILS2
SOLIDS3
Ignitability/Flashpoint
NA7
$45
$45
Corrosivity-pH
$15
$15
$15
-NACE Procedure
Prices Available Upon Request
Reactivity
Prices Available Upon Request
] EP Toxicity'-Extraction
1310
$25
$125
$160
EP Toxicity-Analysis
i
(Without method of
I
standard additions)
Metals (Ag, As, Ba, Cd, Cr
EPA
$155
$155
$155
Hg, Pb, Se)
Hexavalent Chromium
EPA
$70
$70
$70
Organics
EPA
$265
$265
$265
| TCLP-Extraction
1311
! Metals (M)
$25
$120
$160 |
Pest/Herb (P/H)
$25
$120
$160
Semivol (S)
$25
$120
$160
M+P/H+S
$25
$175
$215
Vol (ZHE)
$150
$250
$290
| TCLP-Analysis8
(Without method of
I
standard additions)
Metals (M) (Ag, As, Ba, Cd, Cr,
EPA
$155
$155
$155
Hg, Pb, Se)
Pest/Herb (P/H)
EPA
$265
$265
$265
Semivol (S)
EPA
$550
$550
$550
M+P/H+S
EPA
$970
$970
$970
Vol (ZHE)
EPA
$275
$275
$275
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
EPA
$40
$90
$100
Total Organic Halogen (TOX)
EPA
$150
$170
$180
-------
HylriSelflpns,
PRICE/SAMPLE
(1 or 2 Samples)
OTHER SLUDGE/ i
CLEAR WATERS/ OTHER !
PARAMETER METHOD" WATER1 SOILS2 SOLIDS3
1
j
Total Hydrocarbons-Gravimetric j
413.1
$50
$80
$100
Total Petrol. Hydrocarbons- j
Gravimetric :
I
SM 503 E
$60
$90
$100
1
Total Petrol. Hydrocarbons-IR
418.1
$70
$100
$125
Total Petrol. Hydrocarbons-GC
8015 (mod)
$115
$135
$185
Total Petrol Hydrocarbons-GC '
With B, T, X
8015-8020
in Series
$150
$175
$225
1
Benzene, Toluene. Xylenes (BTX) j
8020
$100
$130
$170
PRICE/SAMPLE
(1 or 2 Samples)
OTHER SLUDGE/
CLEAR WATERS/ OTHER
PARAMETER METHOD4 WATER1 SOILS2 SOLIDS3
Purgeable Halocarbons
601/8010
$100
$130
$170
I
Purgeable Aromatics
602/8020
$100
$130
$170 j
Phenols (Without derivitization)
604/8040
$125
$155
$200
Polynucler Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
610/8100
$195
$270
$340
PCBs
Dielectric Oil
EPA
NA
NA
$90
Other Waters/Soils2
EPA
NA
$150
NA
Sludge/Other Solids3
EPA
NA
NA
$150
Other (Water, Wipe, etc.)
EPA
$125
$125
$125
4
-------
Metals
PRICE/SAMPLE
(1 or 2 Samples)
PARAMETER
METHOD4
CLEAR
WATER1
OTHER
WATERS/
SOILS2
SLUDGE/
OTHER
SOLIDS3
Flame AA
EPA
$16
$16
$16
Price per element per
sample after prep
Graphite Furnace AA
EPA
$22
$22
$22
Price per element per
sample after prep
Cold Vapor AA
245.1
$33
$33
$33
Price per element per
| sample after prep
Metals prep-Digestion
$0
$14
$24
Metals Prep-Filtration
$7
$7
$7
Priority Pollutant Metals
EPA
See Priority Pollutants/
Hazardous Substance List
HSL Metals
EPA
See Priority Pollutants/
Hazardous Substance List
Metals Scan by ICP (HSL List
excl. Hg & K, plus B, Li, Mo,
Si, Sr, Sn, Ti)
EPA
$135
$150
$175
i
i
ICP Metals Scan-1 to 5 metals
EPA
$75
$85
$95
ICP Metals Scan-6 to 12 metals
EPA
$105
$115
I $125
i
i
5
-------
Parameters analyzed on water samples by EPA-approved methods. In some cases it is appropriate to analyze these
parameters on a distilled water or weak acid leachate of a solid sample. Generally, an additional charge of $15 per
sample will be added for preparing this leachate.
PRICE/SAMPLE
PRICE/SAMPLE
CLEAR
CLEAR
PARAMETER
WATER'
PARAMETER
WATER1
ACIDITY
$20
ION CHROMATOGRAPHY SCAN
(Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride,
ALKALINITY
$20
Nitrate, Phosphate & Sulfate)
Direct Injection
$100
AMMONIA
$35
With Sample Prep or Dilution
$150
Each Additional Anion
$15
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND (BOD)
$35
NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER PARAMETERS
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND (COD)
$35
Primary & Secondary Inorganics (As,
$300
Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, N03, Se, Ag,
CHLORIDE
$15
! Na, Hardness, C,, Color, Cu, MBAS,
! Fe, Mn, Odor, pH, S04, TDS, Zn)
CYANIDE (CN). Total
$50
I
I
, Free
$35
Primary Organics (Pesticides &
$300
Herbicides: Endrin, Lindane
FLUORIDE (F), Soluble
$16
Methoxychlor, Toxaphene,
, Total
$40
2,4-D, 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
$40
Trihalomethane (THM) by GC
$110
(Colorimetric)
(Chloroform, Bromodichloro-
i methane, Dibromochloromethane,
i
pH
$10
Bromoform)
PHENOLS (4-AAP)
$30
Sodium and Corrosivity (Alkalinity,
$100
(4-AAP + CHCI3 Extract.)
$70
TDS, Ca as CaC03, Na)
SOLIDS (Residue)
Sodium only
$25
Total Dissolved (TDS)
$15
Total Suspended (TSS)
$15
Radionuclides
Total Solids (TS)
$15
Settleable
$15
Gross alpha and beta - total
$60
Volatile Solids (TVS)
$15
Gross alpha only - total
$35
Radium 226
$100
SURFACTANTS (MBAS)
$40
Radium 228
$155
Radium 226 and 228
$175
TOTAL INORGANIC CARBON (TIC)
$40
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
$50
(TKN)
6
-------
J ncfus| nafjiy§
PRICE/SAMPLE
PARAMETER11 NUMBER OF SAMPLES:
1-2
3-5
6+
Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography12
One or two components, same sorbent tube
$135
$95
$65
Three or four components, same tube
$160
$135
$115
Five or six components, same tube
$180
$165
$155
Minimum charge, $150 per set of samples submitted10
Metals9
| Preparation for AA, each procedure
$14
$14
$13
| Metals by flame AA, each metal
$18
$16
$15
Metals by furnace AA, each metal
$22
$22
$21
Metals by cold vapor AA (Hg)
$33
$32
$32
| Metals by ICP, 1 -5 (prep included)
$85
$82
$80
j Metals by ICP, 6-12 (prep included)
$115
$112
$108
! Metals by ICP, 13+ (prep included)
$150
$146
$141
i Minimum charge, $150 per set of samples submitted10
i
; Other
i
i
i Formaldehyde (chronotropic acid method)
$45
$40
$40
| Total particulate
$22
$22
$15
¦ Fiber count by phase contrast microscopy
$30
$30
$30
Asbestos in bulk sample by dispersion staining
I and polarized light microscopy
$35
$35
$35
! Anions by ion chromatography
! First analyte
$45
$45
$45
I Each additional analyte
$5
$5
$5
• CTPV (benzene solubles)
$40
$30
$30
J Minimum charges per set of samples for given analysis10:
I
I
| $100 for micrscopy
j $150 for other analyses
'
7
-------
AmbiehtAitand Related Analyses
^'5r-.iw-i ¦ . .'V''"I-••-
PARAMETER PRICE/SAMPLE ;
Particulate matter collected on High Volume air filter
Gravimetric analysis for TSP or PM10
$15
Preparation and analysis for lead
$32
Volatile organics13
Tenax or Tenax/charcoal tube preparation, per tube
$25
Tube analysis by GC/MS
$300
SUMA canister preparation
$75
SUMA canister analysis by GC/MS
$275
Pesticides and/or PCB's from polyurethane foam (PUF)
$350
Prices will be furnished upon request for other analyses offered by PEI's Lab including.
Aquatic Bioassay
Complete Radiochemistry
Dioxin and Furans (by low- and high-resolution GC/MS)
Gas Analyses/Microcircuits
Geotechnical and Geochemical
Other Industrial Hygiene
Mixed Radioactive/Hazardous Waste (Without Sample Dilution)
Mobile Labs and Other Field Analytical Services
Source Emissions
Trial Burns
8
-------
(1) "Clear Water" means a single phase aqueous sample without visible significant settleable or sus-
pended solids. The term includes water from drinking or potable water sources. It may also apply to
ground water, surface water and other water samples if they meet the defined criteria.
(2) "Other Water" means a primarily aqueous sample, other than clear water. "Soil" means a sample of
soil or sediment which is substantially free of oily substances and is relatively dry.
(3) "Sludge/Other Solids" includes most other samples which do not meet the "Clear Water" or "Other
Water/Soil" criteria.
(4) Generally, EPA methods are as published in SW-846, with allowable modifications and adaptations
to meet matrix and/or application requirements.
(5) Prices for Acid Fraction alone or Base/Neutral Fraction alone are available upon request.
(6) Includes analysis by CLP Protocols with Certificate of Analysis report of sample results only.
(7) NA designates "not applicable".
(8) Applicable methods require separate analysis of each phase produced during extraction. If multiple
phases are produced by the TCLP extraction procedure, each phase will be analyzed and charged as
a separate sample.
(9) Most metals can be determined by flame AA or ICP. Arsenic and selenium must be determined by
furnace AA; other metals also can be for lower detection limits. Refractory metals such as aluminum,
boron, titanium, etc., must be determined by ICP. Samples for fewer than five metals by flame AA or
ICP will be priced at the lesser of the AA or ICP rate, regardless of analysis technique used. Samples
for five or more metals will generally be analyzed by ICP and priced accordingly.
(10) Minimum charges apply to submissions for each analysis type (gas chromatography, metals,
microscopy, anions, etc.) even if submissions are made for several analyses They may be waived
at the discretion of the Laboratory Manager.
(11) Analyses of blanks (sorbent, filter, etc.) will be charged as samples.
(12) Determinations of desorption efficiency will be charged as samples.
(13) Prices for analysis of sorbent tubes or canisters are for "standard" target lists, i.e., compounds selected
from the Hazardous Substances List or the Priority Pollutants. Analyses for other targets or using non-
standard sample introduction systems may carry an additional charge.
-------
Multiple Sample Discounts
Multiple sample discounts are available based on samples per "batch". A "batch" is defined as the number of samples
of a particular matrix received together for the same analyses
Multi-Phase Samples
Each phase of a multi-phase sample will be processed and billed as an individual sample.
QA/QC Samples
QA/QC is included in unit prices as follows: Analytical methodology employed is that published and/or recognized by
appropriate regulatory agency (EPA Methods where appropriate). 15% QC samples minimum (combinations of
blanks, duplicates, spikes, and/or duplicate spikes as appropriate). QC samples are not necessarily project-specific.
Additional QA/QC samples required will be charged at applicable unit prices. These additional charges will apply to
project-specific QA/QC samples for batches of fewer than 20 samples and to field QA/QC samples.
Reports
The unit prices quoted include a Certificate of Analysis report which contains sample identification, brief method
description or identification, and analytical results.
Additional charges may apply for other report formats, including the following cases:
• For reporting regular lab QA/QC results (does not apply to project-specific or field QA/QC samples, which are
charged as regular samples).
• For providing EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) data reports (requires analysis by CLP protocols), as
follows: — $ Per Sample —
Volatile Orgamcs $35
Acids & Base Neutrals $50
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) $50
Total Dioxins $100
Pesticides and PCB $30
Metals $50
• For other special report formats, prices will be furnished upon request.
• For confirmation analyses, at 75% of the applicable per sample rate.
• All prices assume standard sample preparation. Difficult matrices may require additional charges, which will be
priced upon request. The client will be informed prior to analysis in such cases.
Written approval is required for release of final reports or copies to any persons other than the client. This obligation
of confidence does not prevent the disclosure by PEI of information pursuant to the subpoena power of any court or
other legal process.
Turnaround Times
Stated prices are for routine turnaround times. Routine turnaround times are stated as working days (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; holidays excluded). Rush and emergency turnaround times are stated in calendar days.
Routine turnaround time is 10 to 15 (maximum) working days, with the following exceptions:
• Microscopy (5 working days) • Appendix VIII or IX (30 working days)
• TCLP (20 working days) • Mixed Wastes (20 working days)
• Dioxin (20 working days)
Depending on lab workload and the type of analysis, results often can be provided more quickly without surcharges.
Rush or emergency service must be pre-arranged with the laboratory prior to submittal of samples for analysis. The
following schedule of rush service surcharges will apply to analyses other than those excepted above .
Less than 48 hours 200%
48 to 96 hours 100%
5 to 10 days 50%
Other 25%
Rush or emergency service surcharges are expressed as percentages of single sample prices.
10
-------
Submitting Samples
In order to assure proper handling, the following information should accompany your samples:
1. Type of analysis requested
2. Purchase order information
3. Hazard identification
4. Name and address of person to receive report
Chain-of-Custody and Request for Analysis forms are available on request.
Special attention should be given to collecting a sample that is representative. Preservation techniques should be used
for some samples. Sample collection can be provided for an additional charge.
Samples which are to be analyzed for time-sensitive parameters should be shipped by the fastest available carrier.
Sample Disposal Charges
Unused sample portions will either be disposed of by PEI or returned to the client in accordance with the client's
preference as designated on the Request for Analysis form submitted with the samples. The following charges will
apply:
$l5.00/samp1e for disposal of samples submitted for PCB or dioxin analysis
$5 00/sample for disposal of other samples types
$3.50/sample plus shipping for samples being returned to the client for disposal
Sample Storage
Samples are retained for three weeks after the analysis report is issued. After three weeks, samples are disposed
of or returned to the client (see above). Archival of samples must be pre-arranged with the laboratory. Additional
charges will be invoiced for extended sample storage.
Consultation Fees
PEI professionals are available for routine telephone consultation regarding project design and interpretation of
analytical results at no additional charge to the client. Additional consultation will be invoiced at PEI's category rates.
Data Management
Data management services are available and will be quoted upon request
Terms of Payment
We provide professional services; therefore, payment is due upon presentation of our invoice. PEI reserves the right
to require payment prior to analysis and/or the release of data in cases where an account has not been established
or our records indicate an unsatisfactory payment history.
Warranty
PEI warrants that it will employ professionally qualified personnel to test the samples submitted using, whenever
possible, established and generally accepted techniques. PEI makes no other warranties, expressed or implied.
Consequential Damages
Notwithstanding any other provision herein, PEI shall not be responsible for any incidental, indirect, or consequential
damages (including loss of profits) incurred by the client or any third party occasioned by services performed or by
application or use of reports or other work performed.
Limitation of Liability
PEI's liability and the client's exclusive remedy for any cause of action arising whether based in contract, negligence,
or any other cause of action, shall be limited to the amount of $1,000,000. All claims, including for negligence or any
other cause whatsoever, shall be deemed waived unless made in writing and received by PEI within one (1) year after
PEI's completion of the services.
-------
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
(513) 782-4700
Affiliated laboratories nationwide:
17605 Fabrica Way
Cerritos, California 90701
(213) 921-9831
(714) 523-9200
397 Mathew Street
Santa Clara, California 95050
(408) 727-4277
165 Fieldcrest Avenue
Edison, New Jersey 08818-7809
(201) 225-2000
5103 Old William Penn Highway
Export, Pennsylvania 15632
(412) 731-8806
304 Directors Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37923
(615) 690-3211
5815 Middlebrook Pike
Knoxville, Tennessee 37921
(615) 588-6401
1550 Bear Creek Road
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
(615) 482-9707
2499-B Capital of Texas Highway
Suite 201
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 328-0081
12
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1988. Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. Interim
Final. EPA/540-G-89/004, OSWER Directive 9355.3-01.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1986. Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste. 3rd Edition. SW-846.
Ref-1
-------
APPENDIX A
DECISION TREE APPROACH TO
CONDUCTING TREATABILITY STUDIES
A-l
-------
Well Drained or Drummed Waste
> 30 cm
Input
1) Specific Yield
Apply Specific
Yield Model
Bulk Waste
Input
Volume o
Soil or Bl
f Backfill
ilk Waste
Input
Initial Water Content
Profile of Backfill
Soil or Bulk Waste
Input
Waste Hydraulic
Properties
Input
Volume of
Soil or Bui
Backfilled
k Waste
Input
Waste Hydraulic
Properties
* 30 cm
Output
1) Leachate Level
vs Time
2) Leachate flux
/C„i -Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity of Waste
-Maximum Allowable
Leachate
Output
1) Leachate Flux
vs Time
Input
Initial Wa
of Waste
ter Content
Input
Waste Hy
Propertie
drauhc
Cahbrat
Input
Data
Output
I) Leachate Level
vs hme
\ 2) Leachate Flux vs Ttme\
Output \
I) Leachate Production
vs Time
Output \
J) I eachate Level \
vj Time \
v 2) Leachate Flux vs r*me\
Figure 1 Decision tree analysis to determine leachate production from closed landfills
4
-------
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLES OF TREATABILITY STUDIES
USING THE DECISION TREE APPROACH
B-l
-------
What happens next
This flow chart illustrates some of the many possible legal maneuvers each side
could take at or before the hearing lor a preliminary injunction on July 6. Rose is
ultimately seeking a permanent injunction that would remove Giamatti from the
case. Giamatti is hoping to have that injunction denied, or to have the whole issue
taken out of the courts and full punitive power returned to his hands as the
commissioner of baseball. Here are definitions to help you follow the chart:
Permanent injunction: A final determination of the rights of the parlies to a
lawsuit after a full hearing.
Writ of prohibition: An order from an appeals court to a trial court (such as
common pleas) to prevent the lower court from proceeding with a matter outside its
jurisdiction.
Temporary restraining order: A temporary court order to preserve the status
quo until a full hearing can be held.
Preliminary injunction: A court order to stop a defendant from initiating or
continuing a particular act while a lawsuit is pending.
With the temporary restraining order issued by Judge
Nade! yesterday, Rose will wait tor the July 6 hearing,
while Giamatti has three options.
Move to turn the preliminary Injunction
hearing Into a trial tor a permanent
Injunction on 7/6 or shortly thereafter.
"T
It granted, It could produce a
permanent injunction to bar
Giamatti from ruling on the
case.
Proceed with the preliminary
Injunction hearing on 7/6. If
granted it would result In a
trial tor a permanent
injunction at some later date.
Seek a Writ of Prohibition against Nadel In
the Ohio First District Court of Appeals in
Cincinnati or the Ohio Supreme Court.
If denied, this would be
another blow to Giamatti
as it would be a second
court siding with Rose,
and the hearing on 7/6
could take place.
If granted this
would end
Nadei's
Jurisdiction and
Giamatti would
hold his hearing.
The hearing tor a permanent Injunction
Is held before Judge Nadel.
Rose loses.
Giamatti appeals to the Ohio First I
District Court ot Appeals. I
Rose seeks an injunction pending his appeal to
the Ohio First District Court of Appeals.
Giamatti holds his
hearing.
Rose applies to the Ohio Supreme I
Court tor an injunction pending appeal. I
The court reverses Nadei's decision and considers!
Rose's appeal for a permanent injunction. I
Giamatti finds Rose guilty and takes
disciplinary action.
Giamatti finds Rose innocent
and the case Is dismissed.
Giamatti appeals to the
Ohio Supreme Court.
Rose accepts this and
the case is over.
j Rose files a new suit In Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas for~ank|
| function againsi the disciplinary action and tor money damages I
Here we go again;
If Rose Is granted the Injunction, and Giamatti exhausts all his appeals, the court could appoint an
arbitrator agreeable to both sides to make a decision, or it could be taken to a lull trial In Nadei's
court to find If Rose breached his contract by engaging In gambling.
Soun».AaonMy.lcftn&Plm)ro(an)rdGnHMdinii0My Tlw Clndnnail Enquirer/Rob SOxuar
-------
GLOSSARY
generic: Relating to or characteristic of a whole group or class; general,
protocol: The plan of scientific experiment or treatment.
Glos-1
-------
INDEX
Data quality objectives, 6-1
Offsite disposal policy, 9-1
Ind-1
------- |